Dominique Wilkins VS Kawhi Leonard

[Blue Horseshoe]

On Dominique vs Melo:

I regard Nique's peak to be slightly higher than Carmelo's peak. I also regard Nique to be able to do more things offensively, off the dribble, in the post, in the paint, off-ball athleticism, and at-the-rim athleticism. Nique was better than Melo in the postseason. Melo may be slightly better from three, but that's about it. I'm just not completely impressed with Melo's total athleticism, especially when compared with Nique's super-athleticism. Hope that is persuasive to you.

I'm not terribly offended by the comparison though as Carmelo is legitimately a Top 40 player all-time. (I'm actually a little excited to see what Melo can do with Porzingis if the Knicks can add one more piece next offseason.)

In truth, Dominique is really a blend of Kobe and Carmelo (or perhaps a blend of Dr. J and Carmelo) in terms of total offensive package. But probably closer to Kobe and Dr. J than Melo in terms of total skillset.

Carmelo is a top 40 player of all time? In what universe?

The universe where Wilkins is a top 20 player of all time.

Who ever said 'Nique was top 20?

[Blue Horseshoe]

Khwai leading this poll 15-7? Proof positive this forum is patrolled by 14 year old boys.

[RingsDontLie]

I think its too early to say. The finals MVP and ring mean something though. Nique is one of my favorites but if Kawhi finishes the season how he started, and wins a ring, and another finals MVP...it would be hard to put nique ahead of kawhi. But in any case I do think Dominique was a top 50 player...and I don't think Kawhi has passed him yet. To be great you have to be THE MAN for quite a few seasons.

[Blue Horseshoe]

I think its too early to say. The finals MVP and ring mean something though. Nique is one of my favorites but if Kawhi finishes the season how he started, and wins a ring, and another finals MVP...it would be hard to put nique ahead of kawhi. But in any case I do think Dominique was a top 50 player...and I don't think Kawhi has passed him yet. To be great you have to be THE MAN for quite a few seasons.

The ring and FMVP are circumstantial. The Lakers drafted James Worthy over 'Nique in '82. Had they drafted 'Nique instead how many rings or FMVP's might he have? 'Nique's a better player. Not close. Leonard has potential but at this point it's a landslide for Wilkins. Only people voting for Leonard are young pups.

[BigDog26]

For the record, I said top 25, not top 20. The difference between #25 and #20 is actually quite a big difference. There is a wide gap between #25 and #20 just as there is a wide gap between #20 and #15. And I am very comfortable placing Wilkins at #25.

Carmelo at #40 is also entirely reasonable.

Folks, we're talking 2 guys who had ZERO help from team management in building pieces around them. A tall athletic SF who can score 30 ppg and rebound is a valuable centerpiece in building a championship franchise. It's no coincidence that the Spurs are building around Kawhi for their next decade run, and while Kawhi is not close to top 50 material now he has great potential to break top 40 and maybe top 25 when we talk about Leonard in the year 2025.

Ask yourself what Kevin Durant (and the Thunder) would have been without Harden and Westbrook. Now that is a great question.

[Quotatious]

If anything that 1988 game 7 performance is underated. Standing up to the Celtics and Bird was like doing that to Team USA today.

To me it's overrated, because I've never shared the fascination that people have, for basing their opinion about a player on one "signature" game. To me, the thing that really matters is how well you can play on average, how consistently good you can be.

LaBradford Smith had a game when he scored 37 points on 15/20 from the field against Jordan, who scored only 25 on 9/27 FG, and he also matched MJ's all-around performance in that game. Does that game sum up who LaBradford Smith was, in the NBA? Of course not. Now, I'm not saying that Wilkins is LaBradford Smith, but that's still a flawed way to gauge player's greatness.

Dominique EASY. Khwai has never even scored 30 points in any NBA game. 'Nique AVERAGED 30+ multiple seasons. 'Nique finished MVP runner up to Bird one season, something Khwai could never even dream of. 'Nique dropped 47 against Bird in game 7 of the '88 ECSF, going shot for shot down the stretch, something Khawi is simply incapable of duplicating. 'Nique was a franchise level guy whereas Khwai is a system player. You young pups need to get a grip.

You don't really care about defense, do you? Leonard's advantage on defense may be bigger than Dominique's advantage on offense (considering that Leonard is now a 21 point scorer on great efficiency, with very low turnovers, and he's the best player on the second best team in the league right now).

[mischievous]

For the record, I said top 25, not top 20. The difference between #25 and #20 is actually quite a big difference. There is a wide gap between #25 and #20 just as there is a wide gap between #20 and #15. And I am very comfortable placing Wilkins at #25.

Carmelo at #40 is also entirely reasonable.

Folks, we're talking 2 guys who had ZERO help from team management in building pieces around them. A tall athletic SF who can score 30 ppg and rebound is a valuable centerpiece in building a championship franchise. It's no coincidence that the Spurs are building around Kawhi for their next decade run, and while Kawhi is not close to top 50 material now he has great potential to break top 40 and maybe top 25 when we talk about Leonard in the year 2025.

Ask yourself what Kevin Durant (and the Thunder) would have been without Harden and Westbrook. Now that is a great question.

There is absolutely nothing reasonable about Wilkins as a top 25 player. He was a bad defender who's main value came from scoring, and his scoring efficiency plummeted in the playoffs. Can you tell me with a straight face that Wilkins is comparable or better than guys like Nash, Stockton, Wade, Drexler, Ewing?

[BigDog26]

I have Wade and Ewing rated higher than Wilkins, Drexler about the same just below Wilkins.

I tend to not rate point guards highly as I believe producing is more difficult than facilitating and therefore producers with height/size/strength are more valuable than point guard facilitators. The only point guards I have in my Top 25 are Magic and Oscar (incidentally they are both in my Top 11). My top 20 is stock full of centers and power forwards, #20-25 comprises small forwards and shooting guards. I have a lot of point guards between #25-35.

Dominique Wilkins is the #5 or #6 small forward of all-time. I'm quite comfortable placing Wilkins at #25.

It's a damn shame the Hawks gave him ZERO help around him because Wilkins could do many things on the level of Kobe and Dr. J. This is one of those rare situations where you absolutely have to supplement the numbers with the eye test. I do not support a full eye test, ever. But Wilkins is a case where you need to evaluate the stats AND the eye test and imagine him on a team with a certain threshold of players/coaches. To do what Nique did as literally a one-man show is simply basketball excellence.

[duncan21]

I think its too early to say. The finals MVP and ring mean something though. Nique is one of my favorites but if Kawhi finishes the season how he started, and wins a ring, and another finals MVP...it would be hard to put nique ahead of kawhi. But in any case I do think Dominique was a top 50 player...and I don't think Kawhi has passed him yet. To be great you have to be THE MAN for quite a few seasons.

The ring and FMVP are circumstantial. The Lakers drafted James Worthy over 'Nique in '82. Had they drafted 'Nique instead how many rings or FMVP's might he have? 'Nique's a better player. Not close. Leonard has potential but at this point it's a landslide for Wilkins. Only people voting for Leonard are young pups.

Wilkins is a ball hogs,verry selfish player and never plays defence ............................he won't able to play in a team with a system like spurs & Lakers

[HeartBreakKid]

Most superstars who had one man teams put up the same numbers Wilkins did. I don't see what makes Wilkins so unique.

He is a very one dimensional player, it would be one thing if he was among the GOAT scorers of all time but he clearly is not. I'd take players like Pippen and Hill over Wilkins pretty easily even if they do not put up the same PPG, and those guys are in the bottom half of my top ten SF list.

[RingsDontLie]

I think its too early to say. The finals MVP and ring mean something though. Nique is one of my favorites but if Kawhi finishes the season how he started, and wins a ring, and another finals MVP...it would be hard to put nique ahead of kawhi. But in any case I do think Dominique was a top 50 player...and I don't think Kawhi has passed him yet. To be great you have to be THE MAN for quite a few seasons.

The ring and FMVP are circumstantial. The Lakers drafted James Worthy over 'Nique in '82. Had they drafted 'Nique instead how many rings or FMVP's might he have? 'Nique's a better player. Not close. Leonard has potential but at this point it's a landslide for Wilkins. Only people voting for Leonard are young pups.

Sure its circumstantial...but its the biggest stage against the best competition as well. So if you perform well on that stage it means a lot more than any other game in the regular season. Thing is you could argue Worthy was better than Nique.

[G35]

Knocking Nique for not leading his team to a championship is like knocking Anthony Davis for not leading the Pelicans to a title. He was way outgunned against the Celtics, Sixers, Bucks in the early 80's; then in the late 80's, early 90's the Pistons, Bulls, Cav's, and Pacers got better. Atlanta management never put another high-level player next to Nique to take the pressure off. Very similar to Carmelo in NY. (...) Nique was really good and just never got the supporting cast he needed.....

Whole paragraph is off. Nobody is knocking Nique for not winning a ring. Point is, Nique is a one-trick pony -his trick is scoring- and he's not an all-timer at that trick, so his total impact is lackluster for a supposed-to-be superstar. Just like... yeah you guessed it, Carmelo Anthony. There's lots of "very good players that never got the supporting cast they needed".

This is why I don't get why KG gets so many excuses for bowing out early in the playoffs in Minnesota but all these other great stars get knocked down and dismissed as if they were overrated.

Garnett doesn't get that (imaginary) criticism because he is a way more impactful player than Nique overall and usually had worse teams too. Early Hawks teams had some great defenses. Late Hawks teams had old Moses Malone, prime Willis (once a 18-16 guy!), Webb (16-7 guy without Nique) and such. The one time Garnett had a decent team (34-yr old Sam Cassell, Wally... not exactly Wade-Bosh either) they led the West and reached the WCF, until Cassell got injured. But of course you know that.

I think you missed this post from Quotatious. People read what they want to read.

I'd take Leonard.

Wilkins was an excellent scorer, but not super efficient, not much of a creator for others, usually nothing special in the playoffs. Kawhi has a gigantic advantage defensively, and he's at least as good of a rebounder as Wilkins.

The thing about Dominique is that I really doubt you could win a championship with him as your best player, so I'd rather take a great #2 option like Leonard, than a good, but not great, #1 option like Wilkins.

That is a knock against Dominique, when you do not think can win with him as a #1 option. You could put Jordan on those Hawks teams and he would not have done much better.

You think Nique is a one-trick pony?

Career #'s

PPG 24.8
REB 6.7
AST 2.5
STL 1.3

His PPG is 14th all time, ahead Bird, KAJ, Dantley, Erving, Wade, Shaq, Dirk, Barkley. This is over a 16 year career so that's a pretty damn good trick and you are severely underestimating that as an asset. Particularly when he was surrounded by teammates that were not proficient at scoring. Nique was able to lead those Hawks to three consecutive second round appearances in the dominant conference at the time.

I don't know what you mean by putting criticism in parentheses for Garnett. He doesn't get criticized for getting knocked out of the first rd seven consecutive years. He doesn't get criticized for missing the playoffs three straight years. So it is imaginary on this board to criticize KG, it's damn near sacrilegious. Why? Because he has one year where he gets out of the first round and now he is treated like a savior. Wilkins never had players as good as Cassell and Sprewell, so what are you saying? That Garnett owes all of his success to his teammates and not because he is any more capable of turning around a franchise? Yeah, I'll agree to that.

Kawhi is a good, solid player. I like him and his attitude, but he has gotten to take baby steps his whole career with the Spurs big three helping to carry the weight. No way he performs as well in a situation like Nique was in......

[tsherkin]

I agree that Nique gets knocked because of the efficiency rose colored glasses people look through when evaluating the players of the past. Nique was not seen as some inefficient player during his era;

In fairness, he was a prototypical example of "you don't win titles with volume scorers," however. He wasn't a dominant playmaker and he wasn't an especially dominant offensive player either. He was routinely about 5% worse from the field than his scoring peers; 5-10%, even, because he flatly wasn't as good at making shots. Nique's biggest selling points were low turnovers and exciting dunks, and that's not really enough.

Surely, his team success was dictated in part by his teammates. That is always true. He was clearly not an ATG offensive player, though, and was exceeded by peers in his own era with similar casts. His individual production just wasn't there by comparison, save for in volume, and volume alone isn't actually indicative of anything but opportunity: it says nothing at all about quality.

Meantime, an appeal to the opinion of the player in-era isn't really relevant: era-specific focus shifts as understanding of the game evolves. I'll grant you this: his TS% is roughly what you'd expect from someone who wasn't very good from 3, and his above-average draw rate balanced out his crappy FG%. Understand, Nique's average FG% was the same as Kobe's.... but Kobe's a career 4.0 3PA/g guy (20.6% 3Pr). That's... bad. His TS% in full seasons with Atlanta was 54.0%, his ORTG 112 because of wicked-low turnovers (and actually was quite a bit higher after his first 3 seasons, during which he wasn't very good at all). Averaged out at +3.7 OBPM.

Is that good? Yeah it is, for sure. Even before he started taking 3s, actually. It isn't superstar tier, but it's still pretty good. Problem is, his individual performance isn't really connected to his team results. Jordan and Shaq and a litany of other star players never had any kind of issues throwing up mind-boggling numbers even when their teams were crap. Did they win titles? No, no they didn't, but Nique didn't even dazzle us with his performance apart from his exciting dunks. That's the real problem.

Very similar to Carmelo in NY.

Highly so, since neither were stunners in the playoffs and are second-tier guys, not first-tier guys... and it's not really about whether they have or have not already won rings so much as how they play the game.

Nique was really good and just never got the supporting cast he needed.....

SUre he was good; I don't think I've seen anyone saying he was a scrub, or even "not an All-Star."

"Not a superstar," sure, but that's another matter. His performance is sub-par across the board compared to his peers with legit claim to that label. Nique is basically a classical example of a poorly-employed weapon. The Lakers dodged a bullet by not drafting him and taking Worthy instead, because he had basically no value outside of a volume scorer's role given his lack of defense and playmaking.... but he wasn't good enough a scorer to really carry offenses to a meaningful extent as the unipolar focus. That isn't AS much of an indictment as it sounds, since such players are actually quite rare and league understanding of offense was considerably less than where we're at now. In essence, though, he was the Iverson of his time. Popular because he was flashy and people like big numbers, still actually pretty good, but not the guy you want leading your team if you're after a ring. The issue is less that he never won a title (because actual contention is too dependent upon circumstances/management/health/etc) so much as the idea that his style of play wasn't conducive to championship basketball. It wasn't in the 60s, it wasn't in the 70s, it wasn't in the 80s, the 00s... and it isn't now. Even Jordan needed to alter his game some to facilitate title runs, and he made Wilkins look like a JV baller as a scorer.

[Jaivl]

I think you missed this post from Quotatious. People read what they want to read.

I'd take Leonard.

Wilkins was an excellent scorer, but not super efficient, not much of a creator for others, usually nothing special in the playoffs. Kawhi has a gigantic advantage defensively, and he's at least as good of a rebounder as Wilkins.

The thing about Dominique is that I really doubt you could win a championship with him as your best player, so I'd rather take a great #2 option like Leonard, than a good, but not great, #1 option like Wilkins.

That is a knock against Dominique, when you do not think can win with him as a #1 option. You could put Jordan on those Hawks teams and he would not have done much better.

The knock is that he isn't as valuable a player as you need to be a #1 option on a title team, not that he didn't actually win the ring as a #1. Of course, we speak about hypotheticals here, but usually that type of player doesn't win unless he's a Kobe-tier player (think Denver Melo as a comparison).

You think Nique is a one-trick pony?

Career #'s

PPG 24.8
REB 6.7
AST 2.5
STL 1.3

His PPG is 14th all time, ahead Bird, KAJ, Dantley, Erving, Wade, Shaq, Dirk, Barkley. This is over a 16 year career so that's a pretty damn good trick and you are severely underestimating that as an asset. Particularly when he was surrounded by teammates that were not proficient at scoring. Nique was able to lead those Hawks to three consecutive second round appearances in the dominant conference at the time.

"You think Nique is a one-trick pony?" -proceeds to speak strictly about scoring-

All those names you mentioned are better scorers than Wilkins, mainly because they scored at similar volume on much less shot attempts. Some of them like KAJ, Shaq or Barkley have such a massive edge on him that it isn't even funny.

I don't know what you mean by putting criticism in parentheses for Garnett. He doesn't get criticized for getting knocked out of the first rd seven consecutive years. He doesn't get criticized for missing the playoffs three straight years. So it is imaginary on this board to criticize KG, it's damn near sacrilegious. Why? Because he has one year where he gets out of the first round and now he is treated like a savior.

I mean, why would he? Neither is Nique criticiced for losing against the Celtics and such... nor he should be, they won about what they were supposed to win, relative to their team strength. Wilkins' teams weren't very strong, and he shouldn't be asked to compete with the juggernaut Celtics and Pistons with those teams, but they certainly weren't the crap that Garnett usually had to deal with. Then of course Garnett went to an admittedly great team and made it defensive GOAT caliber... you know the story. I doubt Nique would be able to do that.

Wilkins never had players as good as Cassell and Sprewell, so what are you saying? That Garnett owes all of his success to his teammates and not because he is any more capable of turning around a franchise? Yeah, I'll agree to that.

You know that Moses Malone guy, who avgd 20-10 for two seasons, that 18-14 guy named Kevin Willis... a deep PG rotation... and you are literally saying 34 year old chucker Latrell Sprewell is better than that . He had 34 y.o. Cassell for a year, yeah (older than Moses was with Nique). And I already said what happened that year.

[BenoUdrihFTL]

Are we to take into account the fact that Kawhi is injury prone? He's never played more than 66 RS games in a single season

[G35]

"You think Nique is a one-trick pony?" -proceeds to speak strictly about scoring-

All those names you mentioned are better scorers than Wilkins, mainly because they scored at similar volume on much less shot attempts. Some of them like KAJ, Shaq or Barkley have such a massive edge on him that it isn't even funny.

I'm talking about scoring because scoring is the most SINGLE important aspect in basketball, everything else done on a court supports scoring. You said Nique was not an all timer in scoring.

Whole paragraph is off. Nobody is knocking Nique for not winning a ring. Point is, Nique is a one-trick pony -his trick is scoring- and he's not an all-timer at that trick, so his total impact is lackluster for a supposed-to-be superstar. Just like... yeah you guessed it, Carmelo Anthony. There's lots of "very good players that never got the supporting cast they needed".

He's 14th on the list. If you are 14th all time on any record list you are an all time in that category, particularly a category like points. Your issue is Nique doesn't score the way you think he should have when he was playing typical of the manner of the NBA at that time. People get all nuanced in their statistical analysis but get real simple minded when applying it to different eras. It's like complaining that Lincoln didn't do enough for civil rights for blacks. He did what he could at the time. Nique did what was standard at the time. He was not as inefficient as those make it seem. As tsherkin pointed out, (and I said earlier) three pointers were rarely used and that really is a boost to those players who shoot a lot of them.

If I had to make a comparison, I would say in terms of prestige Nique was seen similar to someone like James Harden. Right now people think Harden is something special, but I daresay in 20-30 years when someone decides to create a 4pt shot, and allow no contact on drives to the basket he will be seen as a chucker who couldn't get it done with the "best center in the game" with Dwight Howard.

When you spout off names like Willis and rhetoric like a "deep" PG rotation you are reaching. Not ever did anyone think ATL was favored, or had more talent than the other top teams in the East. Anyone who watched those teams would know that.

I mean, why would he? Neither is Nique criticiced for losing against the Celtics and such... nor he should be, they won about what they were supposed to win, relative to their team strength. Wilkins' teams weren't very strong, and he shouldn't be asked to compete with the juggernaut Celtics and Pistons with those teams, but they certainly weren't the crap that Garnett usually had to deal with. Then of course Garnett went to an admittedly great team and made it defensive GOAT caliber... you know the story. I doubt Nique would be able to do that.

What crap did KG deal with? You mean playing with Gugliotta, Marbury, Wally, Billups, Cassell, and Sprewell? That is such garbage that KG only played on crap teams. No one player can lead a team to 50 wins with crap. No one. Kareem couldn't do it and he's better than KG. Jordan couldn't do it and he's better than KG. Oscar, Wilt, Kobe, Wade couldn't do it and you can add KG to the list. He's no more special at making a team better than anyone else. However, he has specific weaknesses (scoring) which caps the ceiling of his teams. Sure KG made the Celtics a great defensive team but so what. There are a number of big men you could add to that Celtics team and they would have been a great defensive team. Tyson Chandler, Dwight, Camby, Jermaine O'Neal could have been added to that Celtics team and it would have been great.

You want to know a secret about that all time great Celtic defense? It had the worst playoff record of any NBA champion. Going to 7 games vs 37 win Atlanta Hawks, and 45 win Cleveland...that's impressive?

What if we did the same thing for Nique, put him on a superteam.

KG equivalent in 1990, say David Robinson (since so many think they are equal)
Ray Allen equivalent in 1990, say a Joe Dumars or Reggie Miller

Then having a young, up and coming PG like Rondo, like a Tim Hardaway or Terry Porter. So we have team of:

PG - Porter
SG - Dumars
SF - Wilkins
PF - Cliff Levingston
C- David Robinson

So if we put that team together and they roll through the league and they have an all time #1 offense....you telling me Dominique would get all the credit? BS. Another myth is how KG singularly made that team great on defense. There were several other factors like Tony Allen, Rondo, Perkins, and Tom Thibodeau coaching that helped that defense. Let's not go overboard with the praise of KG.....

[Jetzger]

The problem is, if they let Dominique be a volume scorer on that team, they wouldn't be an all time great offense. You came up with a scenario where Wilkins isn't even the best player on the team (hell, best offensive player) as if that helps his argument.

[BigDog26]

The problem is, if they let Dominique be a volume scorer on that team, they wouldn't be an all time great offense. You came up with a scenario where Wilkins isn't even the best player on the team (hell, best offensive player) as if that helps his argument.

You can have a 1a and 1b volume scorer tandem. For example, Shaq/Kobe or Durant/Westbrook. G35's hypothetical is entirely legitimate.

The Hawks literal one-man show did not underperform in the playoffs. They just did not consistently beat 1) all-time great celtics teams, 2) all-time great bad boy pistons teams, 3) all-time great bulls teams. That conference was the toughest defensive conference in the history of the nba. I'll further, the Hawks division was the toughest defensive division in the history of the nba (you play a lot more games against your division opponents). Bad Boy Pistons and Jordan/Pippen Bulls. To be so dominant against this schedule, this all-time defensive schedule, and maintain Prime Kobe-like points and efficiency totals is all-time scoring greatness by Wilkins.

And contrary to the weird views of the efficiency statistic guys here, efficiency is not a static metric, it is a dynamic metric. If someone like KG was relied on by his team to take 20+ shots KG's efficiency would drop to FAR below Nique/Kobe levels.

G35's point also stands that volume scoring 30 ppg is the single most difficult thing to do in basketball. They mock "volume scoring" as some sort of one-off "other stat" as if anyone could do it and maintain their 10 layups per game efficiency. Volume scoring is extraordinarily difficult and a rare trick. It's why guys like Rodman are not even Top 50 but guys like Kobe are borderline Top 10. Every time I see the efficiency stats guys demean "volume scoring" as some one-off insignificant metric I literally laugh out loud and my wife looks at me and asks what is so funny.

Dominique Wilkins is a larger, taller, bigger, stronger version of Kobe Bryant. He is #25 all-time and #5/#6 small forward all-time, and I will stand by that until the day I die.

I would like the critics to state their #6 small forward all-time. Please humor me and do it.

[Owly]

Knocking Nique for not leading his team to a championship is like knocking Anthony Davis for not leading the Pelicans to a title. He was way outgunned against the Celtics, Sixers, Bucks in the early 80's; then in the late 80's, early 90's the Pistons, Bulls, Cav's, and Pacers got better. Atlanta management never put another high-level player next to Nique to take the pressure off. Very similar to Carmelo in NY. (...) Nique was really good and just never got the supporting cast he needed.....

Whole paragraph is off. Nobody is knocking Nique for not winning a ring. Point is, Nique is a one-trick pony -his trick is scoring- and he's not an all-timer at that trick, so his total impact is lackluster for a supposed-to-be superstar. Just like... yeah you guessed it, Carmelo Anthony. There's lots of "very good players that never got the supporting cast they needed".

This is why I don't get why KG gets so many excuses for bowing out early in the playoffs in Minnesota but all these other great stars get knocked down and dismissed as if they were overrated.

Garnett doesn't get that (imaginary) criticism because he is a way more impactful player than Nique overall and usually had worse teams too. Early Hawks teams had some great defenses. Late Hawks teams had old Moses Malone, prime Willis (once a 18-16 guy!), Webb (16-7 guy without Nique) and such. The one time Garnett had a decent team (34-yr old Sam Cassell, Wally... not exactly Wade-Bosh either) they led the West and reached the WCF, until Cassell got injured. But of course you know that.

I think you missed this post from Quotatious. People read what they want to read.

I'd take Leonard.

Wilkins was an excellent scorer, but not super efficient, not much of a creator for others, usually nothing special in the playoffs. Kawhi has a gigantic advantage defensively, and he's at least as good of a rebounder as Wilkins.

The thing about Dominique is that I really doubt you could win a championship with him as your best player, so I'd rather take a great #2 option like Leonard, than a good, but not great, #1 option like Wilkins.

Tempted to make a comment about people reading what they want to read but will limit myself to this ...

There is a distinction between saying someone didn't win a title (as the best player) and saying that (you believe) that they couldn't (or a variation thereof). Q doesn't discuss the former, but gave no indication that that he though Nique should have won a title given the teams he played on. Rather his criticism was that Wilkins was an imperfect #1 option and as such doubted whether you could win a title with him as your best player. Now I'd disagree with that in it's present wording. I think you "could" just that it would be unlikely, unless you had an ensemble cast featuring similar calibre players, or were lucky. Mind you I weight the playoff performance relatively lightly (circumstantial, luck, small samples etc) those who don't might find it harder to justify Wilkins being a plausible best player on a champ.

Now certainly there is an overlap, if a player did win a title (whilst clearly in such a role) then you wouldn't say that of them. Nonethless the questions are distinct. Saying a player didn't, or should have won with the casts they had sets a bar in relation to their specific team context. Saying you can't envisage them doing so relates more generally to how they might fit with others, the value of their greatest skills and what role that entails playing etc. Saying he should have won with what he had is setting a higher bar (no one set that here), saying you're dubious that he could do so is a lower one (and one that has been discussed).


To the general discussion I'd echo trex that Wilkins led some (perhaps surprisingly) good offenses and RS (SRS) teams.

[BigDog26]

I would like the critics to state their #1-#6 small forward all-time list. Please humor me and do it.

Here is mine, SF 1-#6:

Bird
Lebron
Dr. J
Durant
Pippen
Dominique Wilkins

There is no better #6 small forward all-time. Current players would have to show a lot of sustained dominance to eclipse Nique.

Go on now, do it. Or are you afraid of critcism.