Is Aldridge better than Sheed?

[blazerboy30]

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.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, which is what I restated later in my post... the part you deleted.

Talent/skill is not subject to variance. Production is subject to variance. The variance in production is what can make Johnson as good as Kobe on some nights, but not on average. It is my opinion that some of the variance is due to the mental part of the game. How much? I don't know, but I do know that talent isn't the only source of variance in overall basketball production.

 

[Shooter]

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

Yep, good old Rashweed, the ultimate teammate. That's why he refused to lift weights with everybody else, and why he kept picking up stupid technical fouls. He was just "helping" the team! Same thing when he got kicked out of a WCF game against the Lakers in the first half. It was always the team first with Rashweed!

 

[Minstrel]

It is my opinion that some of the variance is due to the mental part of the game. How much? I don't know, but I do know that talent isn't the only source of variance in overall basketball production.

How do you mean? Variance means deviation in both directions...positive and negative. If a player constantly "varies" their performance in the positive direction, that's simply a higher average. Do you mean that players with better mental approaches limit their variance...have fewer highs and lows? It might be true that elite players, like Kobe, are less volatile statistically, but wouldn't really change my point, since ultimately a player's "level" is seen in their mean. My belief was that Wallace's mean talent-based level was lower than Duncan's and Garnett's. He may also have been more volatile (pun fully intended), but that's a separate issue, IMO.

 

[andalusian]

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.

I do not believe that you had to look at his best games to see his talents. He was as fast as KG and faster than Duncan, he was strong as hell when he bothered to be in shape, he could post, his handles were not bad for his position, he could shoot the jumper with lots of range, he could run the floor, he had good footwork, understanding of team game - the skills were there, the talent was there. He had a long enough career that this was not a once in a lifetime thing. He displayed the skills, the talent and the ability to dominant enough. He just never did it consistently - and his disinterest in lifting weights and doing some of the other things other players did was well known. 'Sheed had world-level talent. That's, unfortunately, is where it stopped. His problems were clearly mental - either by never working as hard as the other guys did - or by losing his cool on the court to the detriment of his game and his team.

 

[blazerboy30]

How do you mean? Variance means deviation in both directions...positive and negative. If a player constantly "varies" their performance in the positive direction, that's simply a higher average. Do you mean that players with better mental approaches limit their variance...have fewer highs and lows? It might be true that elite players, like Kobe, are less volatile statistically, but wouldn't really change my point, since ultimately a player's "level" is seen in their mean. My belief was that Wallace's mean talent-based level was lower than Duncan's and Garnett's. He may also have been more volatile (pun fully intended), but that's a separate issue, IMO.

Hmmm. I think we're having differing definitions or ideas on the words "talent" and "skills".

The way I look at it, "talent" and "skill" have no variance for a given player. Just like height, and weight. So, to me, the statement "talent-based mean" doesn't make sense.

A player's "production" has variance. IMO, it is a combination of a player's talent level and mental state.

If you believe Wallace's talent level is lower than Garnett and Duncan, I have no argument there. I just disagree that a player's production variance doesn't have some correlation with their mental approach to the game. I also believe that if Wallace had a better mental approach to the game, his "production mean" would have been close(r) to Duncan and Garnett.

 

[Minstrel]

Hmmm. I think we're having differing definitions or ideas on the words "talent" and "skills".

The way I look at it, "talent" and "skill" have no variance for a given player. Just like height, and weight. So, to me, the statement "talent-based mean" doesn't make sense.

I mean the same thing with "talent" and "skills." You're misunderstanding what I meant by "talent-based mean." I wasn't talking about the mean of talent...I agree that that doesn't make sense. I meant the mean of his production based on his talent.

If you believe Wallace's talent level is lower than Garnett and Duncan, I have no argument there. I just disagree that a player's production variance doesn't have some correlation with their mental approach to the game.

That's what I was wondering. In what way do you believe a player's mental approach impacts his production variance? That is, how do you believe a player's variance changes with mental approach? More variance, less variance?

 

[andalusian]

Hmmm. I think we're having differing definitions or ideas on the words "talent" and "skills".

The way I look at it, "talent" and "skill" have no variance for a given player. Just like height, and weight. So, to me, the statement "talent-based mean" doesn't make sense.

I would argue that this is correct for talent - but skill can be enhanced and refined with work. LMA had the tools to work in the post before - but it took a summer of close work with Bayno and studying tape combined with a mindset to do it to enhance his skill to get more of this talent in the post.

A player's "production" has variance. IMO, it is a combination of a player's talent level and mental state.

If you believe Wallace's talent level is lower than Garnett and Duncan, I have no argument there. I just disagree that a player's production variance doesn't have some correlation with their mental approach to the game. I also believe that if Wallace had a better mental approach to the game, his "production mean" would have been close(r) to Duncan and Garnett.

This is basically the way I see it as well. 'Sheed had all the tools - and he actually had the skill as well - he did not have the work ethic to be in as good a shape as possible - nor did he have the mental mindset to dominate consistently.

 

[STOMP]

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.

I've pointed out the same fact a bazillion times now... Sheed had really small hands (relative to his height) and could barely palm the ball. This might have benefited him as a shooter but definitely worked against him as a low post option where being able to control the ball through all the swiping at it, really helps a lot. Basically I disagree with your assessment that he had the same sort of talent as KG and Duncan based on this subtle but very real physical achilles heal which limited his offensive effectiveness.

As far as Wallace vs LA, I voted equal talent. As of right now, Wallace was the better defender, while Aldridge has shown you can run an offense through him. Prior to this year, Sheed had the upper hand in the comparison so LA has closed things with his play this season. If he keeps this pace up I'll rate him the better player.

STOMP

 

[KingSpeed]

LaMarcus has to win a playoff series before I can even begin to compare them.

 

[mgb]

Wallace simply didn't have the drive to make himself a elite player. He had the talent and he did well inside when he wanted to do the work, but he migraged outside more and more. To me it was mostly mental with him and how well he played.

 

[KingSpeed]

Rasheed Wallace has been to the All Star game at least 4 times by my count. He's been to the conference finals 8 times and the NBA Finals three times, winning once. When Billups, Ben Wallace, and Chauncey Billups were each asked what was the key to winning the championship in 2004, they immediately said the acquisition of Rasheed Wallace. He was a complete game changer for them and was the series leader in blocked shots for the that 2004 NBA Finals, helping the Pistons beat Kobe/Payton/Malone/Shaq in 5 games.

Aldridge has a long way to go before we can say he is better than Sheed.

 

[mgb]

Who won the title in 2003?

Sheed is a excellent second fiddle, but what LA has done, carry the team on his back, Sheed wouldn't do.

 

[oldguy]

How can we compare the two before Aldridge racks up at least half a technical foul per game for a season?

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

Sheed is old and retired.

 

[Wheels]

if Sheed had the drive that MGB mentioned.. he could have been a top 25 player ever!

 

[Wheels]

Sheed was like a four armed Dikembe Mutombo under the basket!

 

[andalusian]

I've pointed out the same fact a bazillion times now... Sheed had really small hands (relative to his height) and could barely palm the ball. This might have benefited him as a shooter but definitely worked against him as a low post option where being able to control the ball through all the swiping at it, really helps a lot. Basically I disagree with your assessment that he had the same sort of talent as KG and Duncan based on this subtle but very real physical achilles heal which limited his offensive effectiveness.

I am again not buying it. Kobe has rather small hands and he still seems to do very well in the post and out of it. His handle is not suspect and his ability to attack with the ball from the dribble does not seem to be bad at all. Sheed had a different set of attributes from Duncan - he was much faster for example - and as mentioned, the small hands benefited his shooting. FWIW - KG does not have the huge hands that Duncan has as well - he is pretty comprable, hand size wise, to 'Sheed.

At the end of the day - I still think that 'Sheed had all-world talent and attributes. It was his not-elite work ethic and his inability to control his emotions and push himself that never allowed him to maximize the production from that talent.

 

[illmatic99]

Does athleticism come under "talent?" If so, Sheed had more talent.

But Aldridge works so much harder, much more often.

Considering defense, I'd call it a wash, with a slight edge to Sheed because of the winning.

 

[BBert]

Aldridge's teammates have a long way to go before we can say they are as good as the teammates Sheed played with on his playoff teams.

There, fixed it for you. You're welcome.

I'm a big Sheed fan. Did he take full advantage of his talent? I doubt it. Still, he was a great player IMO, so smart about the game, just a bit of a nut case. I doubt Aldridge ever matches Sheed's defense, but with his amazing offensive arsenal, his temperament, his willingness to be coached and to improve his game, I think Aldridge will surpass Sheed by next season. Now all LaMarcus needs is a supporting cast to help him get deep into the playoffs.

 

[STOMP]

I am again not buying it. Sheed had a different set of attributes from Duncan - he was much faster for example - and as mentioned, the small hands benefited his shooting.

when they did their respective predrafts, Wallace came in over an inch shorter and 20 pounds lighter then Tim who clearly has a wider/bigger frame. TD absolutely can palm the ball like a grapefruit. All those attributes help a post player. As a big Wake fan, I watched Timmy getting the best of Sheed when they matched up as ACC freshman and every single year since despite being almost 2 full years younger. It just seems silly to say that the main difference between the measurably less physically gifted player who was always looking up on the court to the younger player, was desire.

FWIW - KG does not have the huge hands that Duncan has as well - he is pretty comprable, hand size wise, to 'Sheed.

Garnett also measured over an inch taller then Wallace at his predraft (barefoot KG & TD came in 6'11 vs RW 6'9.75). I sure don't think the two were comparable athletically as KG was absolutely a freak able to play a good portion of his career at SF. Like Sheed, KG was a situational low post player because he didn't have the bulk/size to bang against the biggest in the league. Sheed is a little wider and played there a little more, but he didn't have Kevin's quickness. I've never noticed or heard of KG having small hands and apparently neither has the internets, as the first two pages of google hits on Kevin Garnett small hands brought zero references to him having small hands... this query did bring up a few mentions of the small hands of Wallace, Kwame Brown & Garnett's big mouth though.

At the end of the day - I still think that 'Sheed had all-world talent and attributes. It was his not-elite work ethic and his inability to control his emotions and push himself that never allowed him to maximize the production from that talent.

my point has never been that Wallace maximized his ability as I wouldn't claim that of just about any player. If he'd had the perfect mental makeup of competitive tenacity, ice water running through his veins, and innate defensive & passing instincts, he certainly would have been a better player then he was. Without question Sheed's combustibility hurt his results especially in Portland where he couldn't buy a call. Certainly Garnett's demeanor was also less then perfect as he has often become too hyped limiting his go-to ability in pressure situations. I just think it's clearly wrong to say that Wallace had the same sort of physical advantages that these two all time greats enjoyed. We'll have to agree to disagree

STOMP