Three-time NBA All-Star Gilbert Arenas shared his insights on how to properly assess the talent of several current NBA superstars. “Steph Curry is not a generational talent. Take a player like Victor Wembanyama, for example – he deserves that distinction because his game is truly unique and unparalleled. Can you replicate Magic Johnson? A 6’9” point guard with incredible court vision? I have immense respect for Steph and Nikola Jokic as elite players, but I don’t think their skills are as transcendent and irreplicable as true generational talents. They are phenomenal in their own right, but I think the label ‘generational’ is too vague these days. That term should be reserved for the rarest of talents that come along once in a blue moon.” »Arenas explained that for a player to be considered a "generational talent," their game and skills must be so unique and revolutionary that they redefine the way the game is played.
“Guys like LeBron, Kareem, Wilt — their combination of size, athleticism, and skill was something we’d never seen before. They definitely pushed the boundaries of what was possible. Steph is an incredible shooter and revolutionized the importance of the 3-point shot, but his game can still be replicated to a large extent by other elite shooters.” The former Wizards star argued that while Curry and Jokic deserve immense praise as two of the best players in the NBA, their paths to stardom were more linear and evolutionary compared to truly transformative talents. “Steph is arguably the greatest shooter of all time. But his core skills — ball-handling, court vision, scoring ability — were already there in elite point guards. Jokic is a transcendent passer and a playmaker for a big man, but we’ve seen big men come through before, just not at his level.”
“No, you simply can’t replicate the abilities of some players – that’s what makes them true generational talents. You can’t just copy Shaquille O’Neal’s physical dominance, or recreate everything LeBron James does on the court. The same goes for a player like Victor Wembanyama. These are the rarest of talents who come along once in a generation and redefine what’s possible at their position. Giannis Antetokounmpo is certainly knocking on the door of that elite status, but in my mind, Nikola Jokic can’t really be considered a generational talent. Like Steph Curry, he’s an absolutely phenomenal player – one of the best in the league. But their path to stardom, while incredibly impressive, was a more linear evolution of skills than we’ve seen before, rather than the kind of transformative, one-of-a-kind talent that only comes along every 20 to 30 years.”
Arenas stressed that the designation of “generational talent” should be reserved for the most unique and game-changing players, those who push the boundaries of what’s possible in the game. While he has immense respect for elite superstars like Curry and Jokic, he believes their dominance is rooted more in the refined, high-level execution of traditional skills, rather than the kind of singular, game-changing talent that defines the sport’s true greats. The former All-Star’s comments sparked a deeper discussion about how to properly distinguish the NBA’s great, game-changing talents from its merely exceptional modern stars. His perspective highlighted the incredibly high bar required to earn the “generational” label in his eyes.
