RealGM

Interesting fact. This Gilmore guy led this team called the Colonels to an average of 56.2 wins over his first 5 seasons, including a title, a finals appearance and a 68 win season (beat some guy named Dr someone). He was one of only 3 guys to be named MVP in his rookie year, and put up 22.29ppg, 17.06rpg (first in the league), 3.4bpg (1st in the league), and averaged about 3apg over this 5 year stretch. Guy was an iron man too. He played every single game every year for his first 8 seasons. And in his first 12 seasons he only missed games in a single season. Crazy no? But because NBA politics sent him to some garbage team for a while where he had mediocre records due to having literally no help, people forget this. They also forget the in his old age with the Spurs he was still looking pretty darn useful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=227FWcC9ETI

Why on earth are some people rating him below guys like Isiah, Stockton or overhyped New Yorkers like Ewing (and even Frazier)? This guy was better than Baylor or Mikan, yet I see people rate them above him all the time. What the heck gives? The difference between Gilmore and say Dirk is alot smaller than people seem to think.

Partially it is because people ignore the ABA era. Gilmore was not the same player in the NBA, knee problems limited his mobility adding to the passivity which was his biggest problem as a player (if he'd had an aggressive personality, he'd have been closer to Shaq who is the player he resembles most talentwise). Partially it is because people expected him to win championships in Chicago where he really disappointed (of course, Michael Jordan came in next and couldn't win with that talent group either but since he won later, people categorize him as a winner) -- and he was a bit of a disappointment even in the ABA when it came to rings. Kentucky was probably the most talented team in the league for the last 4-5 years of the ABA but only got one ring (albeit Gilmore carried them to that ring on his back); meanwhile NY and Indiana had multiple titles and Denver (much less talented outside of Bobby Jones in 75 and David Thompson in 76) was winning regular season titles. So, people only saw the 15-20 pts/10 reb relatively immobile Artis who put up good numbers (ridiculous efficiency numbers) on mediocre teams and that's the impression they have of him -- sort of a Walt Bellamy type without the weight issues.

Amazing how Gilmore and Erving's knees deteriorated during the summer of 1976.

Erving with that fact still remained at MVP form, despite his statistical drop, his impact was still very well alive.

A-Train Forever!

See below:
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1125430

Artis Gilmore gets undervalued because younger posters my age believe that any past era is inferior to the current era. It is a foolish notion, but for whatever reason this generation seems to think that Larry Bird would be like Brian Cardinal today.

Laimbeer wrote:Amazing how Gilmore and Erving's knees deteriorated during the summer of 1976.

I hadn't heard that Erving's knees did until I read it this week, though he went from a featured spot to being the new guy on a team of All-Star scorers (McGinnis and Collins at least, Free at least had the self confidence to demand the ball like an All-Star scorer). Gilmore's knee issues were/are well known.

ahonui06 wrote:Artis Gilmore gets undervalued because younger posters my age believe that any past era is inferior to the current era. It is a foolish notion, but for whatever reason this generation seems to think that Larry Bird would be like Brian Cardinal today.

Only on defense

Her'es some footage of Gilmore in the 1975 ABA finals.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hROUCfLtLk&feature=related[/youtube]
Gilmore looks awesome (check out the absurd goaltending call against him... )
The Colonels really don't take enough advantage of Gilmore, who looks unstoppable inside... there are some awful entry passes that get intercepted.

Artis was alot bigger and more athletic than people realise too...

long time Gilmore fan.

I was really happy he finally was introduce into the HoF last year.
personally I have to agree with the OP... It's a travesty that the A-Train gets ingored (forgotten?) by so many posters on realGM.

Why are people nominating Pat Ewing or Hondo or Stockton or Isiah or Drexler, when A-Train is still available!!! This guy is better than all of them!

GilmoreFan wrote:Why are people nominating Pat Ewing or Hondo or Stockton or Isiah or Drexler, when A-Train is still available!!! This guy is better than all of them!

His biggest problem was his dip in performance when he came to the NBA.

**** this

I was going to reply to you shotclock... then you mentioned Mikan as a superior player, and I realised you're not interested in how good Artis was as a player, but rather something abstract like "what he meant to the NBA" and "what was his emotional legacy", etc. In which case, yeh, Mikan has Artis beat there, nobody remembers the A-Train...

Why are people still forgetting Gilmore? Everyone is going on and on today about how great Ewing was... he was a worse player than Gilmore for heaven's sake!

DocHoops wrote:

GilmoreFan wrote:...
Why on earth are some people rating him below guys like Isiah, Stockton or overhyped New Yorkers like Ewing (and even Frazier)? This guy was better than Baylor or Mikan, yet I see people rate them above him all the time. What the heck gives? The difference between Gilmore and say Dirk is alot smaller than people seem to think.

...
Guys like Frazier, Isiah, Baylor are all clearly above Gilmore for me (and most others) as well, but I understand how a fan of Artis could just look at the raw numbers and make a case for the big guy. However guys like Isiah, Frazier and Baylor all went to franchises that were considerably worse than the Bulls in 1976 and their personalities and performances turned them into contenders more often than not. In addition they were each among the best one or two players at thier position for most of their prime. Gilmore was never even a top three center for more than a year at a time. That, for me, gives the aforementioned grouped clear seperation from AG.

Gilmore went to Kentucky (44-40) and led them to a 68-16 record his rookie year despite losing SG Darel Carrier and former staring PF Goose Ligon to injury. That's a 24 game improvement at from average to great which is harder than going from bad to average. Kentucky had talent -- Dampier, Issel, Cincy Powell, but no defense -- Gilmore took them from 9th/11 in the league defensively to 2nd/11.

Then, Gilmore went to Chicago (24-58) and led them to an average year (44-38) but again, from 9th to 2nd in the NBA defensively despite the team losing arguably it's too best players, All-Star/All-Def Bob Love and underrated center Tom Boerwinkle. That's a 20 game improvement despite adversity!
Oh and talk about a stupid offensive scheme -- despite his shooting .075 better than any of the other starters he was tied for 4th in FG attempts/G with only Norm Van Lier shooting less behind immortals Mickey Johnson, Wilber Holland, and Scott May, only Johnson of whom had been with the team the previous year!

Frazier, who I think is behind only Magic/Oscar/West, came to NY (36-45) and NY went (43-39) despite HOF Walt Bellamy, Willis Reed, and near all-stars Dick Van Arsdale, Dick Barnett, and new addition Cazzie Russell -- can't really say he "led" them since his first year there he was a reserve but it's still only a 7 game improvement.

Isiah came to Detroit (the same year as Bill Laimbeer came in as a part timer) and took them from (21-61) to (36-43), a nice 15 game improvent but not as good as Artis in EITHER team he joined plus the Pistons got healthier in Isiah's rookie year with starters Kent Benson and John Long having only played 59 games each the year before.

Baylor came to Minnesota (19-53) and took them to a (33-39) record. Again, no as good as Gilmore in EITHER place.

Of course those three franchises benefitted from intelligent GMing and did get better over time but how the hell can you say that a franchise with Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy (traded with PG Howie Komives for Dave DeBusschere), Dick Van Ardale, Dick Barnett, and Cazzie Russell) is considerably worse than one with Love and Boerwinkle broken down and out of the league, their other good player Norm Van Lier on the downside of 30, and starters Mickey Johnson, Scott May, and Wilber Holland. You screwed up on this one Baby Doc, not only did Artis's joining Kentucky and Chicago create immediate big impacts both in winning and in defense but Chicago didn't have talent left around Artis and was badly coached as well . . . I'd certainly take the Knicks or the Pistons of Isiah's rookie year (Benson/Laimbeer/Tyler/Tripuka/Long/Vinnie Johnson) over the collection of crap around Artis in 1977 (or even in 76 considering age and injuries which took out 2 of the team's 3 good players).

And the real question isn't Artis v. Isiah/Frazier/Baylor, it's Artis v. Patrick Ewing who also led his team to terrific defensive performances and was an offensive stud center. I have Artis by a hair, but other than GF, I seem to be the only one and am looking for support. Got anything in terms of a reasoned argument to convince doubters GilmoreFan?

Alot of people complain about Oscar's bad ownership... the guy who owned the Colonels owned no fewer than 3 NBA teams, and no owns zero. He was the definition of a cowboy, and it's no coincidence that the guy who helped build KFC up would name his team the Kentucky Colonels. Chicago's owners were really cheap, and terrible GM's, in stark contrast to the Bulls front office of today. They wanted Artis to lead a team of scrubs to just enough wins to make them a profit.

The Frazier response form Penbeast is a bit disingenuous though... I think you should count his 2nd year as the year you see his impact properly, in which case it's the difference between 36 wins before Walt was a factor, and 54 wins once Walt was a factor (followed by 60 wins and a title).

Still 18 win improvement which is less than the 24 and 20 that Artis brought . . . and NY was still considerably more talented a team than Chicago. I was just giving the numbers that DocHoops claimed showed Gilmore's lesser impact which were improvement on joining the team.

BTW, Patrick Ewing 's rookie year the Knicks GOT WORSE from 24-58 to 23-59 though he only played 50 games. So, the next year when he played 63, they improved to . . . . 24-58. For what it is worth -- it's an interesting but ultimately not hugely important stat in the course of full HOF careers.

penbeast0 wrote:Gilmore went to Kentucky (44-40) and led them to a 68-16 record his rookie year despite losing SG Darel Carrier and former staring PF Goose Ligon to injury. That's a 24 game improvement at from average to great which is harder than going from bad to average. Kentucky had talent -- Dampier, Issel, Cincy Powell, but no defense -- Gilmore took them from 9th/11 in the league defensively to 2nd/11.

First we must address that this was in the ABA and though you feel otherwise, the common opinion is that the NBA's greatest advantage over the ABA came at the center position. From 1971 (Artis' arrival to pro basketball) and 1976 (his last year in the ABA) The NBA had Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Bill Walton, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Bob Lanier and Bob McAdoo. All of which were better players and will be nominated and ranked far before any of the ABA's finestbig men which included Swen Nater, Zelmo Beaty, Mel Daniels and Dan Issel, who teamed with Gilmore for four or Artis' five NBA campaigns.

So obviously a center the caliber of Gilmore is going to have a dramatic effect on an already good offensive team (2nd in scoring the previous season). Another thing you don't mention, thus failing to contextualize properly, is Gilmore and the Colonels were upset in the playoffs. Not in the Finals or Semifinals, but the first round. In fact Gilmore and the Colonels only won one series in five attempts against teams that won 50 or more games. This despite playing with Dan Issel and Louie Dampier, both considered two of the ABA's ten best players all-time.

Then there is the matter of Baylor and Thomas...

Elgin went to a team on the verge of collapse. They had lost Mikan, Mikkelsen, Pollard and Martin. The entire core of their dynasty. Fan interest had dwindled and then along comes Elgin.

The Lakers won 19 games in 1958 without Baylor, they won the Western Conference in 1959 with him. I'll rest my case there. You've already provided their sub-.500 regular season record as evidence against.

Isiah joined a Pistons team that had been destroyed by Dick Vitale. That's seriously the kind of thing that only happens in a bad sports movie. Vitale gave away the two picks that became Parish and McHale to Boston for Bob McAdoo. He pissed off Bob Lanier so much that Jack McCloskey had to trade him because he felt bad for Lanier. The Pistons were garbage, they were the only original eight team left without a title, they had only had three winning seasons since Bill Russell entered the league and then Isiah comes along. The Pistons had won more than 45 games once in franchise History. From Isiah's third year to his eleventh, they won more than 45 games nine consecutive seasons. The second he showed up the Pistons changed. The fans loved their team, enjoyed watching them, believed in them. Comparing what Gilmore did for Kentucky and what Isiah did for Detroit is not going to change my mind or even make me reconsider.

penbeast0 wrote:Then, Gilmore went to Chicago (24-58) and led them to an average year (44-38) but again, from 9th to 2nd in the NBA defensively despite the team losing arguably it's too best players, All-Star/All-Def Bob Love and underrated center Tom Boerwinkle. That's a 20 game improvement despite adversity!
Oh and talk about a stupid offensive scheme -- despite his shooting .075 better than any of the other starters he was tied for 4th in FG attempts/G with only Norm Van Lier shooting less behind immortals Mickey Johnson, Wilber Holland, and Scott May, only Johnson of whom had been with the team the previous year!

That is the problem with Gilmore. He had no moves, he wouldn't shoot. He only took shots he could make, which were not many. If he did have more moves and just never used them, shame on him for not demanding the ball. Gilmore was passive, that was his nature.

We don't see this guy the same way, and though I've come to appreciate his career more simply through your passionate defense of it, I still can't justify this guy as a top 50 all-time, let alone top 25 range like you are trying to put him.

Did he have top 50 talent, sure. Top 50 results not even close.