Post#11 » by bastillon » Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:31 pm
Laimbeer vs Sikma
Laimbeer was a better offensive rebounder, had more range, and played way better post defense. Sikma was also a part of very good defensive teams but didn't have as much impact and his teams weren't historically great like Bad Boys. Sikma was a better offensive player though, despite Laimbeer edging him in efficiency. to me it's a matter of preference, Sikma has a case (longetivity in particular) but Laimbeer's impact on defense is just a little bit more.
Rasheed
rebounding is probably the most important part of the game, but Sheed's not as bad as numbers suggest. I was actually arguing about that on another board and this dude made a research that showed Sheed with positive influence on team rebounding. Sheed does tons of boxing out and that's why you'll rarely see him dominated on the glass. you know, he could be more like Jerry Lucas or Troy Murphy who never boxed out but always chased rebounds from their teammates... but what's the point ?
more importantly, rebounding mostly makes sense if that affects his defense, but Sheed has proven to be a great defender so what's the problem here ? clearly he has a lot of impact on the defensive end even with rebounding shortcomings. consider that Sheed was one of the best defenders in 04-09 APM studies and that's PAST HIS PRIME defensively.
offensively I have no problem because that's essentially giving up offensive rebounding for transition defense and spacing, which is what elite defenders did as well (KG comes to mind). it's not necessarily a bad thing. it let Ben Wallace not only chase offensive rebounds but also contest outlet passes without worrying about transition defense one bit. he was able to do so because of Sheed's skillset that could compliment him very well.
Sheed was actually one of the most efficient big men in Portland, he clearly regressed in Detroit but again - that has more to do with that system rather than Sheed's skills. Ben Wallace being the player that he was, Sheed had to step out and create spacing inside because teams were already roaming off of Big Ben and you wanted others to get involved on offense. you mention spacing but I don't think anyone really appreciates how much that affected Detroit's offense. Pistons were the only team in 00s that consistently posted up players 1-3. Billups, Hamilton, Prince, Corliss Williamson... I mean they were the only team in the league that did that on a regular basis. how crucial was that ? you can check out 2005 finals vs Spurs. what happened is that Pop switched the defensive matchups so that Bowen would guard Hamilton because Manu was their only efficient offensive player (Duncan totally ineffective 1 on 1 vs Sheed !) and he didn't want him to be tired. that created mismatch for Prince to go to work in the low post against Manu. that's not happening with midrange jumpshot. to really appreciate Sheed's value you have to look way beyond the boxscore and in 2005 finals it was perfectly visible.
I'm in the group that values intangibles really high, but I define intangibles differently than most posters here. to me intangibles is "impact not measured in boxscore", not that leadership crap most people refer to. IMO leadership is overrated and it has low impact on the floor. what I see as intangibles is:
shot creation
spacing/defensive attention
easy pts created
boxing out
help defense/rotations/pick and roll D
intimidation/interior defense
man defense
if you think about it, Sheed can create shot for himself on a consistent basis, especially in his prime (watch 00 WCFs or 02 PS), he's great spacing the floor, he's one of the best at boxing out, he's top notch defender whether in the pick and roll situations, in rotations or as a man defender. I regard Sheed as a guy who isn't particularly productive in terms of raw stats, but whose impact goes way beyond the boxscore. I think he contributes a lot both on offense and on defense. the thing that really gets my attention is how well he performs in APM based metrics that capture non-boxscore impact well enough. in 04-09 study Sheed was already one of the top performers despite that period being actually PAST his prime. then I looked at his games as a Blazer and I was impressed even more. just a very skilled and impactful player who didn't gather a lot of stats.
the headcase argument is the one that should be considered, definitely, but on the other hand he never came close to the Rodman drama and yet Dennis was voted in long time ago and Sheed might not make the top100.
in the end I think all of his flaws are exaggerated. I used to think of him the same way but after analysing his impact that made no sense anymore so I just jumped on Sheed bandwagon and even though I'm in the minority I'm enjoying this because I'm starting to see basketball in different light seeing (and understanding) how poor boxscore performer can affect his teams and come up big in the APM metrics.
Quotatious wrote: Bastillon is Hakeem. Combines style and substance.
