Is Aldridge better than Sheed?

[magnifier661]

I actually think Aldridge is a better player. Not from numbers, but he isn't afraid to be a #1 option. This was something Sheed never embraced. In terms of talent I think Sheed was a better talent. But talent only gets you so far.

 

[Further]

Too soon to answer this. At this moment, LA vs Sheed at his peak, it's Sheed. But LA is still young and continues to improve and I think will have a much longer peak than sheed. This poll is a decade too soon.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

2010-2011 LaMarcus versus 1999-2000 Sheed is not as much of a contest as I thought it would be on stats:

http://bkref.com/tiny/SIsvN

This made me vote LaMarcus, though in my heart I knew it already: Beast Mode LMA is the Promise of Sheed that he never fulfilled himself.

 

[andalusian]

LMA. Both have all the talent in the world. Sheed never had the head for it - and for a long time I was afraid LMA did not have the heart. Now that he has the heart - he has the heart, the head and the talent. 3/3 > 2/3 every day of the week.

 

[Harry's Raincoat]

I'd say that talent level is about equal with Sheed getting the slight nod, but Aldridge does all the other things that make him the overall better player. He's a good teammate, he accepts responsibility of being a highly paid player, he isn't a trouble seeker, he's marketable, etc. etc.

 

[mook]

I'm a big Sheed fan, but I'm kind of puzzled when people say he was more talented than LA. I certainly don't think that's true on the offensive end. Everything Sheed could do, Aldridge can do. Well, Sheed could hit more three pointers, but he'd also take too many of them so it was a mixed blessing. Aldridge, however, has a much better handle and is a better offensive rebounder than Sheed was. He's also much better at forcing contact.

Sheed was the better defensive player, though. Definitely the better low post defender.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't think Sheed was more talented than Aldridge. This harkens back to "Sheed was as talented as Duncan and KG." He wasn't, not remotely. Sheed was a great athlete and an excellent basketball player, but he didn't have all-time great talent. I think he and Aldridge are pretty comparably talented...I'd lean toward Aldridge on offense and to Wallace on defense. If Aldridge had Wallace's defensive ability, he might be a top-ten player in the league.

Happily, though, Aldridge is at least solid on defense. It's not a weakness.

 

[Natebishop3]

I think Sheed was a better defender in his prime, but Aldridge could get there. I'd take Aldridge over sheed every day of the week and twice on sunday.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Actually, comparing peak-to-peak, Aldridge's production this season is higher that Sheed's ever was.

Aldridge 2010-2011 Age 25:
22.4PPG, 8.7 RPG, 21.6 PER

Sheed 2001-2002 Age 27:
19.3 PPG, 8.2 RPG, 20.9 PER

A couple things of note: Aldridge started the year horribly. His averages for the first month and a half were much lower (he had a PER around 16 through mid-December). What he has done for the past 3 months is way better than anything Sheed ever did for such an extended period. Aldridge has been carrying this team on his back for 3 months and dominating his opponents. Sheed could, and did, dominate his opponents and carry the team for a game or two, but then would disappear for the next week. Also, Aldridge is only 25. He may not yet be at his peak. He could still show additional improvement over the next two or three seasons, which would put his peak performance far ahead of Sheed's.

However, Sheed has a ring and has gone deep in the play-offs many times. He also had a very long, productive career. Aldridge needs to have similar play-off success and continue to produce for many more years before we can declare him the better player.

So, right now, I'd take peak Aldridge over peak Sheed, but I'd take career Sheed over career Aldridge.

BNM

 

[oldmangrouch]

In terms of talent, I would call them equal. In terms of skills, thats more complicated.

Neither were/are great rebounders. Wallace was the better defender. Up until this season, both seemed allergic to the low block, and were satisfied with being the 2nd banna on offense. LMA's current level of offensive production more than off-sets Sheed's 3 point shooting - but he needs to prove he can sustain this level.

 

[magnifier661]

Hey Boob just remember that Sheed had about 4 first round exits in Portland before 1998-03. If Aldridge and the Blazers can make it past the first round, we are headed in the right direction. I hope we can at least get a damn ring with Aldridge, Roy and Oden on the same team. I think all of us thought this was going to happen. With our luck it now just seems like a dream. Let's make our dream a reality man!

 

[Natebishop3]

Sheed has so much talent and potential... he just never lived up to it. Aldridge seems to be on a much better path.

 

[RoyToy]

All things considered they're pretty equal but ultimately I'd take Aldridge because he has a better head on his shoulders and you can count on him to keep working and getting better and that's why he's at where he is now. I don't think Wallace had that kind of drive.

Wallace had the talent to average better numbers but he simply didn't have that kind of mindset and that's why he was a perfect fit for the Pistons. Billups was the leader, Rip was the leading scorer and Ben Wallace was the backbone of the defense. Wallace fit in perfectly there and that's all he ever wanted.

Basically what I'm saying is I think you can build a team around Aldridge because he wants it while Wallace didn't.

 

[Natebishop3]

Sheed was one of the laziest players of all time.

 

[Run BJM]

I don't think Sheed was more talented than Aldridge. This harkens back to "Sheed was as talented as Duncan and KG." He wasn't, not remotely. Sheed was a great athlete and an excellent basketball player, but he didn't have all-time great talent. I think he and Aldridge are pretty comparably talented...I'd lean toward Aldridge on offense and to Wallace on defense. If Aldridge had Wallace's defensive ability, he might be a top-ten player in the league.

Happily, though, Aldridge is at least solid on defense. It's not a weakness.

He had the ability to be dominant like those guys though. The difference is those guys had the dominant mindset 100% of the time, Sheed just had it in waves. At times he could dominate both sides of the ball like both of those guys (probably had better scoring skills than KG in fact but he loved floating on the perimeter). He just coasted along most of the time though. When he wanted it I think his killer instinct and general dominance was much better than Aldridge. IMO if he brought it 100% of the time he would have been better than KG overall but not Duncan.

Nice to see Aldridge progress mentally and really become an inside scorer. I think it'll be hard for him to ever be a great defensive player if he has to drop 26+ points a game for the Blazers to win. But if you get some other great supporting players to help carry the load will it take away from his offense and thus the team's overall offensive efficiency? Something Popovic and Duncan really excelled at was balancing the team offense as well as utilizing Duncan's talent as much as possible. Like I've said before, Duncan could have put up 30 ppg for his career if he wanted but the Spurs wouldn't have won as many rings. Right now the Blazers need Aldridge to score but eventually they'll need some Ginobili's and Parker's. The thing I worry about with Roy, even if he gets back to what he used to be, is whether Aldridge will defer to him as the alpha guy on the team. Duncan's the man in SA even if Parker and Ginobili get more shots, everyone knows their role.

 

[Rodolfo]

First thing that comes to mind is his attitude. 100x better than sheed's. That goes a loooooooong way in this leauge.

 

[Minstrel]

He had the ability to be dominant like those guys though. The difference is those guys had the dominant mindset 100% of the time, Sheed just had it in waves. At times he could dominate both sides of the ball like both of those guys (probably had better scoring skills than KG in fact but he loved floating on the perimeter). He just coasted along most of the time though. When he wanted it I think his killer instinct and general dominance was much better than Aldridge. IMO if he brought it 100% of the time he would have been better than KG overall but not Duncan.

KG is one of the ten best big men in history, IMO. There's no way Wallace had that kind of talent. Lots of players have the ability to be dominant once in a while...that doesn't mean they could do it all the time if they had a different mindset. As I said in another post (not about Wallace), guys like Carmelo Anthony and Joe Johnson are capable of having Kobe Bryant-like nights. The reason they don't have nights like that every night is not because they don't play hard or lack the right mindset...it's because they're not as talented as Kobe. It takes Kobe Bryant talent to be as good as Kobe Bryant every night. Lesser talents can hit that level occasionally, but not on average.

Wallace was talented enough to play with Garnett or Duncan on any given night, but he wasn't as talented as they were, so he couldn't sustain that level night to night. Physical tools are not the same as talent (and even his physical tools were overrated if people think he was as good an athlete as Garnett, who was an absolute freak). He didn't have a dominant, first-option mentality because he didn't have dominant talent. He was very good, not great, talent-wise.

And I'm a Rasheed Wallace fan. I loved watching him play. He simply gets overrated in terms of talent because people assume that if you have great physical tools, only hard work is necessary to be a great player. I think that's completely wrong. Skill and instinct matter too. Wallace was more of an Antonio McDyess level talent...both had great athleticism, neither had all-time great talent. And both turned out to be excellent NBA players.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Sub-question: let's pretend this half of the season that LMA has been beasting is above where he'll eventually land. Obviously, he's made a change in his game and is benefiting from it. But let's also say he doesn't keep it up quite as much next season. Where would you like him to be, given what he's shown you?

For me, 23pts/9reb/1blk is a fantastic line that I'd be happy to hang my hat on for next year. I think he can make that happen, too. It is in most every way better than his earlier career averages.

 

[tlongII]

Not yet. I think he will be though.

 

[andalusian]

Wallace was talented enough to play with Garnett or Duncan on any given night, but he wasn't as talented as they were, so he couldn't sustain that level night to night. Physical tools are not the same as talent (and even his physical tools were overrated if people think he was as good an athlete as Garnett, who was an absolute freak). He didn't have a dominant, first-option mentality because he didn't have dominant talent. He was very good, not great, talent-wise.

I am not buying this. Being able to play with Garnett or Duncan on any given night means he had the skill and that talent. What he did not have is the desire and/or work ethic. If he could not play with them on any given night means he did not have the talent. Sheed had the body, length, strength, accuracy, speed and even a comparable skill set to KG and Duncan (some things he was better at, some not as good at) - the talent was there. Unless we now define the desire/will/discipline to use these gifts night-in, night-out as talent - what you say just makes no sense.

Ben Wallace never had the size, speed, agility and low-post skills of Sheed - but he worked his ass-off and had a comparable career, very good, not all-time great. Sheed had the talent and did not maximize it.

 

[Minstrel]

I am not buying this. Being able to play with Garnett or Duncan on any given night means he had the skill and that talent.

No, it doesn't. Joe Johnson can play with Kobe Bryant on any given night. That doesn't mean he has that skill and talent. Basketball performance is subject to variance. Joe Johnson's very best can approximate Kobe's average. Joe Johnson's average is nowhere near Kobe's. In my opinion, the same was true of Wallace, with regards to Garnett and Duncan. His very best could approximate their average. His average was significantly lower, because he had less skill and talent.

Ultimately, we can claim anyone's talent was at any level. Darius Miles could have been better than Michael Jordan if he tried harder. He was super talented. Lamar Odom could have been Magic Johnson if he tried harder. I find these to be fairly silly, just as I find it silly to claim Wallace was as talented as all-time greats. Could any of these players maybe have squeezed out a little more with more effort? Maybe, maybe not. The idea that it could have bridged the chasm between the results in the real world is pretty unlikely, IMO.

 

[blazerboy30]

No, it doesn't. Joe Johnson can play with Kobe Bryant on any given night. That doesn't mean he has that skill and talent. Basketball performance is subject to variance. Joe Johnson's very best can approximate Kobe's average. Joe Johnson's average is nowhere near Kobe's. In my opinion, the same was true of Wallace, with regards to Garnett and Duncan. His very best could approximate their average. His average was significantly lower, because he had less skill and talent.

You're talking about variance and average in terms of production, not talent or skill. Although, you're still wrong that Johnson's "very best" approximates Kobe's average. That just isn't true.

I still see your point: You have to move more sigmas out on Johnson's distribution than you do on Kobe's to get their production to line up.

However, that is still comparing production, and not actually separating talent and skill from mindset and hard work. I would guess that most people agree that Kobe has more of a killer and competitive mindset than Johnson. How much of that is responsible for the shift in basketball production distributions? I don't know, but it has something to do with it, IMO.

 

[Minstrel]

You're talking about variance and average in terms of production, not talent or skill. Although, you're still wrong that Johnson's "very best" approximates Kobe's average. That just isn't true.

It wasn't meant to be exact...I haven't looked up Joe Johnson's best games. And what I'm saying is that variance in production can allow a lesser player to produce as much as a better player in any given game, even if the talent/skill is not equivalent. Not that talent/skill is subject to variance.

That's what I meant by Wallace being able to "play with" Garnett and Duncan on any given night. That he could occasionally produce like them, when he was on. I don't believe that he had the talent to produce like that on average if he had only worked harder.

 

[Rhal]

No, it doesn't. Joe Johnson can play with Kobe Bryant on any given night. That doesn't mean he has that skill and talent. Basketball performance is subject to variance. Joe Johnson's very best can approximate Kobe's average. Joe Johnson's average is nowhere near Kobe's. In my opinion, the same was true of Wallace, with regards to Garnett and Duncan. His very best could approximate their average. His average was significantly lower, because he had less skill and talent.

Ultimately, we can claim anyone's talent was at any level. Darius Miles could have been better than Michael Jordan if he tried harder. He was super talented. Lamar Odom could have been Magic Johnson if he tried harder. I find these to be fairly silly, just as I find it silly to claim Wallace was as talented as all-time greats. Could any of these players maybe have squeezed out a little more with more effort? Maybe, maybe not. The idea that it could have bridged the chasm between the results in the real world is pretty unlikely, IMO.

Let me see if I get what your saying or I'm missing it. Work ethic is something that comes with all time great talent. If you don't have the work ethic then ultimately you don't have the talent.

 

[Run BJM]

Andalusian covered a lot of what I was going to say. IMO Sheed was on their level when he wanted to be. And its not just body type and skill. Sheed had the "it" factor when he was motivated. He had that ability to dominate games that Duncan and KG had, that Kobe has, I would say JJ definitely does not have it (at least not like they do). JJ and Kobe have similar physical gifts and basketball skills but the talent level is unquestionably different because Kobe has the killer instinct, the special something that separates those guys from the rest of the pack. Kobe can dominate a game. Joe Johnson doesn't dominate games IMO. Duncan and KG dominate games (they did much more so in their primes). When Sheed was on he had that "dominance" where he was unstoppable on both ends and the impact on the game was off the charts IMO.

Does work ethic or drive come into play with regards to talent? To me it seems like the antithesis of talent. Talent is natural ability. Sheed had the tools and the skills but he also had talent in that the game seemed to come easy to him. I'd say KG was certainly the better physical specimen but I'd also say the game probably came easier to Sheed and that is an aspect of talent. KG will go down as one of the best PFs of all time while Sheed will probably not be remembered much historically at all because KG had tremendous, unrelenting drive and intensity and will to win. Sheed could have dominated like KG and Duncan every night. It seemed like it was a simple as flicking a switch for him. Joe Johnson doesn't have that switch. He can go balls out and never be on Kobe's level as far as dominance.

 

[Minstrel]

I'll try to restate my point as simply as I can:

It's possible that Wallace could have been an all-time great if he had simply worked harder. The possibility exists for every individual that they could have been better with more work. However, the fact that he had great games is not evidence of that, IMO, because basketball performance, like most things, is subject to variance. There are a number of players who are capable, talent-wise, of lighting it up occasionally but are not capable of lighting it up every game. That is usually variance at work, not lack of effort or caring. For me, the default is that Wallace was one of those players: talented enough to be great sometimes, but not talented enough to be consistently great. That also fits with my observational view of him, in college and the pros...he had skills and talent, but he never looked like a dominant talent to me.

It is possible that those who think he could have been an all-time great, which Duncan and Garnett are, with more work are right. That's not my view and I don't believe that his best nights are good evidence that he was an all-time great talent.

 

[Shooter]

Too soon to answer this. At this moment, LA vs Sheed at his peak, it's Sheed.

Hardly. Aldridge is already a better player than Rasheed Wallace ever was.

 

[Ed O]

Right NOW, Aldridge is having a better half-season than Wallace ever did. If he keeps it up (or close to it) for a while, he'll have a better career than Rasheed did.

Hopefully he does.

It's hard to answer the poll question, though, because Wallace was really good for a pretty long time.

Ed O.

 

[MARIS61]

LaMarcus has many miles to tread before he nears Sheed's level of completeness.

He's our best current player but lags far behind Sheed in scope and range of talents/skills both on offense and defense. I can't think of even one thing he is better at.

Most importantly, Sheed's focus was always on how to help the team. He is the ultimate teammate.

 

[MARIS61]

Actually, comparing peak-to-peak, Aldridge's production this season is higher that Sheed's ever was.

Aldridge 2010-2011 Age 25:
22.4PPG, 8.7 RPG, 21.6 PER

Sheed 2001-2002 Age 27:
19.3 PPG, 8.2 RPG, 20.9 PER

BNM

More important in this comparison are the stats you left out.

Assists, steals, blocks, and those we can't track such as good outlet passes, setting solid picks for their teammates, on-court communication, blocking out...