How Well Would Orlando Woolridge Fare in Today's League?
Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal
How Well Would Orlando Woolridge Fare in Today's League?
-
The Explorer
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,759
- And1: 3,300
- Joined: Jul 11, 2005
How Well Would Orlando Woolridge Fare in Today's League?
Woolridge was athletic and powerful, had decent handles and could score the rock pretty well. Given modern training, knowledge, medicine etc how well would he fare in today's league? Where would he rank amongst bigs?
Re: How Well Would Orlando Woolridge Fare in Today's League?
-
70sFan
- RealGM
- Posts: 29,970
- And1: 25,286
- Joined: Aug 11, 2015
-
Re: How Well Would Orlando Woolridge Fare in Today's League?
Not any better than he did back then. He just wasn't very smart player.
Re: How Well Would Orlando Woolridge Fare in Today's League?
-
Owly
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,628
- And1: 3,140
- Joined: Mar 12, 2010
Re: How Well Would Orlando Woolridge Fare in Today's League?
So I guess the questions are (for the asker and answerers)
1) Do you see anything in his game that means it translates better today?
2) What did you think of Woolridge in the first place?
3) Are we changing any of his personal demons? Does that change anything?
My very first glance answers
1) Probably not. Whilst the game has got more wing-y it's got more pass-y, requires more defense from 3s (SFs at the time were almost allowed to be offense ... not quite "only" but ...) and more complex. As the above poster alludes to I would maybe guess this doesn't help.
2) Not that special. Partially alluded to in the above. Partly relates to the below. He could score efficiently (714.5 career TS add) but had some glaring holes to his game. WOWY is a clunky tool and Denver 91 an unstable team, still this quote from the end of the year "Most telling stat:: Denver was 8-45 with him in the lineup; 12-17 without" seems to fit the perception that he was an empty calories scorer (that he was supposedly happier in that role probably hurts too).
3) I wouldn't want to speculate. It seems like cocaine use was more rife at the time, though external knowledge will always be imperfect.
On OP notes, certainly the physical gifts were notable (but also often noted as not being used - particularly on D but also offense). Reviews on his handle are mixed, but I would say trend negative for a offense minded, starter caliber player, though improving later in his career.
1) Do you see anything in his game that means it translates better today?
2) What did you think of Woolridge in the first place?
3) Are we changing any of his personal demons? Does that change anything?
My very first glance answers
1) Probably not. Whilst the game has got more wing-y it's got more pass-y, requires more defense from 3s (SFs at the time were almost allowed to be offense ... not quite "only" but ...) and more complex. As the above poster alludes to I would maybe guess this doesn't help.
2) Not that special. Partially alluded to in the above. Partly relates to the below. He could score efficiently (714.5 career TS add) but had some glaring holes to his game. WOWY is a clunky tool and Denver 91 an unstable team, still this quote from the end of the year "Most telling stat:: Denver was 8-45 with him in the lineup; 12-17 without" seems to fit the perception that he was an empty calories scorer (that he was supposedly happier in that role probably hurts too).
3) I wouldn't want to speculate. It seems like cocaine use was more rife at the time, though external knowledge will always be imperfect.
On OP notes, certainly the physical gifts were notable (but also often noted as not being used - particularly on D but also offense). Reviews on his handle are mixed, but I would say trend negative for a offense minded, starter caliber player, though improving later in his career.