RealGM

Buck Williams: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ibu01.html

ACC Rookie of the Year: 1979
ACC All-ACC (2nd team): 1980, 1981
USA Olympic Team: 1980
NBA All-Star: 1982, 1983, 1986
NBA All-NBA (2nd team): 1983
NBA Rookie of the Year: 1982
NBA All-Rookie (1st team): 1982
NBA All-Defense (1st team): 1990, 1991
NBA All-Defense (2nd team): 1988, 1992
NBA Field Goal Percentage leader: 1991 (60.2%), 1992 (60.4%)
NBA Minutes Played leader: 1985 (3182)
NBA Offensive Rebounds (total) leader: 1984 (355)
NBA Games Played leader: 1985 (82), 1987 (82), 1990 (82), 1995 (82)

Career Totals: 12.8 ppg 10.00 rpg 1.3 apg .549 fg%

Not saying he is a hall of fame candidate or anything, but he does seem to get slept on a lot. He has a great body of work. Would a championship have brought him more attention?

*paging penbeast*

I'll save penbeast some of the trouble.

Buck wasn’t flashy and didn’t have the type of personality (or game) that stood out. He was a lunch pail kind of PF…but he was an extremely effective one. His career arc is a lot like John Stockton’s--Buck wasn’t as good as Stockton, but he had the same length/style of career. He had 10 years are a really good starter (15.7 and 11.5 in 35.7 mpg with 55%+ shooting), and 7 more years as a very effective 20-30 mpg player (8.4 and 7.6 in 27 mpg on 54% shooting). He averaged over 79 games a year in his first 16 years. He was a respected player, a good leader, and a great locker room guy, which shouldn’t be underestimated. It’s a terrific resume. He should be better remembered. He was a greta player.

Not that his game was perfect…Buck wasn’t a good passer, and turned it over a pretty good amount. He also was a mediocre FT shooter (although he went to the line pretty often, so that balanced that out to some degree.) I think he’s actually borderline HOF candidate. Comparing him to people like Horace Grant and Shawn Kemp is interesting. Ho was also a high percentage shooter (although not as high as Buck), and was a better passer that turned the ball over less. But Buck scored better, rebounded better, and was an equivalent defender, and stayed at his peak level longer. I’d go with Buck…and Horace Grant was/is a terrific player.

Shanw Kemp is a different story. High peak—some of the same positives and negatives. Kemp was an even better rebounder—which is saying something, since Buck’s career rebound rate is over 17, which is terrific—and a slightly better scorer. But Kemp was even more of a turnover machine, and fouled a ton (to the point where he couldn’t stay on the court more than 33-34 mpg most years during his peak) and wasn’t as good of a defender. And Kemp was a flake and a poor locker room guy that let his talents go to waste. On paper, Kemp is better. Watching them both play and recognizing how their teammates and opponents felt, I’d say this is one of those times where Kemp may (or may not) have a slightly higher peak…but Buck is the better player. I’d go with Buck there too.

Because half the people don't know who he was. Neither do they know who a guy like Brad Daugherty was. Only players people remember are the superstars that are all time greats or guys playing now.

Although I agree that Buck was better, Grant is a great comparison. Another excellent player who didn't get much attention. It's just the nature of their styles/positions. People mention the Bulls, and all they think is Jordan, Pippen and Jackson. Many fail to recognize that Grant was a top 10 PF during their first 3-peat. Glue guys like that, especially one who can give you 13 and 10 with solid defense over 17 seasons like Buck did, are critical.

Sedale Threatt wrote:Although I agree that Buck was better, Grant is a great comparison. Another excellent player who didn't get much attention. It's just the nature of their styles/positions. People mention the Bulls, and all they think is Jordan, Pippen and Jackson. Many fail to recognize that Grant was a top 10 PF during their first 3-peat. Glue guys like that, especially one who can give you 13 and 10 with solid defense over 17 seasons like Buck did, are critical.

People also forget that in 2 of the 3 years of the 1st 3 peat, Grant was 2nd on the team in Win Shares in the season and playoffs. And in 1994 he was the leader in the playoffs in Win Shares on the Bulls.

JordansBulls wrote:

Sedale Threatt wrote:Although I agree that Buck was better, Grant is a great comparison. Another excellent player who didn't get much attention. It's just the nature of their styles/positions. People mention the Bulls, and all they think is Jordan, Pippen and Jackson. Many fail to recognize that Grant was a top 10 PF during their first 3-peat. Glue guys like that, especially one who can give you 13 and 10 with solid defense over 17 seasons like Buck did, are critical.

People also forget that in 2 of the 3 years of the 1st 3 peat, Grant was 2nd on the team in Win Shares in the season and playoffs. And in 1994 he was the leader in the playoffs in Win Shares on the Bulls.

So that means Grant was better than Pippen,right?Pippen is the player who said in Google that Jordan made him a great player,right?

You can see why Win shares are b......t to compare players.

Williams made the all-star game three times and was all-NBA second team once. He was excellent, but I don't know what kind of recognition or mention he should be getting.

Who is a similar talent but more highly regarded?

JordansBulls wrote:

Sedale Threatt wrote:Although I agree that Buck was better, Grant is a great comparison. Another excellent player who didn't get much attention. It's just the nature of their styles/positions. People mention the Bulls, and all they think is Jordan, Pippen and Jackson. Many fail to recognize that Grant was a top 10 PF during their first 3-peat. Glue guys like that, especially one who can give you 13 and 10 with solid defense over 17 seasons like Buck did, are critical.

People also forget that in 2 of the 3 years of the 1st 3 peat, Grant was 2nd on the team in Win Shares in the season and playoffs. And in 1994 he was the leader in the playoffs in Win Shares on the Bulls.

Do you ever have any insight on any basketball related topics other than just quoting Win Shares off of BR or using your own lame Home Court metric.

i think he's underrated. many people don't know who he is, but they know who oakley, robert parish, and the aforementioned horace grant are. otis thorpe is another late 80's PF that is often forgotten. i wonder who the present day equivalent would be?

camby without the DPOY?
Jayson Williams without the leg injury?

Well because he wasn't an elite player....

Why don't people talk about Terry Cummings... exact same reason...

Guys like Williams, Thorpe, Grant, Oakley, Tyrone Hill, Kevin Willis, Benoit Benjamin, Nance -- these 13-17 pt/9-11 reb good defensive players were a dime a dozen from the late 80's-mid 90's.

Terry Cummings was a stud and a fav player of mine to watch.

Actualy to be honest most players are only famous because they played late in the postseason. Buck played for the Bullets and they were a dreadful team that rarely was on TV.

Warspite wrote:Terry Cummings was a stud and a fav player of mine to watch.

Actualy to be honest most players are only famous because they played late in the postseason. Buck played for the Bullets and they were a dreadful team that rarely was on TV.

He was a good player, but compared to his peers... does he stand out? Not really...