Artis Gilmore vs Alonzo Mourning

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

Better All-Around Peak

Artis Gilmore
11
61%
Alonzo Mourning
7
39%
 
Total votes: 18

penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,363
And1: 9,914
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: Artis Gilmore vs Alonzo Mourning 

Post#21 » by penbeast0 » Sun Jul 27, 2025 11:56 pm

70sFan wrote:Don't see much separating 1975 from 1976 and I think 1977 (after some time to adjust) and 1978 are quite close to his peak level - just within clearly worse team situation.

Besides, if we strictly talk about offense, then I think that late 1970s Gilmore was a better on that end than 1975.


Yes, they moved him closer to the basket on both ends when he moved to Chicago. It was deliberate and something the coaches and press talked about at the time. This pushed his shooting efficiency up (and, unlike some bigs, he was actually a good FT shooter too). However, it made him less aggressive and he challenged less shots so his defensive impact probably slipped. His first year or two was better on that end, but he got less and less active until he ended up getting tagged with the Rigor Artis nickname for his stationary play which you don't see in his ABA games.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
migya
General Manager
Posts: 8,145
And1: 1,492
Joined: Aug 13, 2005

Re: Artis Gilmore vs Alonzo Mourning 

Post#22 » by migya » Mon Jul 28, 2025 8:41 am

AStark1991 wrote:
70sFan wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:
I don't know about more skilled, but definitely better. Artis had a height and strength advantage on virtually every opponent and, like Shaq, he didn't have to have a dream shake to be effective. So, even though he may not have had as many moves and counters as Zo, his were more effective due to his physical advantages. Zo had the naturally hyper-aggressive personality that Artis didn't but that was pretty much his sole advantage (though admittedly it's a big one).

I don't think Mourning had more scoring moves than Gilmore though, that's my point. Mourning was quite limited scorer himself who relied on brute strength and physicality. Gilmore's post repertoire is actually quite decent, the only thing that limited him to some degree is his heavy reliance on right block scoring (usually with skyhook or jumphook to the middle). I don't think Mourning scoring bag is wealthier though.

Saying that Zo was completely reliant on strength and physicality as an offensive player is just simply not true in my mind. He had a very respectable mid-range jumper that he could put in the hoop all the way out to 20 feet on a fairly consistent basis. Overall, I definitely feel that Zo was the more well-rounded player on the offensive end. As others have already said, Gilmore was able to get by just off of his sheer size and brute strength, and on top of that, the overall talent pool of Centers during his era was nowhere near what it was during Zo's era. What Zo was able to accomplish with all the other elite Centers in the league having a serious height advantage on him I think makes him the better offensive player on a pound for pound basis. I'm probably in the minority with these thoughts, but at the end of the day this is just my layman's opinion.



Zo's driving and foul drawing ability was very valuable and was probably the strongest asset he had offensively. It's close by Mourning has a good peak among the best crop of Centers of any era. His prime was from his rookie season to his kidney issue and was a reasonable length of time also.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 30,042
And1: 25,345
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Artis Gilmore vs Alonzo Mourning 

Post#23 » by 70sFan » Mon Jul 28, 2025 9:35 am

migya wrote:
AStark1991 wrote:
70sFan wrote:I don't think Mourning had more scoring moves than Gilmore though, that's my point. Mourning was quite limited scorer himself who relied on brute strength and physicality. Gilmore's post repertoire is actually quite decent, the only thing that limited him to some degree is his heavy reliance on right block scoring (usually with skyhook or jumphook to the middle). I don't think Mourning scoring bag is wealthier though.

Saying that Zo was completely reliant on strength and physicality as an offensive player is just simply not true in my mind. He had a very respectable mid-range jumper that he could put in the hoop all the way out to 20 feet on a fairly consistent basis. Overall, I definitely feel that Zo was the more well-rounded player on the offensive end. As others have already said, Gilmore was able to get by just off of his sheer size and brute strength, and on top of that, the overall talent pool of Centers during his era was nowhere near what it was during Zo's era. What Zo was able to accomplish with all the other elite Centers in the league having a serious height advantage on him I think makes him the better offensive player on a pound for pound basis. I'm probably in the minority with these thoughts, but at the end of the day this is just my layman's opinion.



Zo's driving and foul drawing ability was very valuable and was probably the strongest asset he had offensively. It's close by Mourning has a good peak among the best crop of Centers of any era. His prime was from his rookie season to his kidney issue and was a reasonable length of time also.

This is why I mentioned physicality, Mourning based his scoring game on aggressiveness and that gave him a lot of FTs.

I still don't think the 1990s had clearly better centers than the 1970s. Kareem/Walton/Moses vs Hakeem/Shaq/Robinson are close, then Gilmore/Lanier/McAdoo vs Ewing/Mourning/Mutombo is also a fair discussion.
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 92,230
And1: 31,815
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: Artis Gilmore vs Alonzo Mourning 

Post#24 » by tsherkin » Mon Jul 28, 2025 12:26 pm

70sFan wrote:I still don't think the 1990s had clearly better centers than the 1970s. Kareem/Walton/Moses vs Hakeem/Shaq/Robinson are close, then Gilmore/Lanier/McAdoo vs Ewing/Mourning/Mutombo is also a fair discussion.


It's certainly the other peak era of dominant interior play to discuss. The 70s was pretty stacked, and you haven't even really mentioned Reed or Cowens, or even a dude like Alvan Adams in the latter half.
TrueLAfan
Senior Mod - Clippers
Senior Mod - Clippers
Posts: 8,255
And1: 1,781
Joined: Apr 11, 2001

Re: Artis Gilmore vs Alonzo Mourning 

Post#25 » by TrueLAfan » Wed Jul 30, 2025 12:40 am

You’re really talking about two different Artis Gilmores, both of which were good players. But the first one was better and played more than peak Zo. I’m not sure Artis changed his game in the 80s as much as he had to change it as a result of the knee injury he sustained in 1979. Nba.com describes it as “devastating”; a 1981 SI article discussed the October 1979 surgery to “remove cartilege.” I’ll bet money that it was a torn ACL. And it was a different period, not just in medical treatment, but in how players (and coaches) approached play and staying on the court. And Artis was all about that—and remained all about that post injury. He had played in 670 straight games when he went down in October 1979, returned to play less than 11 weeks after surgery, and played 250 straight games after that.

But he was never the same after the injury—that’s when he moved closer to the basket. He essentially went from being “quick enough” to “not very mobile.” On defense, he went from a guy who could and did play some hybrid help/man defender to a purely man defender. This lessened his value on that side, although he was still good in either scenario. But on offense, the post injury effects were much more severe. Artis had often set up on the mid-post with the Colonels and pre-injury Bulls (he usually posted up a couple of feet in from the elbow, about 12-14 feet out). He often (much more than later) faced the basket on offense. And he could get away with that. Artis was always a mechanical player, but a smooth one; he wasn’t super quick, but his length combined with “enough” quickness allowed him to give a fake (usually to the left), and swing toward the basket for a short shot or hook shot or, if he put the ball on the ground, a dunk. Playing a bit farther away allowed him to see passing lanes better in a world that rarely used the three. Artis had an assist % of 11.1 going into the 1979-80 season. That’s markedly better than Hakeem’s pre-1993 years; better than Ewing. About 10% below Drob in his best years, and DRob was a good passer. Zo never came close to that (well, except for 1996). Artis’s assist/TO ratio was bit under 1:1 in those first 8 years, but that’s not unusual for a C. He was, again, much better in that department than Zo, and did for a whole lot longer.

After the injury, he was very different. He set up about 3-5 feet closer to the basket, about midway from the elbow to the basket. His knee kept him from planting as strongly, and his first step and lift were lessened. He became a full time back to the basket player and put the ball on the ground much less. Since he was more frequently pushing and shoving down low and had more players between him and perimeter players, his assist numbers went down drastically. From 1981 to 1986, his assists percentage was 6.6%, down over 40% from 1972-9. (and lower than peak Mourning, who was not a good passer, but still came in at 7.6%) Artis's shots per minute of court time went down almost 25%, but because he set up so much closer to the basket, his FG%--always good—went even higher. But the fact remains that he was a wildly different basketball player. The interesting question (to me) is if Artis Gilmore from January of 1980 through 1986, where he played about 500 games and averaged about 18 and 10 and 2 blocks on 63% shooting and 68% true shooting percentage, was better than Zo’s 534 games between 1993 and 2000.
Image
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,363
And1: 9,914
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: Artis Gilmore vs Alonzo Mourning 

Post#26 » by penbeast0 » Wed Jul 30, 2025 11:04 pm

One_and_Done wrote:Watch Zo in those Knicks/Heat series. His offense was clunky. In terms of elegant scoring, he makes peak Gilmore look like Kareem in comparison. I like Zo, he was a good player, but Gilmore was probably better on both ends.


I don't think the Knicks/Heat playoff matches are a good indicator. They were brutal, nasty bloodbaths with dirty play and chippy stuff going on every night. Even otherwise classy guys got sucked into it and the coaches egged their players on. Like two versions of the Bad Boy Pistons facing each other.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.

Return to Player Comparisons