If you've seen one NBA player you've seen a hundred. Kind of. Not really. But the ways that we (I mean "we" in some broad sense that includes fans, the media, and perhaps teams themselves) classify players and value players is based on a system of archetypes. Thus, I offer the following hierarchy (click here for a larger view):

EDIT: There isn't really a concern for prioritizing within each tier (left to right, bottom up, etc.). All the archetypes within each tier aren't necessarily equal, but they aren't arranged in any meaningful way.

First, a bit of explanation is in order. Each player probably won't fall neatly into one of these classifications, but I would say that most could claim one of these titles as their "primary" classification. Take Kobe, for example: I would classify Kobes as primary: Surreal scorer, secondary: Renaissance man. So what does that say about Kobe's placement on this type of hierarchy? It says that in terms of value based on classification alone, Kobe would be among the second tier of players. This brings about the point that as a general rule, sheer talent could push a player up one tier, or maybe even two.

The first question that probably comes to mind is: why is LeBron James all by his lonesome? To be honest, it's because the man has no true classification. Are his incredible scoring instincts primary? Or maybe his surreal ability to find his teammates open shots? Or is it the size and skill that allows him to physically dominate any defender that stands in front of him? Or maybe he's just LeBron James. Similar, but lesser variations of unclassifiable players exist in Diaw and Harrington, but their place on the hierarchy is a bit more mortal.

A glossary of terms that might be useful:

Renaissance man - Dabbles, and succeeds, in doing practically everything. They can handle the rock, set up their teammates, rebound well for their position, and score at will.

Salad bar - I wish I could claim this term as my own, but it belongs to Matt Moore. Matt's explanation: "A little bit of everything that never leaves you full. But, too much can be a bad thing."

Locker room chemist - Traditional "locker room" guy. Coach in a uni, motivates the team, and keeps the young'ins in line.

Ring bearer - Functionally the same as a locker room chemist, but has the invaluable "championship experience" to validate him.

Want examples? Why, I never thought you'd ask! Take it in, yearbook style, folks (click 1, 2, 3 for a larger view):

In qualitatively determining which archetype falls into which tier, it's important to know which traits are highly valued. So, in order to better explain which traits are of the greatest inherent value, I have yet another diagram (click here for a larger view):

The captions are actually kind of hard to read...sorry about that. But they read as follows:

Garnett - "Refined big man"

• They're kind of tall
• Frighteningly dominant
• Leadership by nature, play, or attitude
• Defensive prowess in the form of fundamental focus, unbridled athleticism, or getting down on all fours and barking

Paul - "Elite point guard"

• Dreamy eyes
• A threat to score from all over
• Mad sick handles, yo
• Expert in preventative or gambling defense (preferably both)
• Establishes teammates without hindering his own opportunities