# Underrated/Overrated Greats



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

Who would you take out of the HOF? Any players you think were overrated & didn't really deserve HOF inductment. Perhaps they didn't meet the criteria & did not accomplish enough in your opinion.

Who would you put in the HOF? Any retired greats that were maybe overlooked & deserved to be there in your opinion.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

can we limit this to players who played at least 5 seasons after 1960; lots of early players aren't very impressive. For later ones . . . several of the early Celtics got carried in by Bill Russell, I would include Sharman, KC Jones, and probably Heinsohn in that category. Similarly, Worthy is in the hall while superior peers aren't thanks to being carried there by Kareem and Magic. Not a big fan of the Maravich types either but like Iverson gets all-star selections, volume scoring gets you props even if it isn't connected to team success.

Oh and have I mentioned recently that Bill Bradley is the most overrated player in the history of the NBA?


----------



## Goubot (Aug 16, 2006)

Adrian Dantley has been overlooked by the HoF for some reason. He was an insanely good scorer who was also incredibly efficient. He took a large portion of his team's shots, but he still shot in the mid 50s. He's probably overlooked because his best years were with middle of the pack Utah teams, but it's sort of understated how good those years actually were. 

Trying to think of some others. Bernard King? His peak was incredible, but he was wracked with injuries. Artis Gilmore? He had a few years in the ABA where he was pretty much unstoppable (including an ABA championship, but the HoF doesn't really care about the ABA that much) and a fairly good NBA career as well. He's the career leader in field goal percentage at .599, and he's put up some great TS% numbers (actually leads the NBA in that, too).


----------



## D.J. (Mar 9, 2006)

Alex English was horribly underrated. One of the better jump shooters you will ever find. I guess when you played for the Nuggets in the 80s, you will be overlooked.

Dennis Rodman was also underrated. One of the best rebounders ever to step onto the court. Ben Wallace has absolutely nothing on him.


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> can we limit this to players who played at least 5 seasons after 1960; lots of early players aren't very impressive. For later ones . . . several of the early Celtics got carried in by Bill Russell, I would include Sharman, KC Jones, and probably Heinsohn in that category. Similarly, Worthy is in the hall while superior peers aren't thanks to being carried there by Kareem and Magic. Not a big fan of the Maravich types either but like Iverson gets all-star selections, volume scoring gets you props even if it isn't connected to team success.
> 
> Oh and have I mentioned recently that Bill Bradley is the most overrated player in the history of the NBA?


I agree w/ your comments about Russell's teammates & also Worthy being carried in by Kareem & Magic.


----------



## white360 (Apr 24, 2004)

Adrian Dantley
Alex English in HOF
Bernard King
Buck Williams
No particular order


----------



## xray (Feb 21, 2005)

white360 said:


> Adrian Dantley
> Alex English in HOF
> Bernard King
> Buck Williams
> No particular order


Seems like quite a few quality scorers in the '80s have a case. I'd throw Mark Aguirre in there, as well as he scored more points than anyone else during the 6 year period of 82-87.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i'd say worthy is probably underrated at this point. probably not a peer at his position the lakers would have traded him for. and he was obviously the 2nd best player on the team from '87 on, and often their first scoring option.


----------



## flawless` (Oct 23, 2006)

chris mullin is underrated


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

overrated - isiah thomas

underrated - the admiral


----------



## Goubot (Aug 16, 2006)

Mullin had a good run of production, but if he kept his peak value for longer (it was only a few years in the late 80s/early 90s), he might've been regarded higher. Afterwards he was still a decent player, but not an All-Star. 

Another name I'd like to throw out there is Larry Nance. I've never really heard people talk about him, maybe since he was part of several Cleveland teams that got stomped by the Bulls. They seem like a footnote in history, but a lot of them were pretty stacked, with a prime Ron Harper, Brad Daugherty (who is also underrated, but mostly because his career was cut short), and Mark Price (most people don't realize just how good he was in the early 90s, strikes me as an early Steve Nash, with his shooting ability and passing skills, although his passing wasn't quite as spectacular). Not suggesting that any of these guys are HoF material or anything, but looking back on the old Cleveland rosters has made me come out impressed. 

Anyway, Nance was an efficient scorer (career FG% is .546), a good defender, and a surprisingly slick passer for someone his size. He never really gave superstar production, but he produced at an All-Star level for about a decade.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

I love Nance and have had him as a supporting player in my last two All-time NBA teams . . . but never thought of him as a Hall of Fame type then or now. Underrated sure, he was a great statistical player and great teammate but for whatever reason just never dominated . . . basically he was James Worthy with a little more athleticism and without the big game rep.


----------



## Goubot (Aug 16, 2006)

I wasn't touting him for the HoF either (most of the ones were in my first post), but I just wanted to say that he's been overlooked a lot.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

I would also say Charles Barkley doesn't get as much recognition as one of the best PFs of all time. The guy could absolutely light it up and rebound like a freakin monster, nevermind he was outgrown in his position usually by 4-7 inches.

I also can't figure out why the Jazz won't retire Dantley's jersey. He's the Art Monk of the NBA.


----------



## Legend_33 (Jul 8, 2006)

Sidney Moncrief- didn't last very long due to injuries, but was really really good during his peak. Put up about 21/6/5 and shooting 50% from the floor with lockdown defense during his 4-5 year peak.

Dave Cowens- Amazing all-around player. Could score inside and outside, ran the floor like a guard, great passer from the Center postion, and he rebounded and hustled like Rodman. Also a great big-game player, he once averaged 30/20 in a playoff series against Wilt.


----------



## wilwn (Dec 10, 2005)

i wouldn't exactly say kareem and magic carried worthy in, seeing as how he won the finals mvp with magic on the team.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> I love Nance and have had him as a supporting player in my last two All-time NBA teams . . . but never thought of him as a Hall of Fame type then or now. Underrated sure, he was a great statistical player and great teammate but for whatever reason just never dominated . . . basically he was James Worthy with a little more athleticism and without the big game rep.


he wasn't more athletic than worthy (worthy was faster and quicker (easily), and a comparable leaper (edge nance), and his offensive game wasn't close to worthy's. worthy was a go-to scorer, a guy you could give the ball to in the blocks or on the perimeter and he'd make plays. nance wasn't nearly as viable a weapon.

part of the problem with nance is that despite his physical gifts, he was a weak rebounding 4. worthy at least had his mediocre rebounding mostly at the 3.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

how many people know paul westphal was 1st team all-nba 3 times (2nd team once), and how often is his name mentioned around here?

his teammate walter davis was pretty good too.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Legend_33 said:


> Sidney Moncrief- didn't last very long due to injuries, but was really really good during his peak. Put up about 21/6/5 and shooting 50% from the floor with lockdown defense during his 4-5 year peak.
> 
> Dave Cowens- Amazing all-around player. Could score inside and outside, ran the floor like a guard, great passer from the Center postion, and he rebounded and hustled like Rodman. Also a great big-game player, he once averaged 30/20 in a playoff series against Wilt.


i'd agree cowens is a bit underrated, but he never played wilt in the playoffs.


----------



## Goubot (Aug 16, 2006)

Marques Johnson, anyone? Again, not suggesting HoF, just going for players that most people overlook. He peaked really early on, but he was an excellent player for 6-7 years before being shipped off to basketball Siberia/90s Clippers and later suffering from a neck injury.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

and the guy he was traded for - terry cummings. cummings hung around so long people forgot how good he used to be, although he peaked really early in his career. but yes, marques was very good. 

george mcginnis is another.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Nance for most of his career played the three just like Worthy. He was quicker than Worthy, a little taller, better leaper, most spectacular, better shotblocker . . . Worthy was stronger, had better back to the basket moves, more consistent, better court sense on either end. Not sure where you get this Worthy was a dominant scorer thing though . . . even with Magic Johnson, the greatest PG of all time, to set him up, Worthy was never a dominant NBA scorer or even as dominant as Nance in scoring despite Nance playing with shoot first PGs like Price and KJ rather than a pass first PG like Magic. Like Nance, Worthy got into the habit of deferring and never broke out over any long period of time.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> Nance for most of his career played the three just like Worthy. He was quicker than Worthy, a little taller, better leaper, most spectacular, better shotblocker . . . Worthy was stronger, had better back to the basket moves, more consistent, better court sense on either end. Not sure where you get this Worthy was a dominant scorer thing though . . . even with Magic Johnson, the greatest PG of all time, to set him up, Worthy was never a dominant NBA scorer or even as dominant as Nance in scoring despite Nance playing with shoot first PGs like Price and KJ rather than a pass first PG like Magic. Like Nance, Worthy got into the habit of deferring and never broke out over any long period of time.


Severall things wrong with this post (and i absolutely loved Larry Nance!):

1- Nance didn't play the 3;
2- He was not quicker than worthy, who was not as strong as him;
3- worthy was a great scorer. Not a volume one, but a greatly eficient one;
4- Nor Price nor KJ were shoot firdst PGs.. Sure, they were no Magic nor stockton... but then again, who was?
5- Worthy didn't defer (at least as i concieve the notion). Worthy was the fist option on offense after Jabbar's best years, and was also a great glue player.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

james worthy is wayyyy overrated. he couldnt shoot the three, he had an ok jumpshot, subpar rebounder, couldnt dribble, (he always dribbled with his head down), he was a subpar defender, and was a terrible passer. i think he was a product of the offense he played, in the players he played with, and the era he played in. i would compare him with shawn marion but marion is better because he plays defense.


----------



## Legend_33 (Jul 8, 2006)

kflo said:


> i'd agree cowens is a bit underrated, but he never played wilt in the playoffs.


Yea, my bad. I read in a book called "Who's Better, Who's Best in Basketball" that he averaged 30/20 against Wilt in '73, but I just checked back and it was only in the regular season. I thought they were talking about the playoffs at first.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Worthy is in strictly on the strength of playing on multiple championship winning teams.Really he was just extremely well suited to playing the exact role that he played on the Lakers where he was always at least the third best player.

Dumars isn't overrated,but he's in the Hall because of how well liked he is and how good a job he did as a GM.Yes he's a terrific defender and a very good player,but not even close to the caliber of other recent inductees.He is a really nice guy so I won't act like him getting in upsets me horribly.

IMO the best two players that aren't in the Hall of Fame are Dantley and Artis Gilmore with Bernard King a little ways behind them.Most people don't realize how dominating Gilmore was in the ABA or how high he is on the all time scoring and rebounding lists.Of course most people here don't even know who he is except for old school Bulls fans.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

da bully said:


> james worthy is wayyyy overrated. he couldnt shoot the three, he had an ok jumpshot, subpar rebounder, couldnt dribble, (he always dribbled with his head down), he was a subpar defender, and was a terrible passer. i think he was a product of the offense he played, in the players he played with, and the era he played in. i would compare him with shawn marion but marion is better because he plays defense.


James Worthy did all what the Lakers expected him to do to a T. 
After Jabbar got old, he was the first option on half-cour offense and he delivered scoring with high percentages. He also was the first option on the fast break, where he developed the reputationof being the best finisher on the break at the time.
He was also an unstoppable scorer from the low post (check out Rodman's comments about him).

James Worthy did all that was asked from him and more. Always stepped up his game when it counted the most. Was a leader by example. Always played the team game. Never complained about shots, offensive tactics, not enough touches, etc., etc..

The biggest knock on him was his sub-par rebounding, i'll give you that. But the rest, he produced in bundles. Check out his stats on the Finals when he got MVP. James Worthy with a triple double on the Finals! Who would have guessed? (anyone who knew who James Worthy was)


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

to me it doesnt matter, inm not saying he was a bad player, i just dont think he should be in the hall of fame. steve kerr did exactly what he was supposed to do should he be in the hall?


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

your gonna really open up pandoras box with that one paulo, how about toni kukoc he did everything that was asked of him. i think they have the same amount of rings and kukoc was regarded as one of the best players in europe if not the best at the time. ill even go so far as to say that kukocs best seaon as a go to guy and worthys is about the same.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Larry Nance
1982 - rookie reserve - backed up both Walter Davis (F/G) and Truck Robinson (PF)
1983 - started at SF next to Alvin Adams and Maurice Lucas
1984 - SF next to those two and James Edwards
1985 - SF next to Adams, Lucas, Edwards
1986 - SF next to Adams and Ed Pinkney, played a lot of PF though too
1987 - SF next to Adams and Pinkney 
1988 - injured (34 starts), but Edwards, Armond Gilliam all started 40+ games inside+ Mark West and Adams started 25+
1989 - PF traded to Cleveland where he started at PF though moved outside when 6th man Hot Rod Williams came in
1990 - played both PF and SF as injuries shook up Cavs lineup
1991 - played F next to Chucky Brown and Danny Ferry, both combo forwards
1992 - PF next to Winston Bennett, moving to SF when Hot Rod Williams came in
1993 - PF next to Mike Sanders, moving to SF " "
1994 - injured end of career

As you can see, Nance was primarily a SF for the majority of his career, moving to PF when traded to Cleveland for his last few years though even there he played both. Nance's height fooled people but he was very thin and his game was quickness and finesse until later in his career when he slowed down (and put on some weight).


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> Nance for most of his career played the three just like Worthy. He was quicker than Worthy, a little taller, better leaper, most spectacular, better shotblocker . . . Worthy was stronger, had better back to the basket moves, more consistent, better court sense on either end. Not sure where you get this Worthy was a dominant scorer thing though . . . even with Magic Johnson, the greatest PG of all time, to set him up, Worthy was never a dominant NBA scorer or even as dominant as Nance in scoring despite Nance playing with shoot first PGs like Price and KJ rather than a pass first PG like Magic. Like Nance, Worthy got into the habit of deferring and never broke out over any long period of time.


i didn't say he was a dominant scorer - i said he was a go-to scorer, which he was. he was a legitimate first option, who could create his own offense, and who could force doubles. and he was easily quicker than nance - it was often one of his advantages over his defender. worthy didn't defer. he played his role in the offense, which was often, particurarly after '86, and particularly in the playoffs, to be the primary half court option for magic to work around. he took over plenty. nance never broke 20 ppg in the playoffs, once cracking 18, which shows somewhat his limitations (scoring limitations tend to get exposed in the playoffs).


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

I have to agree with kflo that Worthy was a got to scorer which Nance simply wasn't. Worthy had a incredible quickness for a guy who was 6'9" with strength and replaced Kareem as the number one post option for the Lakers during the second threepeat. This is a role Nance was never cabable of IMO


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

Diable said:


> Worthy is in strictly on the strength of playing on multiple championship winning teams.Really he was just extremely well suited to playing the exact role that he played on the Lakers where he was always at least the third best player.
> 
> Dumars isn't overrated, *but he's in the Hall because of how well liked he is and how good a job he did as a GM.*Yes he's a terrific defender and a very good player,but not even close to the caliber of other recent inductees.He is a really nice guy so I won't act like him getting in upsets me horribly.
> 
> IMO the best two players that aren't in the Hall of Fame are Dantley and Artis Gilmore with Bernard King a little ways behind them.Most people don't realize how dominating Gilmore was in the ABA or how high he is on the all time scoring and rebounding lists.Of course most people here don't even know who he is except for old school Bulls fans.


He was mainly inducted for his skills, Finals MVP, and also his approach to the game. His attitude and focus were the image of what every NBA player should be. part of the reason why the sportsmanship award is named after him. Aside from numbers, its the character that got him in.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

da bully said:


> your gonna really open up pandoras box with that one paulo, how about toni kukoc he did everything that was asked of him. i think they have the same amount of rings and kukoc was regarded as one of the best players in europe if not the best at the time. ill even go so far as to say that kukocs best seaon as a go to guy and worthys is about the same.


Please don't compare James Worthy to Tony Kukoc... Yeah, Tony was a heck of a player in Europe, but in the NBA, he couldn't hold James' jockstrap. This is like saying Drazen Petrovic was better than Michael Jordan because he dominated Europe like noone ever had...

Only the people that look at Worthy's stats think he is overrated. the likes of, oh, he didn't rebound much, did he? Oh, he wasn't a great passer now, was he?

Everyone that saw him play (and i freaking did) knows James Worthy was the guy to have on your side on a basketball game.


----------



## Sunsfan81 (Apr 17, 2006)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> can we limit this to players who played at least 5 seasons after 1960; lots of early players aren't very impressive. For later ones . . . several of the early Celtics got carried in by Bill Russell, I would include Sharman, KC Jones, and probably Heinsohn in that category. Similarly, Worthy is in the hall while superior peers aren't thanks to being carried there by Kareem and Magic. Not a big fan of the Maravich types either but like Iverson gets all-star selections, volume scoring gets you props even if it isn't connected to team success.
> 
> Oh and have I mentioned recently that Bill Bradley is the most overrated player in the history of the NBA?


Sharman, Heinsohn, and Worthy are all deserving Hall of Famers. You can make an argument KC Jones isn't, but I don't mind him being in.


----------



## Sunsfan81 (Apr 17, 2006)

kflo said:


> how many people know paul westphal was 1st team all-nba 3 times (2nd team once), and how often is his name mentioned around here?
> 
> his teammate walter davis was pretty good too.


Put them both in! Maybe I'm a little biased. :biggrin:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

James Worthy was a very nice player to have on your team, no question. I don't think he's an all-time great and wouldn't be perceived as such had he not been a part of one of the great dynasties of all-time. He fit in nicely with those Lakers, though, as a power forward who could run the floor extremely well and hit open shots.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> James Worthy was a very nice player to have on your team, no question. I don't think he's an all-time great and wouldn't be perceived as such had he not been a part of one of the great dynasties of all-time. He fit in nicely with those Lakers, though, as a *power forward * who could run the floor extremely well and hit open shots.


Small forward...


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Severall things wrong with this post (and i absolutely loved Larry Nance!):
> 
> 1- Nance didn't play the 3;
> 2- He was not quicker than worthy, who was not as strong as him;
> ...


Actually Nance did play the 3 an awful lot for the Cavs. He started at the 4 but Hot Rod (who got huge minutes as a sub) was on the floor with him for enormous amounts of time thereby putting Nance at the 3. 

I have no idea who was quicker or stronger but I think that Worthy was likely quicker

Worthy was on one of the greatest if not the greatest fast breaking teams in the NBA. I think he had more offensive weapons than Nance but to be honest all I really remember him doing was getting fed for the dunk by Magic on the break. 

It's hard to view either Price or KJ as shoot first. However, they were both scorers as point guards. Price was a SG when coming out of college and the Cavs ran a tremendous amount of pick and rolls between he and Daugherty. Price was also very well known for leading the break and rather than passing he'd elevated to drain the 3. I don't necessarily think this makes him shoot first, but I can see why others might view him that way. By the way, when did Nance even play with KJ? If I recall Nance was acquired by the Cavs in a trade that involved them sending away KJ. 

I really don't think that Worthy was ever a first option (and I know without a doubt that Nance never was). That Laker offense was pretty much totally determined by whomever Magic gave the ball to.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> James Worthy was a very nice player to have on your team, no question. I don't think he's an all-time great and wouldn't be perceived as such had he not been a part of one of the great dynasties of all-time. He fit in nicely with those Lakers, though, as a power forward who could run the floor extremely well and hit open shots.


he also fit in as a small forward who could create his own shot on the perimeter or in the post.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> he also fit in as a small forward who could create his own shot on the perimeter or in the post.


He could create his own shot, but not at a very high level. Divorced from Magic and the Lakers, his individual ability would not have seemed remarkable.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Small forward...


He played both plenty, and at the time was constantly referred to as a power forward. I remember many descriptions of Worthy containing words about he was "redefining the power forward position."

I personally don't care which position you lump him into. His individual ability was not Hall of Fame caliber. He's in the Hall of Fame because he was a good player on a great team and he had some "clutch moments."


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> He played both plenty, and at the time was constantly referred to as a power forward. I remember many descriptions of Worthy containing words about he was "redefining the power forward position."


Kind of a revisionist fellow, aren't you? 



> I personally don't care which position you lump him into. His individual ability was not Hall of Fame caliber. He's in the Hall of Fame because he was a good player on a great team and he had some "clutch moments."


Yeah... some "clutch moments"... 
He is in the HOF because he was the jack-of-all-trades for a team who was a perennial title contender, he was a big game player who thrived under pressure and who became Finals MVP cause he played well beyond other guy's efforts that year...

You may think Worthy's *stats * are not that great. And i agree. But Jame's GAME was up there.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> You may think Worthy's *stats * are not that great. And i agree. But Jame's GAME was up there.


Lots of people have good games. If the game doesn't translate into production, they aren't great.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

im glad that other people are seeing the same thing i see as far as worthy. if shawn marion was in worthys position the lakers probably would have gotten 70 wins also. can you imagine marion and cooper on defense awsome.


----------



## Sunsfan81 (Apr 17, 2006)

Worthy should be in the Hall of Fame but he's overrated by some. I don't think he should have been named to the 50 Greatest players list.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

worthy should not be in the hall of fame.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> He could create his own shot, but not at a very high level. Divorced from Magic and the Lakers, his individual ability would not have seemed remarkable.


 I disagree with this. Worthy may not be an all-time great: he wasn't a great passer for example but his first step for a guy his size was outrageously quick. He was a tough matchup becuase of his size and quickness: again smaller SF's he'd go in the post and against anyone with size he would his quickness.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> I disagree with this. Worthy may not be an all-time great: he wasn't a great passer for example but his first step for a guy his size was outrageously quick. He was a tough matchup becuase of his size and quickness: again smaller SF's he'd go in the post and against anyone with size he would his quickness.


I think you're overrating his first step a bit. He was quick for a 6'9'' power forward, but he wasn't a _great_ slasher nor did he have a refined post-game. He was a good offensive option, because he could get separation, he could back smaller players down a bit and he could hit open jumpers...he wasn't top-notch at anything, though.

When you also consider that he doesn't have any major defensive value (average at best) or passing value and he was a limited rebounder, he basically boils down to a good to very good offensive player over his prime and nothing else.

I'd compare him to Cedric Ceballos in terms of individual ability: at his prime, he was a go-to scorer, but nothing like an all-time great offensive player and one-dimensional.

If you're going to make the Hall of Fame as a one-dimensional player, you'd better be one of the very best ever at that dimension. Worthy wasn't.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

nice post min


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> I think you're overrating his first step a bit. He was quick for a 6'9'' power forward, but he wasn't a _great_ slasher nor did he have a refined post-game. He was a good offensive option, because he could get separation, he could back smaller players down a bit and he could hit open jumpers...he wasn't top-notch at anything, though.


I don't think so Worthy played the vast majority of time at SF and he was a full 6'9, 225+ i.e. similar proportions to Lebron with a quicker first step. He was a little good at everything because he used he created a physical matchup against almost any other player so he benefited from having a variety of offensive moves i.e. he didn't have to be exceptional to create offense solo. The combo was tough to handle: i.e. guys like Rodman had a very tough time dealing with Worthy



> When you also consider that he doesn't have any major defensive value (average at best) or passing value and he was a limited rebounder, he basically boils down to a good to very good offensive player over his prime and nothing else.
> 
> I'd compare him to Cedric Ceballos in terms of individual ability: at his prime, he was a go-to scorer, but nothing like an all-time great offensive player and one-dimensional.
> 
> If you're going to make the Hall of Fame as a one-dimensional player, you'd better be one of the very best ever at that dimension. Worthy wasn't.



Was Worthy a HOF player, like I said it's debatable. He is a much better candidate then Joes Dumars for example but not sure he's better then say a Sidney Moncrief. I think he is hurt in some ways becuase he played on good teams as initially the 3rd and then second option so overall performances measures like PER are decreased. He did what his team asked him to do. 

I just think you're underestimating his scoring potential as one thing Worthy could do was create his own shot. The 87 & 88 Laker halfcourt offense was basically throwing the ball to Worthy in the post


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> Was Worthy a HOF player, like I said it's debatable.


Personally, I don't think it's too debateable. His PERs aren't exceptional, he doesn't get upgraded any for defense and he was entirely one-dimensional (unexceptional rebounder or passer), yet not even his biggest supporters would suggest he was a fantastic, or all-time great, scorer.

And it's highly arguable as to whether his PERs were helped or hurt by playing on the Showtime Lakers. He may have been second- or third-option for while, but in an offense that played at tremendous pace and produced lots of opportunities for everyone, by design.

Do you really believe that without the aura of the Showtime Lakers (say he had played out his career on the 1980s Kings) he would have been seriously considered for the Hall of Fame?


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Personally, I don't think it's too debateable. His PERs aren't exceptional, he doesn't get upgraded any for defense and he was entirely one-dimensional (unexceptional rebounder or passer), yet not even his biggest supporters would suggest he was a fantastic, or all-time great, scorer.
> 
> And it's highly arguable as to whether his PERs were helped or hurt by playing on the Showtime Lakers. He may have been second- or third-option for while, but in an offense that played at tremendous pace and produced lots of opportunities for everyone, by design.
> 
> Do you really believe that without the aura of the Showtime Lakers (say he had played out his career on the 1980s Kings) he would have been seriously considered for the Hall of Fame?


 I don't really know what to make of HOF discussions anymore once Dumars got elected. There is no set criteria to argue with particularly considering the gazillion amount of coaches who've been elected. Worthy was a better player then Dumars, he's at leaast as "worthy" as Parrish IMO and Alex English.

I still think you're underestimating Worthy, if he wasn't part of Showtime I do believe his numbers would have been better as a team's number 1 option if he didn't go to the Lakers (first overall pick in the draft). Would have those numbers been enough to make the HOF, don't know. Like I said he's similar to Alex English who did make the HOF and his numbers would be more in line with Adrian Dantley who didn't. Then again I think Dantley should be in the HOF anways.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> I don't really know what to make of HOF discussions anymore once Dumars got elected. There is no set criteria to argue with particularly considering the gazillion amount of coaches who've been elected. Worthy was a better player then Dumars, he's at leaast as "worthy" as Parrish IMO and Alex English.


I absolutely agree with you there. Dumars is a poor electee and Parrish and English seem better cut out for the Hall of The Very Good.

I simply don't believe in making a Hall of Fame case based on the worst selections, because that simply downgrades the Hall of Fame. Granted, there will be some undeserving selections, but they should be limited...they shouldn't lower the bar.



> I still think you're underestimating Worthy, if he wasn't part of Showtime I do believe his numbers would have been better as a team's number 1 option if he didn't go to the Lakers (first overall pick in the draft). Would have those numbers been enough to make the HOF, don't know. Like I said he's similar to Alex English who did make the HOF and his numbers would be more in line with Adrian Dantley who didn't. Then again I think Dantley should be in the HOF anways.


I also think Dantley should probably be in, but his PERs are significantly higher. Even if you're right that Worthy could have recorded higher PERs on another team, I don't think they would have risen that much; as I said, he played on a team that played at fantastic pace and got him a lot more opportunities and easy opportunities than any other second- or third-option.

Also, as far as underestimating Worthy, bear in mind that he used to be one of my childhood heros (after Magic and Kareem) as I grew up idolizing the Showtime Lakers. I've gone from thinking of him as a surefire Hall of Famer to thinking he was a very good player for his generation, but not an immortal.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

If Dantley's worthy, then so is Parish. Parish had seven seasons of 20-25 PER and was a much better defender than Dantley. His PER took a big hit when McHale became second option (fell from 23 to 19). When Bird missed most of the '89 season, 36-year old Parish's PER went from 17.2 to 21.6.


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

Dantley had his flaws and of course everything isn't about scoring, but his offense on so few shots must have been huge. Better PPS at his best than Shaq in 99-00 (very similar).

Members of the 30+ PPG, .550+ FGP club, +/- .2 PPG, in a season
Adrian Dantley (4)
Kareem (3)
----

Dantley had it in a short 22-game 82-83.

His scoring looks like Stockton's passing, and you know he'd be in even if he hadn't played forever.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i can't believe what i'm reading here. worthy was the #1 pick in the draft. he was an exceptional talent who lived up to the hype. he gave up an advantage to noone he played against. again, the lakers wouldn't have traded him for anyone at his position. cedric ceballos!!!??? jeezzzus. ceballos was a garbage man scorer, who found ways to score but wasn't very reliable in the half court set. which is a large part of why he usually went awol in the playoffs. worthy was an elite 3. as an offensive weapon, he was up there with anyone. 

his prime playoff scoring average was 23 pts/40 with 60% ts%. i mean, discussing worthy hitting open jumpers - he was an offensive focal point - he had a post game, and could generate his own opportunities on the perimeter. he ran the floor better than anyone at his position as well. imagine how good magic really is if we only consider worthy to be a very good at one dimension player.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> imagine how good magic really is if we only consider worthy to be a very good at one dimension player.


I don't follow. He's one-dimensional because he didn't add much value on defense, as a passer or as a rebounder. How does this attest to Magic Johnson's greatness? I do think Worthy's offensive reputation is boosted by Magic's greatness.

I realize Worthy could create for himself. My enduring image of his go-to scoring ability was him in the post, taking a power dribble as he spun into the lane and then scoring on a short jumper. But he got a great deal of easy opportunities from Magic and the Showtime system. He was capable of being a #1 scorer on a team, but he wasn't a great one.

I really don't understand how you can simultaneously say that Worthy was "as good as anyone" as an offensive option and yet Pippen wasn't exceptional offensively. At their primes, they were similar scorers and Pippen was by far a better passer. Worthy possesses a small edge in career TS%, but he also played in an offensive machine that unquestionably generated a lot of easy opportunities for him.

Do you think you may be holding them to slightly different standards?


----------



## Sunsfan81 (Apr 17, 2006)

Parish is easily a worthy Hall of Famer.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> I don't follow. He's one-dimensional because he didn't add much value on defense, as a passer or as a rebounder. How does this attest to Magic Johnson's greatness? I do think Worthy's offensive reputation is boosted by Magic's greatness.


the teams were exteremly successful, yet worthy was his best teammate, with a decent dropoff from there. 



Minstrel said:


> I realize Worthy could create for himself. My enduring image of his go-to scoring ability was him in the post, taking a power dribble as he spun into the lane and then scoring on a short jumper. But he got a great deal of easy opportunities from Magic and the Showtime system. He was capable of being a #1 scorer on a team, but he wasn't a great one.
> 
> I really don't understand how you can simultaneously say that Worthy was "as good as anyone" as an offensive option and yet Pippen wasn't exceptional offensively. At their primes, they were similar scorers and Pippen was by far a better passer. Worthy possesses a small edge in career TS%, but he also played in an offensive machine that unquestionably generated a lot of easy opportunities for him.
> 
> Do you think you may be holding them to slightly different standards?


worthy's career ts% before his decline in '91 was 59%. pippen's career best was 56%. worthy's prime playoff ts% actually goes up to 60%, and pippen's is 53%. worthy was usually top 30-40, pippen usually outside the top 100. they weren't comparable scoring weapons, imo.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

I'll toss two names in that I believe are underrated Dan Issel and Dave Bing. Yes they are both in the HOF, but both of these scorers had lower than you'd expect PERs for the stats they put up. 

I guess I should add, that I term them underrated because they aren't players you hear a lot about unless it is about Bing's after NBA success in business.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> the teams were exteremly successful, yet worthy was his best teammate, with a decent dropoff from there.


I'd say Kareem was overall his best teammate, though Worthy was for a few years. But it wasn't that the team was filled with superstars. It was just a team loaded with talent top to bottom. With Magic Johnson as its central hub. I've never denied the greatness of Magic...give him good players, and he'll turn them into a machine. Abdul-Jabbar was very good to great for a while, Worthy was always very good.



> worthy's career ts% before his decline in '91 was 59%. pippen's career best was 56%. worthy's prime playoff ts% actually goes up to 60%, and pippen's is 53%. worthy was usually top 30-40, pippen usually outside the top 100. they weren't comparable scoring weapons, imo.


Maybe not in the playoffs (and I don't think anyone can explain Worthy's playoff performance...if he was capable of that level, did he slack off in the regular season?), but in the regular season numbers, they were comparable. 59% compared to 56% isn't enormous, when you consider the system Worthy was in. It also makes their TS% standings relative to their league irrelevant...the same edges Worthy got from Showtime over Pippen, he got over every other player of his generation (except teammates).

I'd say they were pretty comparable scoring weapons, with perhaps a small edge to Worthy. But Pippen had a massive edge in passing. It's just not consistent to say Worthy was "as good an offensive weapon as anyone" (really? You'd place him with the likes of Jordan, Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar in their primes?) and Pippen was unexceptional.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> the teams were exteremly successful, yet worthy was his best teammate, with a decent dropoff from there.


I'd say Kareem was overall his best teammate, though Worthy was for a few years. But it wasn't that the team was filled with superstars. It was just a team loaded with talent top to bottom. With Magic Johnson as its central hub. I've never denied the greatness of Magic...give him good players, and he'll turn them into a machine. Abdul-Jabbar was very good to great for a while, Worthy was always very good.



> worthy's career ts% before his decline in '91 was 59%. pippen's career best was 56%. worthy's prime playoff ts% actually goes up to 60%, and pippen's is 53%. worthy was usually top 30-40, pippen usually outside the top 100. they weren't comparable scoring weapons, imo.


Maybe not in the playoffs (and I don't think anyone can explain Worthy's playoff performance...if he was capable of that level, did he slack off in the regular season?), but in the regular season numbers, they were comparable. 59% compared to 56% isn't enormous, when you consider the system Worthy was in. It also makes their TS% standings relative to their league irrelevant...the same edges Worthy got from Showtime over Pippen, he got over every other player of his generation (except teammates).

I'd say they were pretty comparable scoring weapons, with perhaps a small edge to Worthy. But Pippen had a large edge in passing. It's just not consistent to say Worthy was "as good an offensive weapon as anyone" (really? You'd place him with the likes of Jordan, Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar in their primes?) and Pippen was unexceptional.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i meant among his peer group at the 3 at that time. and the 59% vs 56% was career avg vs career high.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> i meant among his peer group at the 3 at that time.


That's more fair, but I think Adrian Dantley was a significantly better scorer than Worthy (and Pippen!). 

I don't think being among the best scoring small forwards in the 1980s and nothing else is Hall of Fame-caliber.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

and i meant they were extremely successful the years worthy was his best teammate.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> and the 59% vs 56% was *career avg* vs career high.


No it wasn't, it was a peak average.

Their career averages are .559 for Worthy and .536 for Pippen. Which is not huge, especially considering...etc, etc.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> That's more fair, but I think Adrian Dantley was a significantly better scorer than Worthy (and Pippen!).
> 
> I don't think being among the best scoring small forwards in the 1980s and nothing else is Hall of Fame-caliber.


and yet dantley, when surrounded by talent, became a far less prolific scorer. and when they played against each other in the finals, nobody was declaring a big advantage for detroit there (or any advantage). either leading up to, or in hindsight.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> No it wasn't, it was a peak average.
> 
> Their career averages are .559 for Worthy and .536 for Pippen. Which is not huge, especially considering...etc, etc.


i clearly said worthy's career average at his peak (till his decline in '91), vs pippen's career high.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> and yet dantley, when surrounded by talent, became a far less prolific scorer. and when they played against each other in the finals, nobody was declaring a big advantage for detroit there (or any advantage). either leading up to, or in hindsight.


Detroit played a slow-down halfcourt game most of the time that limited chances. That's why his scoring fell. The Lakers played a wide-open, fast-paced style that got everyone lots of chances. Had Dantley played as a Laker instead of a Piston, he wouldn't have dropped off that much "when surrounded by talent."

Dantley was pretty clearly a better scorer. He had a seven year peak that Worthy never even approached, let alone touched.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> i clearly said worthy's career average at his peak (till his decline in '91), vs pippen's career high.


In your original post you did, which is why I didn't correct your original post. The post I corrected, you said it was a "career avg versus a career high" which is extremely different and wrong.

If we actually look at their career averages, which I posted, they weren't hugely different, considering their relative environments.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Detroit played a slow-down halfcourt game most of the time that limited chances. That's why his scoring fell. The Lakers played a wide-open, fast-paced style that got everyone lots of chances. Had Dantley played as a Laker instead of a Piston, he wouldn't have dropped off that much "when surrounded by talent."
> 
> Dantley was pretty clearly a better scorer. He had a seven year peak that Worthy never even approached, let alone touched.


lakers pace factor in 1988 was 11th in the league. pistons were 14th. '87 was 10th and 13th, respectively.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> In your original post you did, which is why I didn't correct your original post. The post I corrected, you said it was a "career avg versus a career high" which is extremely different and wrong.


you implied in your 59 vs 56 isn't a big difference comment that they were both on the same basis. when one is a career high and the other a career average (at his peak), it becomes a bigger and more obvious difference. i was pointing this out to you, which should have been obvious, and therefore not in need of correction.



Minstrel said:


> If we actually look at their career averages, which I posted, they weren't hugely different, considering their relative environments.


and their career averaged don't reflect the wider difference of their peak #'s.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

lets put it this way - michael jordan deferred to james worthy.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> you implied in your 59 vs 56 isn't a big difference comment that they were both on the same basis. when one is a career high and the other a career average (at his peak), it becomes a bigger and more obvious difference.


So instead of being indirect, let's compare apples to apples:

Worthy's peak TS% average (1983-90, 8 seasons): 59%
Pippen's peak TS% average (1991-97, 7 seasons): 55%



> and their career averaged don't reflect the wider difference of their peak #'s.


It's a bit wider, .040 versus .030, but not much wider. As I said, I'd give Worthy the scoring edge, but I think a lot of that advantage comes from the easy opportunities that Magic created. Surely Magic's greatness had some very significant effect? If Worthy would have scored as efficiently without him, how great could Magic have been?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> lets put it this way - michael jordan deferred to james worthy.


Jordan also deferred to his brother James Jordan. James Jordan for the Hall of Fame.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

kflo said:


> i can't believe what i'm reading here. worthy was the #1 pick in the draft. he was an exceptional talent who lived up to the hype. he gave up an advantage to noone he played against. again, the lakers wouldn't have traded him for anyone at his position. cedric ceballos!!!??? jeezzzus. ceballos was a garbage man scorer, who found ways to score but wasn't very reliable in the half court set. which is a large part of why he usually went awol in the playoffs. worthy was an elite 3. as an offensive weapon, he was up there with anyone.
> 
> his prime playoff scoring average was 23 pts/40 with 60% ts%. i mean, discussing worthy hitting open jumpers - he was an offensive focal point - he had a post game, and could generate his own opportunities on the perimeter. he ran the floor better than anyone at his position as well. imagine how good magic really is if we only consider worthy to be a very good at one dimension player.


Worthy was unstopable on offense. The same way Kevin McHale was, and the same way Duncan is/was. He was just not a volume scorer. One could say he didn't have to be, considering the teams had the likes of Magic, Kareem and Scott. And that's the thing, really. Worthy didn't have to score in bundles, or pass the ball much (who would one prefer handling the ball? Magic Johnson or any forward in the history of the game?). So i can't see why this could be used aginst him. He was not a top-notch defender, but he was a reliable one. The only knock i see in his game is his poor rebounding numbers. Which can be explained somewhat by playing SF and having to play with a PG who would grab 6/7 rebounds a game)

This thread has the title "Underrated/Overrated Greats". Which makes me ask: are we talking about who are the GREAT player or who are the BEST players? Because there's a whole lot of names being thrown around that don't touch Worthy if we are talking about GREAT players. 

It's easy to say "hey, if _____ played with Magic and Kareem he would have been great too." But i don't buy that argument. There was a reason the Lakers picked Worthy above Nique and Terry Cummings. They knew what they were doing. And who has the rings?


----------



## Sunsfan81 (Apr 17, 2006)

PauloCatarino said:


> There was a reason the Lakers picked Worthy above Nique and Terry Cummings. They knew what they were doing. And who has the rings?


I still don't think Worthy was better than Dominique, but he was certainly better than Terry Cummings who is underrated.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Sunsfan81 said:


> I still don't think Worthy was better than Dominique, but he was certainly better than Terry Cummings who is underrated.


That's the thing: the Lakers didn't draft the BEST player available - they drafted who they though COULD be the GREATEST of the batch.

And no, i don't consider Worthy best than Nique.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I disagree that there's a difference between "better" and "greater."


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I disagree that there's a difference between "better" and "greater."


Hmmm...

Let's say, for arguments' sake, that Tim Duncan performs 22-10 for the next 5 years while winning 3 more championships, 2 more Finals MVP, 2 More MVPs, 5 All-defense team and 3 All-Nba team.

That would give him 6 rings, 4 MVPs, and a perennial (for his time) All-Nba in both teams...

Could he be considered GREATER than, say, Larry Bird?
Could he considered a BETTER basketball player than Larry?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> Let's say, for arguments' sake, that Tim Duncan performs 22-10 for the next 5 years while winning 3 more championships, 2 more Finals MVP, 2 More MVPs, 5 All-defense team and 3 All-Nba team.
> 
> ...


If by "greater" you mean "more decorated" or "more memorable" or that sort of thing, that's fine. But generally I think the key is who was the superior player on the court.

Steve Nash has more MVP awards than Hakeem Olajuwon or Oscar Robertson...if that means Nash is "greater," I don't think "greater" has much meaning, since Olajuwon and Robertson were far, far more valuable.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

i wish you laker fans would stop saying that 91 was a drop off for worthy. that was his best scoring season of his career.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

and as far as pippen, vs worthy, pippen was a better rebounder, passer, assists, 3pt shooter, 10xs the defender, could run an offense was better at steals and blocks was a better ballhandler and they are about even in scoring, with one being a career second scoring option in a slower pace league. while the other was a main scoring option in a much faster pace league. if pippens prime was in the 80s i see no reason he wouldnt average about 25 or 26 ppg.


----------



## Sunsfan81 (Apr 17, 2006)

Some underrated players:

Neil Johnston might be the most underrated player of all time
Bob McAdoo
Adrian Dantley 
Dennis Johnson 
Gus Johnson 
George McGinnis
Spencer Haywood
Bernard King
Artis Gilmore
Jo Jo White
Mitch Richmond
Sidney Moncrief
Paul Westphal
Jack Sikma
Larry Foust
Chet Walker
Bobby Jones
Michael Cooper


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

What to make of playoff stats?

Worthy scores signficantly more PPG and has a higher TS%.

Career PPG: 17.6 Playoff PPG: 21.1
Career TS%: .559 Playoff TS%: .564 (Take away his last season it was .584)

It's a smaller sample size but Worthy played close to 200 playoff games and the playoffs have better opponents?


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

so, ok you want to talk playoffs pippen has more rings period.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> What to make of playoff stats?


Yeah, as I mentioned to kflo--can anyone compelling explain that?

To me, it just seems like an oddity. If he _could_ play at that level consistently, why didn't he in the regular season? Slacking? If he couldn't rachet his play to that level at will, is it really an "ability?"

Of course, this is coming from someone who doesn't buy the concept of "clutch ability." Jordan was great in the clutch because he was great all the time...he didn't magically become better. He was the best in the first quarter and he was the best in the final minute.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

lets hold it down minstrel


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Yeah, as I mentioned to kflo--can anyone compelling explain that?
> 
> To me, it just seems like an oddity. If he _could_ play at that level consistently, why didn't he in the regular season? Slacking? If he couldn't rachet his play to that level at will, is it really an "ability?"
> 
> Of course, this is coming from someone who doesn't buy the concept of "clutch ability." Jordan was great in the clutch because he was great all the time...he didn't magically become better. He was the best in the first quarter and he was the best in the final minute.


 I don't think clutch and overall playoff performance are necessarily synomous.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> I don't think clutch and overall playoff performance are necessarily synomous.


Okay. So why didn't Worthy play like that all the time? No matter what his role, the improved efficiency would always be valuable, so I don't think "He was given a bigger role in the playoffs" would work as an explanation. He didn't just shoot more...he shot BETTER. There's no rational reason I can see that he'd legitimately shoot better in the playoffs, against better opponents, but not in the regular season.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Okay. So why didn't Worthy play like that all the time? No matter what his role, the improved efficiency would always be valuable, so I don't think "He was given a bigger role in the playoffs" would work as an explanation. He didn't just shoot more...he shot BETTER. There's no rational reason I can see that he'd legitimately shoot better in the playoffs, against better opponents, but not in the regular season.


 I've been mulling this over in my mind for awhile. I think is the case where the data has to lead the hypothesis. It seems that certain players who have very high sample sizes (Shaq's numbers going up and D. Rob's going down) similar to Worthy. Now a lot of players don't have anything happen to there numbers but these players have played at least 100 games in the playoffs and the number go up or down consistently. What to make of it?

I think unlike "clutch" that playoffs do have some significant differences then the regular season. You play the same team several times: this increases the preparation time for both teams and unlike a very long season you have a concentrated number of games where to focus energy on. I certainly have heard Shaq openly say he takes the regular season off. While Worthy was not known as a lazy player I do think because of his physical mismatches that the Lakers with better preparation time would use him more.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> I've been mulling this over in my mind for awhile. I think is the case where the data has to lead the hypothesis. It seems that certain players who have very high sample sizes (Shaq's numbers going up and D. Rob's going down) similar to Worthy. Now a lot of players don't have anything happen to there numbers but these players have played at least 100 games in the playoffs and the number go up or down consistently. What to make of it?
> 
> I think unlike "clutch" that playoffs do have some significant differences then the regular season. You play the same team several times: this increases the preparation time for both teams and unlike a very long season you have a concentrated number of games where to focus energy on. I certainly have heard Shaq openly say he takes the regular season off. While Worthy was not known as a lazy player I do think because of his physical mismatches that the Lakers with better preparation time would use him more.


I don't think the logical conclusion you draw with Worthy is too strong. You could as easily say that teams should be able to game-plan _better_ for Worthy's unique physical talents given more time and a series of games against him, whereas with no real time to prepare for him, Worthy would more easily roll over opponents.

By all accounts, David Robinson was a very hard worker...why would his performance drop? Reggie Miller's numbers improve in the playoffs...how does he fit into your hypothesis? Generally, people call Robinson a choker and Miller clutch to explain it, which is why I originally tied all this to "clutch."

If you have to concoct a different explanation for each case, that would seem a bit contrived. It also seems like rampant speculation, rather that a solid hypothesis...as I mentioned, your thought on Worthy could as easily work in reverse.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> I don't think the logical conclusion you draw with Worthy is too strong. You could as easily say that teams should be able to game-plan _better_ for Worthy's unique physical talents given more time and a series of games against him, whereas with no real time to prepare for him, Worthy would more easily roll over opponents.
> 
> By all accounts, David Robinson was a very hard worker...why would his performance drop? Reggie Miller's numbers improve in the playoffs...how does he fit into your hypothesis? Generally, people call Robinson a choker and Miller clutch to explain it, which is why I originally tied all this to "clutch."
> 
> If you have to concoct a different explanation for each case, that would seem a bit contrived. It also seems like rampant speculation, rather that a solid hypothesis...as I mentioned, your thought on Worthy could as easily work in reverse.


 Is it rampant speculation to say that individual players might be affected differently by the playoffs? David Robinson while a terrific player who scored 71 points in a game had weakness on offense that teams could adjust for. Particularly slow the game down and make sure you crowd him. Was he still very effective in the playoffs yeah but was is easier for teams to deal with him with a lot more preparation yes. 

With regards to Worthy, the Lakers had at least 4 offensive threats several years. During the regular season the wealth had to be shared btw Magic, Scott, Worthy, and Kareem. All very good offensive players but in the playoffs particularly as Kareem declined it was Worthy who had the mismatches and he became the go to guy. 

I'm not equating what I'm talking to "clutch" in last 5 minutes in a game or the ability to make a last second shot where there is little statiscal evidence beyond one's feels of a particular person's game. Overall last time I scanned say Shaq's versus D. Rob's stats. Robinson's number decreased in something like 8 out of 10 playoffs while Shaq's went up. Was Robinson an incredible in the playoffs yeah he was but his numbers clearly don't look as bright. Looking at it I think it's actually a bit contrived in fact not to take into account playoff numbers at least on these players who actually played a considerable amount of games. Worthy played nearly the equivalent amount of games in the playoffs as two regular seasons against tough competition: those number have to be in the conversation


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Shaq, Olajuwon, Bird, McGrady and Yao have all said that they gear themselves to be in peak shape by the playoffs. I think many superstars do this, which is why you see many of them raise their output slightly in the postseason. Yao actually said that his trainer told him to hold back a little when exercising during the regular season to avoid the risk of peaking too early.

I always felt that Olajuwon began the season slowly. So I compared his November numbers with those for the rest of the season (a little nuts, I know).
From '88 to '96, excluding '91 and '92 because of injuries, he averaged 22.8 ppg and 12 rpg in November.
Over that span, for the rest of the season he averaged 26.2 ppg and 12.4 rpg.

So I don't think it's a question of effort (though for some this may be a factor too). It's more likely about deliberately reaching top form when it is most important.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> Is it rampant speculation to say that individual players might be affected differently by the playoffs? David Robinson while a terrific player who scored 71 points in a game had weakness on offense that teams could adjust for. Particularly slow the game down and make sure you crowd him. Was he still very effective in the playoffs yeah but was is easier for teams to deal with him with a lot more preparation yes.


There are a lot more than five or six players who could be "game-planned" or adjusted for? If your theory were true, we should see a _lot_ more players go up and down significantly in the playoffs, not just a few players.



> With regards to Worthy, the Lakers had at least 4 offensive threats several years. During the regular season the wealth had to be shared btw Magic, Scott, Worthy, and Kareem. All very good offensive players but in the playoffs particularly as Kareem declined it was Worthy who had the mismatches and he became the go to guy.


True in both the regular season and the playoffs, really. I don't see this as particularly true in the playoffs.



> Looking at it I think it's actually a bit contrived in fact not to take into account playoff numbers at least on these players who actually played a considerable amount of games. Worthy played nearly the equivalent amount of games in the playoffs as two regular seasons against tough competition: those number have to be in the conversation


Yes, it would be contrived to simply throw out playoff numbers. It should all be factored in. Those are all games they played at that level, after all. What I think is contrived is to pull playoffs apart from everything else, invest it with special significance and then use that as an argument to adjust them up or down from their other numbers.

Playoffs have a special significance in terms of importance to the team, but I don't think they have special significance in terms of evaluating a player's ability. If someone wanted to add playoff totals to the regular season totals and then redo the averages / PERs, I'd find that perfectly reasonable.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> Shaq, Olajuwon, Bird, McGrady and Yao have all said that they gear themselves to be in peak shape by the playoffs. I think many superstars do this, which is why you see many of them raise their output slightly in the postseason. Yao actually said that his trainer told him to hold back a little when exercising during the regular season to avoid the risk of peaking too early.
> 
> I always felt that Olajuwon began the season slowly. So I compared his November numbers with those for the rest of the season (a little nuts, I know).
> From '88 to '96, excluding '91 and '92 because of injuries, he averaged 22.8 ppg and 12 rpg in November.
> ...


 One of the points I was trying to make but didn't say eloquently


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> Shaq, Olajuwon, Bird, McGrady and Yao have all said that they gear themselves to be in peak shape by the playoffs. I think many superstars do this, which is why you see many of them raise their output slightly in the postseason.


The majority increase their output slightly, but also shoot more. Not a whole lot actually improve their efficiency by any significant amount. Jordan's FG%, for example, drops slightly in the post-season.

I don't doubt that stars take more shots and play more minutes in the post-season, therefore improving their raw numbers. James Worthy improving his efficiency is somewhat different, though.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> There are a lot more than five or six players who could be "game-planned" or adjusted for? If your theory were true, we should see a _lot_ more players go up and down significantly in the playoffs, not just a few players.


It maybe more then a few players. I haven't taken a look at a lot of players but when I have I found some pretty significant changes in several players (Shaq, Robinson, Isiah Thomas, Worthy). Part of the problem is that some players on poorer teams just don't have enough playoff games



> True in both the regular season and the playoffs, really. I don't see this as particularly true in the playoffs.


I firmly disagree with this. Playoffs who have several days often to prepare for a single opponent and I agree with Hakeem's point as well about players preparing for the playoffs. Over an 82 game season you sometimes don't even have time to scout the other team if it's a back to back. 

I think both and kflo emphasized with Worthy that he was a very capable go to scorer that just happened to be on a loaded team. A quick peak at this is his mpg went up significantly in the playoffs: more of an emphasis




> Yes, it would be contrived to simply throw out playoff numbers. It should all be factored in. Those are all games they played at that level, after all. What I think is contrived is to pull playoffs apart from everything else, invest it with special significance and then use that as an argument to adjust them up or down from their other numbers.
> 
> Playoffs have a special significance in terms of importance to the team, but I don't think they have special significance in terms of evaluating a player's ability. If someone wanted to add playoff totals to the regular season totals and then redo the averages / PERs, I'd find that perfectly reasonable.


I would weigh playoff numbers slightly more if comparing similar players who played a similar amount of playoff games. Why add special significance: tougher competition. An interesting comparison if if someone had a ridiculous amount of time would be to look at numbers of players versus only the top 18 teams in the regular season + playoffs and compare that to overall numbers.

Look at Robinson number's here just comparing playoff and regular season:
PPG Playoff PPG TS% Playoff TS%
<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 192pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="256"><col style="width: 48pt;" span="4" width="64"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" height="17" width="64">24.3</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">24.4</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="0.59699999999999998" align="right" width="64">0.597</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="0.58306251194800229" align="right" width="64">0.583063</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:num="" align="right" height="17">25.6</td> <td x:num="" align="right">25.8</td> <td x:num="0.61499999999999999" align="right">0.615</td> <td x:num="0.76048434731246306" align="right">0.760484</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:num="" align="right" height="17">23.2</td> <td>
</td> <td x:num="0.59699999999999998" align="right">0.597</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:num="" align="right" height="17">23.4</td> <td x:num="" align="right">23.1</td> <td x:num="0.56899999999999995" align="right">0.569</td> <td x:num="0.52884615384615385" align="right">0.528846</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:num="" align="right" height="17">29.8</td> <td x:num="" align="right">20</td> <td x:num="0.57699999999999996" align="right">0.577</td> <td x:num="0.47125353440150802" align="right">0.471254</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:num="" align="right" height="17">27.6</td> <td x:num="" align="right">25.3</td> <td x:num="0.60199999999999998" align="right">0.602</td> <td x:num="0.53587545126353786" align="right">0.535875</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:num="" align="right" height="17">25</td> <td x:num="" align="right">23.6</td> <td x:num="0.58899999999999997" align="right">0.589</td> <td x:num="0.56949806949806958" align="right">0.569498</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
In his prime, Robinson's scoring and efficiency decreased in every postseason


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> I think both and kflo emphasized with Worthy that he was a very capable go to scorer that just happened to be on a loaded team. A quick peak at this is his mpg went up significantly in the playoffs: more of an emphasis


Agreed. I don't doubt he was given a bigger role in the playoffs...I simply don't think an increased role explains better scoring efficiency.



> I would weigh playoff numbers slightly more if comparing similar players who played a similar amount of playoff games. Why add special significance: tougher competition.


Tougher competition, but not always particularly tougher defense. Many teams reach the playoffs on the strength of their offense. I'm sure the playoff population has some defensive edge, but how much I'm not sure. And I'm not sure it's worth giving it special significance unless we also weight quality of competition in the regular season numbers.



> Look at Robinson number's here just comparing playoff and regular season:
> PPG Playoff PPG TS% Playoff TS%
> <table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 192pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="256"><col style="width: 48pt;" span="4" width="64"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" height="17" width="64">24.3</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">24.4</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="0.59699999999999998" align="right" width="64">0.597</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="0.58306251194800229" align="right" width="64">0.583063</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:num="" align="right" height="17">25.6</td> <td x:num="" align="right">25.8</td> <td x:num="0.61499999999999999" align="right">0.615</td> <td x:num="0.76048434731246306" align="right">0.760484</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:num="" align="right" height="17">23.2</td> <td>
> </td> <td x:num="0.59699999999999998" align="right">0.597</td> <td>
> ...


A little hard to read, so maybe I'm making a mistake, but didn't his scoring go up in his second post-season appearance and his efficiency go WAY up? It looks like 25.6 PPG at 0.615 TS% in the regular season versus 25.8 PPG on 0.760484 TS% in the playoffs?

Anyway, here's the reason I have a hard time accepting that Robinson's numbers fell in the post-season due to an exploitable hole in his offense: If he had such a huge flaw, that could cut his scoring ability so significantly, why wouldn't teams routinely play him that way in the regular season _after_ the flaw had been revealed? It doesn't take days of game-planning to copycat a very effective defense.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> The majority increase their output slightly, but also shoot more. Not a whole lot actually improve their efficiency by any significant amount. Jordan's FG%, for example, drops slightly in the post-season.
> 
> I don't doubt that stars take more shots and play more minutes in the post-season, therefore improving their raw numbers. James Worthy improving his efficiency is somewhat different, though.


Worthy isn't the only one who played better in the playoffs, though. Duncan, Olajuwon, McGrady and Jordan all scored more on a per-minute basis and did it more efficiently (Jordan's FG% may have decreased, but his FTA and 3-pt% both increased). These are the names that usually come to mind when we think of superior playoff performance. And they did this while playing more minutes and taking more shots, against tougher and better-prepared teams (compared to the regular season). With all that, you'd actually expect their production to fall in the postseason. So I think some players do consistently play better in the playoffs. And I think that's mainly because that is when they are in top shape.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> So I think some players do consistently play better in the playoffs. And I think that's mainly because that is when they are in top shape.


Perhaps so. But then shouldn't that affect most players? I mean, I can't believe that pacing your workouts such that you're at peak shape around playoff time is a secret to only a few players. If that's effective, we have to assume almost everyone does that...at least the ones without a rap for being lazy. So most players, by dint of being in better shape, should see a playoff increase relative to their lesser-shape regular season numbers.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

By the way, where does one find playoff PERs and TS%? Basketball-reference.com doesn't seem to have them.

This question is for anyone!


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Hakeem, Jordan's per minute scoring was down in the playoffs, as was his FG%. There was no significant difference in 3pt%. Not sure about his FTA off the top of my head...


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> By the way, where does one find playoff PERs and TS%? Basketball-reference.com doesn't seem to have them.
> 
> This question is for anyone!


I think TS% is pretty easy to calculate. PER would require pace numbers for the playoffs; or you could just use the regular season pace, but I think that's a big mistake.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Agreed. I don't doubt he was given a bigger role in the playoffs...I simply don't think an increased role explains better scoring efficiency.


Well it's not pace as pace generally went down in the playoffs. He also shot more which goes along with the idea that he was given more of a role in terms of actual plays run for him.




> Tougher competition, but not always particularly tougher defense. Many teams reach the playoffs on the strength of their offense. I'm sure the playoff population has some defensive edge, but how much I'm not sure. And I'm not sure it's worth giving it special significance unless we also weight _quality of competition_ in the regular season numbers.


Like I said I think that would be very interesting to look at but I don't know of anyone who's actually done that bit of tedious work. 



> A little hard to read, so maybe I'm making a mistake, but didn't his scoring go up in his second post-season appearance and his efficiency go WAY up? It looks like 25.6 PPG at 0.615 TS% in the regular season versus 25.8 PPG on 0.760484 TS% in the playoffs?
> 
> Anyway, here's the reason I have a hard time accepting that Robinson's numbers fell in the post-season due to an exploitable hole in his offense: If he had such a huge flaw, that could cut his scoring ability so significantly, why wouldn't teams routinely play him that way in the regular season _after_ the flaw had been revealed? It doesn't take days of game-planning to copycat a very effective defense.


His first two seasons were comparable btw the playoffs and regular season. The Spurs missed the playoffs the next year but then after that when Robinson was in his prime everything fell every year. I think wording here is important as I don't think Robinson had a _huge_ flaw but I do think that he had weaknesses that would make him more vulnerable in the playoffs. Slower game and not only gameplanning but being able to execute it. It's one thing to plan for a team with some film and a few days (i.e. USA vs Greece in the World Championships) versus actually having practice time to put it into place. An example of this is Magic Johnson against the Bulls, in the regular season and the first game of the Finals Jordan played him a lot. In the rest of the playoff series, putting Pippen on him didn't expose a _huge_ flaw but made him less effective.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> By the way, where does one find playoff PERs and TS%? Basketball-reference.com doesn't seem to have them.
> 
> This question is for anyone!


 Excel off basketballreference for TS%  A bit of tedious data entry there

I don't where to get playoff PER: I wonder if Hollinger has that hidden someplace


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> Excel off basketballreference for TS%  A bit of tedious data entry there


Nice. As JP Seraph said, the specific calculations aren't hard for it, just seems tedious to do it manually. Excel is a good idea.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Nice. As JP Seraph said, the specific calculations aren't hard for it, just seems tedious to do it manually. Excel is a good idea.


 If we could get a wiki or something along those lines. It would be a nice way to get these stats posted and archived.

Looks like Hakeem might have some interesting spreadsheets


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> If we could get a wiki or something along those lines. It would be a nice way to get these stats posted and archived.
> 
> Looks like Hakeem might have some interesting spreadsheets


Great idea.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Perhaps so. But then shouldn't that affect most players? I mean, I can't believe that pacing your workouts such that you're at peak shape around playoff time is a secret to only a few players. If that's effective, we have to assume almost everyone does that...at least the ones without a rap for being lazy. So most players, by dint of being in better shape, should see a playoff increase relative to their lesser-shape regular season numbers.


It's not a secret, but it could be that many players simply choose not to do this. There is also sense in training extremely hard in the offseason so as to start the regular season in top form, particularly for players on teams that are not heavily favored to make the playoffs or to have homecourt advantage.

Or it could be that most players do pace themselves to be in top shape for the playoffs, but the effects of playing more minutes and facing tougher defenses prevent them from posting better numbers. Perhaps those who do manage to increase their production in the playoffs simply take this pacing further, for better or for worse, at a cost to their regular season performance. I doubt it's an exact science. Players train differently and their bodies respond differently, and there's not much scope for experimentation. Some might just find the right balance.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

JPSeraph said:


> Hakeem, Jordan's per minute scoring was down in the playoffs, as was his FG%. There was no significant difference in 3pt%. Not sure about his FTA off the top of my head...


His pts per 40 mins went up by 1.9. It was up in 8 of his 12 seasons in Chicago.
His 3-pt% went up by 0.3% despite 0.7 more attempts per 40 mins.
His FTA per 40 mins went up by 0.8 (very likely meaning increased efficiency).


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> By the way, where does one find playoff PERs and TS%? Basketball-reference.com doesn't seem to have them.


82games has playoff PERs for the past few seasons.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> His pts per 40 mins went up by 1.9. It was up in 8 of his 12 seasons in Chicago.
> His 3-pt% went up by 0.3% despite 0.7 more attempts per 40 mins.
> His FTA per 40 mins went up by 0.8 (very likely meaning increased efficiency).


You're either being disingenuous (something I haven't come to expect from you) or just mistaken.

During his career with the Chicago Bulls, Michael averaged 32.6 pts per 40 in the regular season vs 32.0 in the playoffs and shot .332 3pt% in BOTH the playoffs and the regular season. He also shot .505 from the field and .838 from the line vs .487 and .828 in the playoffs. His FTA per 40 were 9.0 regular season vs 9.4 playoffs...

Taken as a whole, he doesn't appear to have been a more efficient scorer in the playoffs than the regular season UNLESS your definition of "efficiency" is relative to the overall leaguewide dip in playoff scoring efficiency or the expected dip in efficiency with increased minutes (both of which are arguments I would make).

Either way, I'm sure you don't need me to elaborate on why using his career totals including the brief comeback with the Wizards doesn't make for a sound comparison.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

JPSeraph said:


> You're either being disingenuous (something I haven't come to expect from you) or just mistaken.


Disingenuous. Expect it.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> I always felt that Olajuwon began the season slowly. So I compared his November numbers with those for the rest of the season (a little nuts, I know).
> From '88 to '96, excluding '91 and '92 because of injuries, he averaged 22.8 ppg and 12 rpg in November.
> Over that span, for the rest of the season he averaged 26.2 ppg and 12.4 rpg.


Are there any Olajuwon numbers you _can't_ come up with? His high school soccer stats? His SSN maybe?


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Hoopla said:


> Are there any Olajuwon numbers you _can't_ come up with? His high school soccer stats? His SSN maybe?


Apparently he can cook up all kinds of numbers.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

^ I'm an accountant. I make a living out of it.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> ^ I'm an accountant. I make a living out of it.


_PIRATES:
It's fun to charter an accountant
And sail the wide accountancy,
To find, explore the funds offshore
And skirt the shoals of bankruptcy!

It can be manly in insurance.
We'll up your premium semi-annually.
It's all tax deductible.
We're fairly incorruptible,
We're sailing on the wide accountancy!_


Accountants are the lowest forms of mankind!!!!


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

On a further note: the quickest way I've found to do this is save a page from basketballreference as an HTML only webpage and then open it with excel using delineated import: works pretty quickly


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

what, below lawyers and NBA Finals referees?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

for 1, worthy's mpg go up a decent amount in the playoffs. 2, the western conference wasn't filled with great teams. 3, the lakers DID know that the postseason was going to be their test, and treated the regular season not as a battle ground to win every game, but to prepare themselves for the title run. so, yeah, they tried harder in the playoffs. they were that good, and that much better than their conf foes. 4, scott, one of their top scorers, wasn't as equipped for the playoffs and typically had a dropoff in production. 5, tighter rotation put better players on the floor for longer stretches. 6, increased importance increased the need for a good shot. 7, 143 games - almost 2 seasons. 8, he did the same thing in college (you remember the steal, right?!). 9, guy was good.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

nice post kflo i really dont think anyone can debate what you wrote.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

da bully said:


> nice post kflo i really dont think anyone can debate what you wrote.



they will. oh, they will.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> By the way, where does one find playoff PERs and TS%? Basketball-reference.com doesn't seem to have them.
> 
> This question is for anyone!


It would be nice to have playoff PERs for historical seasons. They have/had the 2005 playoffs on KnickerBlogger and last years playoff PERs on ESPN Insider.

I know of a guy on the APBR board who has a database that has a forumla somewhat similiar to PER (but sort of gives more credit to players who are part of a good defensive team). It shows production in terms of regular season and as well the playoffs.

In this database it showed David Robinson pretty much dropping his production almost EVERY single playoffs, some of them are dramatic drops in production. Tough to ignore. Hakeem and Duncan both stepped up in many of their playoff runs. Shaq as well. David was the one elite NBA player who got noticably worse on a consistent basis. I posted about this earlier, but no one really got too engaged in the discussion. 

Drob was an elite regular season player, as good as Shaq or Hakeem ever were. But in the playoffs he clearly got worse. Not sure why exactly. Could be bad luck, bad teamattes? It just doesn't seem logical that a player could be so much less prodictive scoring come playoff time, unless he was A)unlucky and B)had bad teamattes. 

Most people point out Drob lacked a goto move in the post, and all of a sudden teams cared in the playoffs to stop a lot of his fastbreak slams, and that is why he wasn't nearly as productive as in the regular season. But is this really the case? Why couldn't teams do a better job in the regular season? The guy was an elite scorer AND defender. That can't be luck that he averaged 30ppg one season while playing superb defense. Not to mention countless of other 25+ppg scoring seasons with high efficiency. 

I would love to hear what some others have to say about this.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

A question that needs to be answered with someone like Robinson was whether he had a dropoff in performance against quality teams in the regular season as well.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> A question that needs to be answered with someone like Robinson was whether he had a dropoff in performance against quality teams in the regular season as well.


I seriously doubt this, the chances are slim that he is eqiavalently just as bad in the regular season as he was in the playoffs. You might see a difference against the best teams, but I doubt it is huge or significant.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Nikos said:


> I seriously doubt this, the chances are slim that he is eqiavalently just as bad in the regular season as he was in the playoffs. You might see a difference against the best teams, but I doubt it is huge or significant.


 The chances may be slim but it's a question that needs to be answered because a hypothesis will depend on that. I personally think the playoffs are a different beast secondary to preparation time and the like, but other reasons such as bad teammates which you brought up would likely cause a dropoff in production during the regular season as well.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Well just judging from random box scores over the years, it doesn't seem that he struggled against the elite teams. I didn't calculate anything but I do remember he matched up favorably with guys like Shaq, Ewing, and even Olajuwon in some seasons I think? He also did extremely well versus Alonzo one game. Think he had close to 50pts. 

Why the drop in nearly every playoff?


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Nikos said:


> Well just judging from random box scores over the years, it doesn't seem that he struggled against the elite teams. I didn't calculate anything but I do remember he matched up favorably with guys like Shaq, Ewing, and even Olajuwon in some seasons I think? He also did extremely well versus Alonzo one game. Think he had close to 50pts.
> 
> Why the drop in nearly every playoff?


 *IF *there was no dropoff against quality teams then I think it has come down to the minor faults in D. Rob's game that are better exploited by opposing teams because of preparation and familiarity times.

Look Robinson still had outstanding numbers in the playoffs but no to the same level. He was Left handed where if you play him just once every few months or weeks in the regular season it's hard to adjust too (Most players are trained to go after the opposing players strong hand which is the left). The pace slows down and players get at least acclimated to the fact that Robinson had freakish atheticism for his size. Crowd his left hand making it harder for him to drive and he never had a great post game to go to another line of attack. So three things come to mind:

1) Players/Teams having time to adjust to crowd D. Rob's Left handed drive and jumper.
2) Lack of a go to move for Robinson to make a counter adjustment to #1
3) Slower pace (this is the most minor)

There are possibly others or the above isn't adequate so when NBA classic schedules an old Spurs game we should bump this thread to take a closer look


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> So three things come to mind:
> 
> 1) Players/Teams having time to adjust to crowd D. Rob's Left handed drive and jumper.
> 2) Lack of a go to move for Robinson to make a counter adjustment to #1
> 3) Slower pace (this is the most minor)


I think #2 is overstated. We all agree that Robinson wasn't a post-up monster the likes of Shaquille O'Neal, but to imply that he was mostly only capable of driving and shooting jumpers is well off-base. He had a very strong post game, he simply didn't live in the post. He was capable of stepping out and taking his man off the dribble or draining a jumper if open, but the same was true of Hakeem Olajuwon. Robinson may not have had as recognized and constantly useable go-to move as the "Dream Shake," but he had an array of spin moves, jump hooks and turn-arounds out of the post that made him extremely tough.

In my opinion, his offensive game was like a slightly better Tim Duncan. Duncan also steps out and shoots jumpers and can take slower power forwards/centers off the dribble, but he still has a major post presence. The same was true of Robinson, and he was even stronger and more agile than Duncan.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> I think #2 is overstated. We all agree that Robinson wasn't a post-up monster the likes of Shaquille O'Neal, but to imply that he was mostly only capable of driving and shooting jumpers is well off-base. He had a very strong post game, he simply didn't live in the post. He was capable of stepping out and taking his man off the dribble or draining a jumper if open, but the same was true of Hakeem Olajuwon. Robinson may not have had as recognized and constantly useable go-to move as the "Dream Shake," but he had an array of spin moves, jump hooks and turn-arounds out of the post that made him extremely tough.
> 
> In my opinion, his offensive game was like a slightly better Tim Duncan. Duncan also steps out and shoots jumpers and can take slower power forwards/centers off the dribble, but he still has a major post presence. The same was true of Robinson, and he was even stronger and more agile than Duncan.


You watched a different player then I did, the Robinson I remember never had close to the footwork of Duncan in terms of his post game particularly with his back to the basket. Robinson faced up oppenents on the block far far more then he ever used any of his back to back moves. Was he good in the post, yes he was but again from my recollection it was because I don't think there maybe has been a player fo his height built for a running game and face the basket game. On the other hand was he exceptional enough in terms of his post game to completely negate the crowding teams did of his left hand, I don't think so and the playoffs stats bear that out. He was still very good, just not as good.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> On the other hand was he exceptional enough in terms of his post game to completely negate the crowding teams did of his left hand, I don't think so and the playoffs stats bear that out.


The playoffs stats only "bear that out" if we're taking your theory as fact, which it isn't. Again, if simply "crowding his left hand" is enough to throw Robinson off his game, every team could have done that to him in the regular season. That's not a highly-sophisticated defense that takes days and days off to gameplan. Once it was shown to make Robinson worse, every team could have copied it and Robinson (if your theory is correct) should have spiraled downwards for his career, regular season and playoffs.

Every sports league is a copycat league and they don't wait until the playoffs to copy. If a player has a hole in his game large enough to significantly change his numbers (as per Robinson's post-season drop-off), every defense is going to exploit that hole...in every game he plays.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> The playoffs stats only "bear that out" if we're taking your theory as fact, which it isn't. Again, if simply "crowding his left hand" is enough to throw Robinson off his game, every team could have done that to him in the regular season. That's not a highly-sophisticated defense that takes days and days off to gameplan. Once it was shown to make Robinson worse, every team could have copied it and Robinson (if your theory is correct) should have spiraled downwards for his career, regular season and playoffs.
> 
> Every sports league is a copycat league and they don't wait until the playoffs to copy. If a player has a hole in his game large enough to significantly change his numbers (as per Robinson's post-season drop-off), every defense is going to exploit that hole...in every game he plays.


 The facts I see is a player in 4 straight prime years where he played a significant amount of game went down each year in efficiency and ppg. You're making it as if Robinson should have scored no points at all if teams and opposing defenders had more time to prepare. I'm pointing out that you could make his life more difficult which teams apparently were able to do. Getting prepared for one game is extremely difficult compared to the playoffs. Often (back to back or long road trip) you have maybe one practice to play an opponent. I personally have played left handers for example and there just hard to get used to initially even though I knew the guy was left handed and would shoot/drive left handed. It got a lot easier for me to handle him after seeing a few times. Now does it get easier to D up anybody after a few times. Sure but the biggest thing for me was his left handedness. Combine that with the lack of refinement in Robinson's post game and I see why teams had a relatively easier time with Robinson


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Robinson did have a back-to-the-basket game, but it wasn't as good as Duncan's. He had a terrific face up game -- got up really quickly on his jumper and had a high release, and had a super-quick first step and smooth spin moves to get layups. He had good range. He got to the line very frequently and was a good foul shooter. His combination of quickness, agility, strength and great hands allowed him to often get good position deep in the paint for easy baskets. And he ran the floor extremely well, which also helped him get easy baskets. 

I don't know why all that wouldn't work as well in the playoffs, though. I'm not sure I buy the "left-handed" thing as a major factor. If we could get a hold of playoff box scores, we'd be able to see whether his output tended to decline as each series wore on.

He was very unselfish. The '95 WCF is the only series from which I've seen games recently, and in those he did seem a bit passive, passing up some opportunities to score on isolation plays. But that doesn't explain the decrease in efficiency. He did go up against a lot of good defensive sides, like the Suns three times, the Blazers and the Jazz twice each, and the Rockets (Olajuwon) and Nuggets (Mutombo).


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> Robinson did have a back-to-the-basket game, but it wasn't as good as Duncan's. He had a terrific face up game -- got up really quickly on his jumper and had a high release, and had a super-quick first step and smooth spin moves to get layups. He had good range. He got to the line very frequently and was a good foul shooter. His combination of quickness, agility, strength and great hands allowed him to often get good position deep in the paint for easy baskets. And he ran the floor extremely well, which also helped him get easy baskets.
> 
> I don't know why all that wouldn't work as well in the playoffs, though. I'm not sure I buy the "left-handed" thing as a major factor. If we could get a hold of playoff box scores, we'd be able to see whether his output tended to decline as each series wore on.
> 
> He was very unselfish. The '95 WCF is the only series from which I've seen games recently, and in those he did seem a bit passive, passing up some opportunities to score on isolation plays. But that doesn't explain the decrease in efficiency. He did go up against a lot of good defensive sides, like the Suns three times, the Blazers and the Jazz twice each, and the Rockets (Olajuwon) and Nuggets (Mutombo).


 ^This is my reflection of his game as well and it's not like he was terrible in the playoffs. He simply just wasn't as exceptional as the regular season. 

To me it's the left handed and lack of a post game relative to his outstanding face up abilities that affected him more. But maybe it's a lack of aggresiveness, although I question why he didn't have that problem in the regular season. Like I said I'm would love to revisit some of his playoff series when they're on NBA classis


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> The facts I see is a player in 4 straight prime years where he played a significant amount of game went down each year in efficiency and ppg. You're making it as if Robinson should have scored no points at all if teams and opposing defenders had more time to prepare.


That isn't what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that if it were simply a matter of exploiting something as simple as "crowding his left hand," every team would have started doing it.



> I'm pointing out that you could make his life more difficult which teams apparently were able to do.


Apparently they weren't able to do it, or they'd have done it in every game, not just the playoffs.



> Getting prepared for one game is extremely difficult compared to the playoffs. Often (back to back or long road trip) you have maybe one practice to play an opponent.


That may be true if we're talking about some very elaborate or sophisticated defensive strategy that takes a while to get acclimated to. "Playing him to drive with his left hand" is neither of those. And it doesn't require every team thinking it up...again, if it were effective (effective to the extent of Robinson's drop-off, not to shut him out completely), other teams would see it done and simply copy it. It doesn't take waiting until the next playoffs to _reinvent_ the wheel.

That's why it isn't a compelling theory, IMO.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

^ Seeing it, planning it, and doing it are different things. That's what makes the playoffs a bit different, you can actually practice it before the series and readjust while preparing to play the same opponent over again. From personal experience, it's very difficult to adjust to playing a left hander even if you see before playing them that they are left handed. It' may or may not be true with regards to Robinson but to me it's definitely not just noting an effective strategy but actually being able to implement it.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm not sure how much a left-hander throws professionals, though. I'd be surprised if it were tough for NBA players to get used to.

Also, do we have examples of other left-handers, and how they did in the playoffs?


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

I think it was mostly mental.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

the spurs had no other legitimate options. opponents were able to key on robinson and make him beat them. they crowded him more in the playoffs, pushed him away from the basket more. they had no other legit #2 guys. in the playoff, the entire spurs teams got exposed. they had noone capable of creating offense - it all centered around robinson. robinson missed the last 14 games of the '92 season, they lose 9 of them, and get swept in the first round. robinson had a ridiculous impact on the team (3rd defensively in '96, last in '97 without dr). but he wasn't capable of carrying them through the entire playoffs, series after series.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> I'm not sure how much a left-hander throws professionals, though. I'd be surprised if it were tough for NBA players to get used to.
> 
> Also, do we have examples of other left-handers, and how they did in the playoffs?


Ginobili has done well in most of his career playoff seasons. He did exceptionally well in 2005 where his PER went from 22 to 25 with increased minutes and Usage Rate. Last playoffs his PER dropped a bit. But in general he has done well.

Nick Van Exel actually did worse in more playoff seasons then better -- but had some good ones peppered in.

Jalen Rose was average in his playoff perofmances. Production probably took a normal drop on par with the average player.

I am sure there are plenty of other leftys but I can't think of any who drastically increased or dropped their production on a consistent basis. At least in terms of a player on the calibur of Drob or even a championship role player.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

kflo said:


> the spurs had no other legitimate options. opponents were able to key on robinson and make him beat them. they crowded him more in the playoffs, pushed him away from the basket more. they had no other legit #2 guys. in the playoff, the entire spurs teams got exposed. they had noone capable of creating offense - it all centered around robinson. robinson missed the last 14 games of the '92 season, they lose 9 of them, and get swept in the first round. robinson had a ridiculous impact on the team (3rd defensively in '96, last in '97 without dr). but he wasn't capable of carrying them through the entire playoffs, series after series.


 Preparation time then?

Also with the left handers, Ginobili can drive with both hands and since he is a perimeter player he isn't demanded to post up ala Rose or NVE


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

playoff intensity is a factor. guys do try harder, defensively. and teams rely more heavily on their stars. there was also the notion that defenses could get away with more in the playoffs, as the intensity picks up. you get fewer easy baskets, more doubles, and more pressure to take it on your shoulders. drob never had a guy next to him capable of shouldering much burden - cummings was the best he had (and strickland could create as well) and those were his most efficient playoffs.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> Preparation time then?
> 
> Also with the left handers, Ginobili can drive with both hands and since he is a perimeter player he isn't demanded to post up ala Rose or NVE


Yeah I didn't even realize you were exclusively talking about post players. Sorry about that.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Some of the reasons for *David Robinson's Substandard Playoff Play* from posters in this thread.......




 1) Lack of goto move allowed 'playoff defenses' to key in the big games
 2) Poor supporting Cast
 3) Lack of Mental Strength
 4) Bad Luck
 5) Combination of all of these things
Ignoring the playoffs, wasn't Drob as good or better than Hakeem in the regular season? As good as Shaq in his prime for the most part? Better than Ewing. Better than Duncan? Better than Karl Malone?

Most centers/elite PF's had at least one good playoff, a few decent ones, and a few substandard ones. Drob had about 2 decent playoff early in his prime career, and the rest of the playoffs in his prime were all noticably inferior to his regular season production.

What gives? How do you evaluate someone like that? Someone who is as productive as can be in the regular season, who morphs into just a regular underachieving all star in the playoffs?


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

I think w/o question that Robinson is up there with anybody at center in terms of regular season performance: the guy put up great offensive numbers plus was as good as defender as you're going to get.

The post season is just simply troubling, particularly since other players with poor supporting casts have stepped up in terms of playoff performance (everyone's current favorite punching bag T-Mac in his playoff performances despite having mediocre at best supporting casts performed superbly)


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> The post season is just simply troubling, particularly since other players with poor supporting casts have stepped up in terms of playoff performance (everyone's current favorite punching bag T-Mac in his playoff performances despite having mediocre at best supporting casts performed superbly)


Exactly. I can't seem to understand why Drob is different than any of these guys. Why did he perform so poorly, so consistently? Must be a combination of all those factors I mentioned above. Just plain bad luck mixed in with some bad supporting casts.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

kflo said:


> the spurs had no other legitimate options. opponents were able to key on robinson and make him beat them. they crowded him more in the playoffs, pushed him away from the basket more. they had no other legit #2 guys. in the playoff, the entire spurs teams got exposed. they had noone capable of creating offense - it all centered around robinson. robinson missed the last 14 games of the '92 season, they lose 9 of them, and get swept in the first round. robinson had a ridiculous impact on the team (3rd defensively in '96, last in '97 without dr). but he wasn't capable of carrying them through the entire playoffs, series after series.


Why didn't opponents apply the same tactics in the regular season? The Spurs won 55-60+ games every year. Olajuwon had even worse teammates some years, but his numbers stayed the same or increased nearly every time. 
And Robinson's supporting casts weren't all that bad. Cummings, Elliott, Avery Johnson, Antoine Carr, Strickland and Del ***** were all decent players. They did get swept in the first round without Robinson in '92, but I don't think any team without their superstar would fare any better. And Cummings put up 26/11 that series, and Carr and Elliott 20 ppg each. Strickland 16/10.

Another great big man whose production suffered in the playoffs is Ewing. Though no one seems to take him seriously here.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> Another great big man whose production suffered in the playoffs is Ewing. Though no one seems to take him seriously here.


Take him seriously how? I think he was a great player and easily a top-fifty all-time.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Taking away any sort of objective analysis, Ewing was a player I just couldn't stand. Him and Malone were the two players in the 90's I just despised.*

*despised in terms of basketball don't know anything obviously of what they were like in the locker room or in there personal lives


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Take him seriously how? I think he was a great player and easily a top-fifty all-time.


HATER!


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

Underrated : Grant Hill And Charles Barkley 

Overrated : Shaq And Scottie Pippen


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

www.starbury.com said:


> Underrated : Grant Hill And Charles Barkley
> 
> Overrated : Shaq And Scottie Pippen


I honestly don't know what to make of these groupings.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> I honestly don't know what to make of these groupings.


Well, at least he got the Scottie Pippen one right.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Hoopla said:


> Well, at least he got the Scottie Pippen one right.


True.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

screw u guys.



Hoopla said:


> Well, at least he got the Scottie Pippen one right.





PauloCatarino said:


> True.












lol, pwned.


----------



## theflyballa (Aug 8, 2006)

Underrated - Kobe Bryant
Overrated - Michael Jordan, Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, Tracy McGrady, Allen Iverson


----------



## KillWill (Jul 1, 2003)

theflyballa said:


> Underrated - Kobe Bryant
> Overrated - Michael Jordan, Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, Tracy McGrady, Allen Iverson



give it time.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

I'd classify Dave DeBusschere as frequently overrated. Loved his game--his versatility, his toughness--and I'd probably say he belongs in the HoF. But he didn't belong on the Top 50 list. 

Dumars has gotten very overrated in my book. Good defender, decent scorer, versatile, great character, blah blah blah. But I think the Hall should be reserved generally for players who were in the running constantly to be one of the best players of their era, or who were consistently one of the top 3 players at their position throughout much of their careers. I can't say that I ever regarded Dumars as an all-time great during his career. No way should he be in there over English, Dantley, or Westphal.

As for all the Worthy debate...yes, he absolutely benefited from the system and his teammates. So did a lot of other guys in the Hall, but that doesn't mean they don't belong. I tend to consider him mildly overrated (though not much). The scuttlebutt out of the Lakers organization at the time of that draft was that they considered Dominique Wilkins to be a superior talent overall, but that Worthy's game was a better fit for their system and more likely to be willing to defer to Kareem and Magic.


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

jericho said:


> I'd classify *Dave DeBusschere* as frequently overrated. Loved his game--his versatility, his toughness--and I'd probably say he belongs in the HoF. But he didn't belong on the Top 50 list.
> 
> *Dumars* has gotten very overrated in my book. Good defender, decent scorer, versatile, great character, blah blah blah. But I think the Hall should be reserved generally for players who were in the running constantly to be one of the best players of their era, or who were consistently one of the top 3 players at their position throughout much of their careers. I can't say that I ever regarded Dumars as an all-time great during his career. No way should he be in there over English, Dantley, or Westphal.
> 
> As for all the Worthy debate...yes, he absolutely benefited from the system and his teammates. So did a lot of other guys in the Hall, but that doesn't mean they don't belong. I tend to consider him mildly overrated (though not much). The scuttlebutt out of the Lakers organization at the time of that draft was that they considered Dominique Wilkins to be a superior talent overall, but that Worthy's game was a better fit for their system and more likely to be willing to defer to Kareem and Magic.


Agree & agree.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

jericho said:


> Dumars has gotten very overrated in my book. Good defender, decent scorer, versatile, great character, blah blah blah. But I think the Hall should be reserved generally for players who were in the running constantly to be one of the best players of their era, or who were consistently one of the top 3 players at their position throughout much of their careers. . . English, Dantley, or Westphal.


With all due respect, when was Paul Westphal one of the top 3 players at his position for most of his career. He was a very nice player who got some 1st team All-NBA votes in a weak field but only for about 5 years was he even an All-Star. His teammate Walter Davis was better for longer, to say nothing of Kevin Johnson, neither of whom are going to HoF. As for English and Dantley, both were fine scorers . . . . that's it . . . scorers. Neither led their teams very far and I don't think either were ever the best player on their team for any length of time (I am partial to Dan Issel and Fat Lever as the best Nuggets personally). 

Was Dumars a HoF player, probably not. He wasn't the main man on his teams nor was he statistically dominant enough to have his reputation grow that much in hindsight. Would he be an embarassment to the Hall? No, his defense was as good as any two in history with the exception of Sid Moncrief and maybe Jordan and his offense was very solid (unlike a Rodman), I would put him there ahead of KC Jones but behind Frazier, Payton or Moncrief (though Sid's peak may be too short to give him full credit).


----------



## C-Rave (Nov 24, 2006)

The most underatted I would say are Domanique Wilkins and Bernard King.
The most overrated I would say are John Stockton and Bruce Bowen(currently not historically overrated)


----------



## xray (Feb 21, 2005)

I've always felt that Karl Malone was greatly overrated, due to the fact that Stockton must've spoonfed most of his 36,928 points. 

That means that Stockton's 15,806 assists were made much easier - I don't know...:sadbanana:


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> With all due respect, when was Paul Westphal one of the top 3 players at his position for most of his career. He was a very nice player who got some 1st team All-NBA votes in a weak field but only for about 5 years was he even an All-Star. His teammate Walter Davis was better for longer, to say nothing of Kevin Johnson, neither of whom are going to HoF. As for English and Dantley, both were fine scorers . . . . that's it . . . scorers. Neither led their teams very far and I don't think either were ever the best player on their team for any length of time (I am partial to Dan Issel and Fat Lever as the best Nuggets personally).
> 
> Was Dumars a HoF player, probably not. He wasn't the main man on his teams nor was he statistically dominant enough to have his reputation grow that much in hindsight. Would he be an embarassment to the Hall? No, his defense was as good as any two in history with the exception of Sid Moncrief and maybe Jordan and his offense was very solid (unlike a Rodman), I would put him there ahead of KC Jones but behind Frazier, Payton or Moncrief (though Sid's peak may be too short to give him full credit).


Well, I'm not going to go to the mat on Westphal. He was more productive offensively than Dumars, and I'd say well behind him on defense. His assist numbers would've been higher had he not been playing with Alvan Adams. Both Westphal and Dumars were all-stars 6 times, with Westphal garnering first team all-NBA honors 3 times to Dumars' zero. Dumars was on 2 championship teams to Westphal's zero. I think Westphal was moderately better overall, but I'll admit it's pretty subjective.

Dantley and English are more compelling cases to me, though, in terms of getting to the Hall ahead of Dumars. Yes, they were better at one end of the floor than the other, but so was Gervin. So was Bird, for that matter. And so was Bill Russell. Both Dantley and English generally played on mediocre teams that needed them to fill it up. Dantley was remarkably efficient on offense, and as you know got tons of his points as a 6'5" post-up oddity. English was a good rebounder and very good passer--and yes, his numbers were pumped up by the system he played in, but that's true of many players today and throughout history. And English had one of the most beautiful high-release jump shots of all time. (And let's not forget he's already in the Hall...)

No, of course Dumars won't embarrass the Hall. But his inclusion, to my mind, is a bit reminiscent of Steve Nash getting back-to-back MVP awards. Send a signal by recognizing the character guy, the team guy, the guy you want your daughter dating, rather than the guy who happens to be the most deserving. Hopefully Dantley will get his due, after a couple more Dumarses get in.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

C-Rave said:


> The most underatted I would say are Domanique Wilkins and Bernard King.


I would gladly have Larry Nance (not necessarily MOST underrated but certainly a candidate) than either of Wilkins or King. Wilkins and King scored more but Nance was grossly superior defensively (especially to Wilkens, one of the biggest "I'm a scorer, I need to conserve my energy on defense" types of all time), more efficient offensively, a classy team first guy (which neither of the other two were known for), a better rebounder (particularly in Phoenix when playing SF so he can be compared directly), an excellent shotblocker, and still a consistent 20 point scorer. Add to that consistency (Wilkens was consistent, King was always either injured or playing out his contract, not a guy you could count on) and Nance still had the ability to bring the spectacular play either with a blocked shot or an insane dunk (he won the first NBA slam dunk contest . . . over Nique among others) and you have a guy that anyone able to look past pure volume scoring would prefer.:worthy: 

Larry Nance . . . more legit candidate for most underrated in NBA history over two guys who were overrated, not underrated.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> I would gladly have Larry Nance (not necessarily MOST underrated but certainly a candidate) than either of Wilkins or King. Wilkins and King scored more but Nance was grossly superior defensively (especially to Wilkens, one of the biggest "I'm a scorer, I need to conserve my energy on defense" types of all time), more efficient offensively, a classy team first guy (which neither of the other two were known for), a better rebounder (particularly in Phoenix when playing SF so he can be compared directly), an excellent shotblocker, and still a consistent 20 point scorer. Add to that consistency (Wilkens was consistent, King was always either injured or playing out his contract, not a guy you could count on) and Nance still had the ability to bring the spectacular play either with a blocked shot or an insane dunk (he won the first NBA slam dunk contest . . . over Nique among others) and you have a guy that anyone able to look past pure volume scoring would prefer.:worthy:
> 
> Larry Nance . . . more legit candidate for most underrated in NBA history over two guys who were overrated, not underrated.


I don't care much about Bernard King, for his career in undoubtedly NOT HOF-worthy (although his peak years were astounding)...

I loved Larry Nance, but there is no way he can be compared to Dominique. Dominique terrorized defenders for over a decade. He was a Franchise player, who carried the team to almost-contention (if i remember correctly, the Price-Nance-Brad Cavs never made it to the ECF) with sub-par players (that is, while comparing the roster to the Pistons', Celtics' and Bulls').

Nance was a great complementary player. Dominique was much. much more than that.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> I don't care much about Bernard King, for his career in undoubtedly NOT HOF-worthy (although his peak years were astounding)...
> 
> I loved Larry Nance, but there is no way he can be compared to Dominique. Dominique terrorized defenders for over a decade. He was a Franchise player, who carried the team to almost-contention (if i remember correctly, the Price-Nance-Brad Cavs never made it to the ECF) with sub-par players (that is, while comparing the roster to the Pistons', Celtics' and Bulls').
> 
> Nance was a great complementary player. Dominique was much. much more than that.


I'm pretty sure Nance was on the Cavs team that made it to the 92 ECF against Chicago.

Nique is perhaps under-rated with respect to some of today's great high-scoring wing players in that everyone assumes if a player is averaging more apg than Nique (e.g. VC), then he must be far and away the better player.

I never really thought about Nance as underrated however...more like overlooked?


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Bernard King was scary before his first knee injury. Everytime he touched the ball I thought he was going to score (It must have made a real impression on me as I was real young back then)


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Underrated: Michael Jordan

Overrated: Michael Jordan


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

bernard king was one of the great offensive threats *of all-time* at his peak. he was a dominant force. nance wasn't even comparable in impact.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Over his prime, Nance would get you around 20 points, 8 rebounds, 2 blocked shots, very good defense, very good team guy; Wilkens and King would get you 28 points (i'm being generous), 5 rebounds, weak defense, frequently selfish play . . . and King is either injured or looking to go free agent on you roughly half the time. 

Wilkens is the type of player that I rate much lower than more guys since I don't have much use for poor defense, low shooting percentage, high volume scorers but at least he had a long relatively injury free peak and didn't complain or leave town. I'd take Nance first, Wilkens second, King a distant third . . . oh, and Nance took his Phoenix and Cleveland teams to a better average record than Wilkens took his Atlanta teams.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

kflo said:


> bernard king was one of the great offensive threats *of all-time* at his peak. he was a dominant force. nance wasn't even comparable in impact.


Nope. I loved Bernard, but that just ain't so.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> Over his prime, Nance would get you around 20 points, 8 rebounds, 2 blocked shots, very good defense, very good team guy; Wilkens and King would get you 28 points (i'm being generous), 5 rebounds, weak defense, frequently selfish play . . . and King is either injured or looking to go free agent on you roughly half the time.
> 
> Wilkens is the type of player that I rate much lower than more guys since I don't have much use for poor defense, low shooting percentage, high volume scorers but at least he had a long relatively injury free peak and didn't complain or leave town. I'd take Nance first, Wilkens second, King a distant third . . . oh, and Nance took his Phoenix and Cleveland teams to a better average record than Wilkens took his Atlanta teams.


and bernard king came in 2nd in mvp voting in his prime. nance was the 3rd best player on the cavs teams. king was a high volume, high efficiency scorer, who could score inside or out. there really wasn't an effective way of guarding him other than doubling. and even then he could turn and shoot the turnaround away from the defense. yes, we all know king suffered a devastating knee injury in his prime - there's no argument for longevity for him. at his peak he was simply at a different level from nance. nance had an offensive game that suffered in the half court, or against good defense. he was limited.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Nope. I loved Bernard, but that just ain't so.


i'm afraid it is, paulo.


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Nope. I loved Bernard, but that just ain't so.


King was certainly a top 10-12 all-time offensive player at his peak. Really, who else is there? Jordan, Wilt, West, Baylor, Gervin, Kobe, Iverson, 'Nique, Dantley, KAJ, Shaq, and...who exactly? You can make a case for guys like Bird (though he never got up as high as King in terms of ppg he still dropped high 20's with great efficiency) and Tmac (though his peak scoring years didn't last long enough), but that's about it really. Saying that prime King was one of the greatest offensive forces of all time is not incorrect.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

King was a better scorer than Nique at his very limited peak. Equal volume, greater efficiency. King's problems were (a) injuries limited his peak . . . you had to pay him a great deal of money limiting your cap then he would miss long stretches of time and (b) attitude . . . King was not a team guy, he used to talk of himself as a gunslinger for hire, have contract will shoot. Add defense to that (where again, he was better than Nique at his peak) and yeah, I'd take a lot of guys who had much lower peaks before I'd take Bernard King.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Oh, and as for calling King a top 10 scorer of all time, he had one season of 32 ppg and another of 28. Other players who had a season scoring better than King's second best season . . . Baylor (several), Barry, McGrady, Jack Twyman, Erving, LeBron James, Nique, Dantley, Bird, Havlicek, Gervin, Aquirre (5 year peak of 25 plus and more efficient than King), John Brisker, George Yardley. 

Brisker was a fluke, but all the others are in King's class (Baylor and Barry clearly superior) as a scorer and probably had 5 year peaks similar to that King put together. and that doesn't even include players at other positions who can switch to SF (Kobe, Drexler, Richmond, Barkley, Pettit, etc. etc. etc.)


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

where are you getting this "had to pay him a great deal of money" and attitude stuff from? he had, as far as i know, 1 contract issue with the warriors, and he had substance abuse problems early in his career and then developed into a leader in his prime. he was far from this team "cancer" type player you're describing.

gervin, dantley and bird are the only ones on that list to have efficiency comparable to king while being bulk scorers. brisker and erving were aba, yardley was the 50s, twyman 1960. again, we're talking a handful of modern day players who were comparable scoring forces - complete packages scoring-wise. and the downside you're discussing, with the exception of injury, just wasn't the prime bernard king. he was beloved. in no way was he thought of as not a team guy. 

his per40 scoring lifetime is 26.7. ts% over 60% 3 times in his prime. his teams got materially better with him, materially worse without him. 

the question is how good bernard king was, all things considered, at his peak. at his peak, he was beloved by teammates and fans, he was a consumate professional, and a dominant player.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

> I'm pretty sure Nance was on the Cavs team that made it to the 92 ECF against Chicago.


Nance was the third best player on that team after Price and Daugherty. And his backup was almost as valuable as him (Hot Rod Williams). Good player who was an important part fo the Cavs but never close to the top guy


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Bernard in 1985 scored about as effectively as anyone in NBA history. Only other player who scored more efficiently was Michael Jordan in 1987. Kobe was about the same last year. This is strictly in terms of scoring output, efficiency, and relative to teams output.

Gives you an idea of how great of a scorer Bernard was in his limited prime. About as good of a scorer the NBA has ever seen for a specific season.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Two things . . . first, Nance was still putting up 18/8 on 55% from the field even as a third option and playing great defense . . . and he was better in Phoenix. 

Second, I got that from when Bernard came to the Bullets from comments he said and his second contract negotiation. I enjoyed watching him a great deal, he was terrific, but never got the impression that he had any loyalty to the Bullets and their organization. I may have been spoiled by stars like Wes Unseld and Phil Chenier growing up who both gave the impression that they were Bullets to the core, but I do remember the gunslinger comment and Bernard's post game interviews being more about how he did than whether the team won a few times.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Jordan23Forever said:


> *King was certainly a top 10-12 all-time offensive player at his peak. *Really, who else is there? Jordan, Wilt, West, Baylor, Gervin, Kobe, Iverson, 'Nique, Dantley, KAJ, Shaq, and...who exactly? You can make a case for guys like Bird (though he never got up as high as King in terms of ppg he still dropped high 20's with great efficiency) and Tmac (though his peak scoring years didn't last long enough), but that's about it really. Saying that prime King was one of the greatest offensive forces of all time is not incorrect.


His peak was very limited.

And he played for losing teams.

So, not much to begin with...


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

golden state won 45 games with him in '82, 30 without him in '83. knicks won 33 without him in '82, 44 with him in '83, and 47 in '84, taking the celts 7 games in the 2nd round after a historic 1st round performance. the '85 knicks, as motley a collection of players you'll ever see, lost their last 12 games after king went down, and most of the the other 15 games he missed that year (they also won 23 and 24 games the following 2 years with the addition of ewing without king).

but yes, his peak was limited.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

His peak being limited isn't _terribly_ important, few were better than King at his best. If being at your peak for a huge stretch of years was vital criterion for greatness, Karl Malone and John Stockton would be top 5 HOF'ers. Neither cracks my all time top 10.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

How is Nance that much different then Shawn Marion? They are rated as they should be good players who didn't need the ball to be effective who could rebound and defend. Guys who will be at best the second best player on championship clubs


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

EHL said:


> His peak being limited isn't _terribly_ important, few were better than King at his best. *If being at your peak for a huge stretch of years was vital criterion for greatness,*


*

It is.

*


> Karl Malone [/B] and John Stockton would be top 5 HOF'ers. Neither cracks my all time top 10.


Karl cracks my all-time top-10. Or maybe he is #11 or #12. Stockton's peak years were nothing to gloat about while discussing great point guards.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

I love Shawn Marion . . . if he keeps it up consistently for 10 years plus, I'd support him for HOF . . . and already I'd say I'd take him over King just assuming he won't suck for the rest of his career.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Shawn Marion is not a HOF


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Well, Nash is two times MVP, so you never know!


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> I love Shawn Marion . . . if he keeps it up consistently for 10 years plus, I'd support him for HOF . . . and already I'd say I'd take him over King just assuming he won't suck for the rest of his career.


but again, i think you're holding a bunch of things against king that i don't think are really applicable to the discussion (at least in the context of peak play). and of course, we have king's pre-peak where he was still a terrific player.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

JPSeraph said:


> Well, Nash is two times MVP, so you never know!


Even if Nash didn't win both MVP's he would have to be considered for the HOF as he's been the top PG in the league two years running. Marion hasn't wiffed being the top SF in the league.

The HOF should be about the very best and not the Hall of the very good as Minstrel would put it


----------



## BBowen (Apr 6, 2006)

Fat Lever is one of the most underrated players, he averaged neraly triple-doubles in some seasons


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

*TAKE OUT: K.C. Jones PUT IN: Adrian Dantley*



neoxsupreme said:


> Who would you take out of the HOF? Any players you think were overrated & didn't really deserve HOF inductment. Perhaps they didn't meet the criteria & did not accomplish enough in your opinion.
> 
> Who would you put in the HOF? Any retired greats that were maybe overlooked & deserved to be there in your opinion.


I definitely would take *K.C. Jones* out of the Basketball Hall of Fame. The typical hall of famer was either an unquestioned dominant force in the NBA and/or college level or an All-Star-caliber player who was a major contributor to elite teams. In Jones' case, he was spare part on the 1960s Celtics teams who did nothing unique in NBA history to distinguish himself from similar players (Michael Cooper, Dennis Rodman, Bobby Jones) who have no shot for induction.

As for an induction, give it *Adrian Dantley.* In addition to being one of the most productive scorers in NBA history, he was very unique in that he was a 6-foot-5 post-up small forward who dropped 30 points per game for several seasons. Factor in his great collegiate career at Notre Dame, and it's a travesty why he hasn't been inducted years ago.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

*Larry Nance vs. James Worthy*

I've read the debate going on between James Worthy and Larry Nance and if anything it speaks volumes how certain players are defined hall of famers more because of the roles they played on an elite team.

Worthy was an All-Star-caliber player who played on the 1980s Showtime Lakers. The fact that he was able to produce at that level while on teams that featured like Magic Johnson and a still-potent Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (until 1987-88) should be taken into account. Worthy is not alone in that distinction (see Robert Parish and Scottie Pippen as other examples), and understandably is not considered one of the best players ever. 

However, it's fair to say Worthy very likely would have been an All-Star-caliber player no matter where he played. I watched both Worthy and Nance play in college and in the NBA, and I would say they were even as players. Nance was the better defender and rebounder, Worthy the better scorer and the more emerging on-the-court personality. 

Worthy was not some fraud by any means, and in fact the reason why he was chosen by the Lakers with the No. 1 overall pick in 1982 was because he showed in college he could perform at a high level with other dominant teammates while not become deferential to the point of being passive (see Lamar Odom). Worthy was the main player at the University of North Carolina for teams that had emerging stars like Al Wood, Sam Perkins and Michael Jordan and played in harmony with them while asserting himself. I feel that aspect of Worthy is being underestimated here. 

Nance likely would have been just as effective being in a Lakers uniform as he was in a Suns and later Cavaliers uniform, but he seemed too willing to be deferential to other players (see Walter Davis in Phoenix, Brad Daugherty and Mark Price in Cleveland) -- and considering that Nance took a back seat to the rather quiet personalities of Daugherty and Price, you wonder how he would have responded to more dominant personalities like Magic's and Kareem's.

I don't look at Worthy's induction as a hall of famer as something insincere and Nance getting shafted for not having Magic and Kareem as teammates. I look at it as two equal players with one (Worthy) making the most of the rarest of situations. An all-star on elite teams likely will be more remembered than an all-star on simply good teams.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Good post Najee and I agree; I think they were similar players and in terms of individual talent, Nance probably was better than worthy. but . . . Worthy was a similar player on a great team and winning is what it is all about so that elevates a player's value too (not enough by itself . . . Robert horry . . . but compared to players of similar value). 

In college however, Worthy impressed me a lot more than Nance, I was quite surprised at how terrific a player Nance became in the pros where his open court skills came into play.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

*James Worthy's first step*



Minstrel said:


> I think you're overrating his first step a bit. He was quick for a 6'9'' power forward, but he wasn't a _great_ slasher nor did he have a refined post-game. He was a good offensive option, because he could get separation, he could back smaller players down a bit and he could hit open jumpers...he wasn't top-notch at anything, though.


Save that James Worthy wasn't a power forward; he played small forward during his NBA career. 

Worthy's 6-foot-9 frame made him a tough matchup for most small forwards in the 1980s and early 1990s because of his size advantage, and he had an incredibly quick first step on the baseline (probably the quickest I've ever seen). Worthy also was an excellent transition player, and both that and his first step is a reason why he has such a gaudy career field-goal percentage.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

*James Worthy in the playoffs*



Minstrel said:


> Okay. So why didn't Worthy play like that all the time? No matter what his role, the improved efficiency would always be valuable, so I don't think "He was given a bigger role in the playoffs" would work as an explanation. He didn't just shoot more...he shot BETTER. There's no rational reason I can see that he'd legitimately shoot better in the playoffs, against better opponents, but not in the regular season.


It's not that James Worthy shot poorly in the regular season, either (.521 for his career); it's the fact that Worthy was actually BETTER in the postseason (.544 for his career) when most people's numbers tend to trend down than he was in the regular season (where he generally performed at an all-star-caliber level) is a testament of how he was an outstanding player.

In the postseason, the style of play becomes more halfcourt-oriented. Obviously, that meant the Lakers looked to Worthy more in given set possessions than in the regular season. I guess the question is would you rather have someone who stepped up in the postseason or someone who stepped down and/or choked when it mattered (see Scottie Pippen).


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Overrated: Bill Russell, Bill Walton

Underrated: Gary Payton, Walt Bellamy, Artis Gilmore, Dikembe Mutombo


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

*Bernard King, Larry Nance and Dominique Wilkins*



BadBaronRudigor said:


> I'd take Nance first, Wilkens second, King a distant third . . . oh, and Nance took his Phoenix and Cleveland teams to a better average record than Wilkens took his Atlanta teams.


Nothing personal, but when has Larry Nance ever been the hands-down best player/leader of a team? He generally deferred to Walter Davis and Maurice Lucas in Phoenix and did the same with Brad Daugherty and Mark Price in Cleveland.

Conversely, Dominique Wilkins was a dominant player for more than a decade for Atlanta, and generally was among the league leaders not only in scoring but statistically (namely, his PER). 'Nique generally ranked only behind Larry Bird as the top small forward in the late 1980s and during Bird's decline in the early 1990s he was the best small forward. As far as scoring was concerned, only Michael Jordan was better than him in the mid-1980s through early 1990s.

And as for Bernard King, he was one of the league's best players in 1984-85 and before his devastating knee injury in 1985-86 was arguably the best in the game. Nothing against Nance, but he's never been in the running for arguably THE best player in the NBA. 

I don't know if the Nance teams in Phoenix and Cleveland were better than 'Nique's mid-1980s Atlanta teams, but I would say that Nance had better teammates than what Wilkins had. 'Nique's best teammates during his run were Doc Rivers and Kevin Willis, while in Cleveland Nance deferred to Daugherty, Price and for a short time Ron Harper.

If you have a good team established and you need a solid No. 3 man, then Nance is your guy. But in a vacuum and judging players individually, Nance ranks behind 'Nique and King.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

On the other hand, when did Nique ever do anything at an above average level other than volume scoring and dunking whereas Nance was an excellent defender, scored at an extremely efficient clip, and is one of the top 10 all-time shotblockers (the top non-post player), plus he outdunked Wilkens at the first slam dunk competition, lol. Inefficient volume scorers are always overrated and Wilkens more than most for his flair and nickname. 

King was at least an effective scorer, just one with injury and selfishness issues . . . you could count on Nance to be there, you couldn't count on King.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> On the other hand, when did Nique ever do anything at an above average level other than volume scoring and dunking.


Dominique Wilkins was an exceptional rebounder for a small forward, averaging 6.8 boards per game for his career.



BadBaronRudigor said:


> ... whereas Nance was an excellent defender, scored at an extremely efficient clip, and is one of the top 10 all-time shotblockers (the top non-post player), plus he outdunked Wilkens at the first slam dunk competition, lol.


You also forget that Larry Nance also was not a player around whom a team could be built. He was excellent as a No. 3 option, but he was a player who willingly took a back seat to players such as Brad Daugherty, Mark Price and Walter Davis. 

I guess it's a matter of would you rather a Carmelo Anthony-caliber player who wants to be the man or would you rather have a Rashard Lewis-caliber player who excels as your third-best player. The reason why 'Nique is more remembered than Nance is because there are fewer players in NBA history who could do what he did, while Nance's good skills are more replaceable plus his back-seat demeanor may have cost him in the legacy category.


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

Man, I had planned to come in here and blindly post my underrated candidate...Larry Nance, but I see a debate has already spawned on him!


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

*Close the thread, please*

Looking at the originator's initial post, I thought the context was "an underrated player who should be in the Basketball Hall of Fame" vs. "a player who shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame." I would say Adrian Dantley meets the former and K.C. Jones the latter.

As long as A.D. is mysteriously being shut out despite having or exceeding the accomplishments of most of his peers, I can't think of a more deserving player. As for those inducted, I can't see anyone making a legitimate argument for keeping Jones.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

*James Worthy vs. Larry Nance*



BadBaronRudigor said:


> Good post Najee and I agree; I think they were similar players and in terms of individual talent, Nance probably was better than worthy. but . . . Worthy was a similar player on a great team and winning is what it is all about so that elevates a player's value too (not enough by itself . . . Robert horry . . . but compared to players of similar value).


"Relative value" is the operative term here. Both Larry Nance and James Worthy are the same caliber of player. However, Worthy had Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as teammates while Nance played with good combos (Walter Davis and Maurice Lucas in Phoenix, then Brad Daugherty and Mark Price in Cleveland) who were not quite as dominant.

Because of that, Nance would have to carry more of a load if Phoenix and Cleveland wanted to aspire to the Lakers' level -- he simply couldn't be "as good as Worthy" in that context, because his best teammates were not as good as Worthy's best teammates.

Also, it doesn't mean Worthy carried less of a burden -- just that he had better help than Nance did. If Worthy was a lesser player (say, a Byron Scott or an A.C. Green) then this argument would have more weight in Nance's favor. But Worthy was equally as good as Nance, so the fame and accolades are more tipped in his favor because all other things being equal Worthy played just as well with better teammates and thus enjoyed better team results.

For the context of this thread, that doesn't make Worthy a questionable choice as a hall of famer -- nor does it make Nance a more suitable choice as a hall of famer. In fact, this argument can be used to explain the difference between Joe Dumars vs. Sidney Moncrief, Scottie Pippen vs. Shawn Marion, etc. -- players of similar value who are separated by the weight their teammates pulled and overall team accomplishments.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

*Two classes of hall of famers*

IMO, for the context of this conversation there are generally two distinct types of hall of famers:

* dominant players who played at a high level for an extended period.

* all-star-caliber players who need some context of team success (good or bad, but mostly good) to define them.

Players such as Michael Jordan, Larry Bird and Wilt Chamberlain are such unstoppable forces that it is impossible to deny their standing. Even if their teams did not win championships -- ironically, the reason why their teams won was because in no small part they were that dominant -- they would be considered hall of famers, if not among the very best ever (see Elgin Baylor, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone).

Players such as Robert Parish, James Worthy, Joe Dumars and Scottie Pippen were distinguished, all-star-caliber players but their level of play wasn't that unique that they would be considered hall of famers solely on individual play. In their cases, their contributions to their teams' success become the tipping point between them and, say, Artis Gilmore, Larry Nance, Sidney Moncrief and Shawn Marion, respectively.

The second group of players can become overvalued when they are being compared to the first group (for instance, when people in the mid-1990s tried to put Pippen on the same level with the likes of Barkley and Malone). Pippen can be considered a hall of famer for his role on those 1990s Chicago Bulls teams and his level of service, but to start listing him among the very best players ever is too much of a reach because he wouldn't have been in his position if it wasn't for the fact that Jordan was his teammate.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

The most deserving guy not in the HOF isn't Dantley, it is clearly Artis Gilmore. Dantley is one of those guys like a Mark Aquirre (only with even less team success) that was a great scorer but did little else and who people had issues with. Maybe he belongs, but some of this equivalent peers are in (English) and some aren't (Aguirre) . . . Gilmore was clearly superior to several players in the hall (Bellamy, Lanier, Cowens) and by far the most egregious ommission. For that matter, I'd vote for Mel Daniels over Dantley . . . are there any MVPs who aren't in Hall other than other screwed over ABA stars like Spencer Haywood . . . I know for sure there aren't any TWO TIME MVP players who didn't make it.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> The most deserving guy not in the HOF isn't Dantley, it is clearly Artis Gilmore. Dantley is one of those guys like a Mark Aquirre (only with even less team success) that was a great scorer but did little else and who people had issues with.


Adrian Dantley was more than just a scorer -- he was one of the most prolific and efficient scorers in NBA history. He was better than Mark Aguirre over a longer period of time and Aguirre never was as dominant of an offensive player as A.D. was. Dantley averaged 24.3 points per game over a 15-year career; that's more than "just another scorer."

Once Aguirre went to Detroit, he went from an All-Star-caliber player to a marginal one and even before being traded he was starting to show tread on the proverbial tires. Conversely, when A.D. was in Detroit he was a more productive, effective player than Aguirre with the same cast.

It was Dantley who was the key acquisition that made Detroit from a fastbreaking team that couldn't defend to the evolution of "The Bad Boys." Dantley's diligent approach to games served as a role model for Joe Dumars, Dennis Rodman and John Salley (who all said they wanted to give their 1989 rings to A.D. for helping them develop).

Aguirre may have had more team success with Dallas, but he also played with much better talent than what A.D. had in Utah in the early 1980s. On top of that, Dantley's scoring, free-throw attempts and makes and shooting percentage are astounding once you consider this was a 6-foot-5 post-up small forward. 



BadBaronRudigor said:


> . . . Gilmore was clearly superior to several players in the hall (Bellamy, Lanier, Cowens) and by far the most egregious ommission.


Yeah, once you factor in Artis Gilmore's ABA career but it's little hard to make the argument that on his NBA days solely that he was better than Walt Bellamy and Dave Cowens, particularly.

You talk about Dantley's outspoken and pointed comments, but Gilmore was the opposite: the dispassionate big man who played with no assertive disposition. It's also ironic you're trying to dog Dantley for playing on essentially an expansion team in his first Utah squads, but Gilmore also played on some marginal Chicago teams (despite better talent). By being a center with his skills, Gilmore should have made more of an impact but he simply was too solemn-faced and passive at times.

The difference with Dantley vs. Gilmore is this: A couple of Dantley's contemporaries (namely, Alex English) are in the Hall of Fame for doing at best the same job that Dantley did with the same team success context. In English's case, the one thing for which he is known (scoring) is something Dantley performed at a higher level. 

Not only that, A.D. has the highest career scoring average and career points total of any player in NBA history who is eligible for induction who has yet to get in. There really is no argument that can be made for Dantley not being inducted, especially if you also look at his collegiate career (the same applies to Gilmore). 

I also agree that Gilmore should be in the Basketball Hall of Fame, but only in concert with his ABA career should he get in ... and _after_ Dantley.


----------

