Sikma v. Laimbeer

[penbeast0]

Two of the best defensive minded stretch centers to ever play. Which would you rank higher as a HOF candidate?

Sikma
14 year career 33.5min 9.8reb 3.2ast 15.6pts .540ts%
Peak 1982 37.2mpg 12.6reb 3.4ast 19.6pts .559ts%
1979 playoffs 38.5m 11.7r 2.5a 14.8 pt .502ts% Title (finals loss in 1978)
7x All-Star, 1 All-D (2nd), .104 Career MVP Shares (5 years getting votes)

Laimbeer
14 year career 31.8min 9.7reb 2.0ast 12.9pts .552ts%
Peak 1984 34.9min 12.2reb 1.8ast 17.3pts .590ts%
1990 playoffs 33.4m 10.4r 1.4a 11.1pt .524ts% Title (2nd straight title!)
4x All-Star, 0.12mvp shares (1year) never made All-D

Not sure why posters like JordansBulls think Laimbeer is a better candidate. Having watched them, Sikma was quicker, more fluid, and a better passer; Laimbeer had the deeper range early on but Sikma had more late career. I'd say Laimbeer's defense was underrated and probably as good; not conventionally as good but his dirty trick package flustered and frustrated opponents which is part of his impact. Still, for me has to be Sikma.

[justinian]

Great question!

I will have to opt for Sikma as well. I think he just brings you on the offensive end.

I'd love to see both go into HOF though.

[Chicago76]

Sikma easily for me. I agree with just about everything you said. I do think that Sikma was a better defensive guy. I'd give Laimbeer a slight edge as an offensive rebounder--he was just a bit meaner and was willing to do anything to get the ball. Sikma was a much better athlete and although they're listed at the same height, he always seemed taller to me. He had an ability to shoot over guys that Laimbeer didn't have as much.

IMO, Sikma on those Pistons teams probably would have resulted in three titles while a young Laimbeer, playing the role you Sikma did, probably would have cost Seattle the title in 79.

[lorak]

Sikma better defensively!? Elaborate, please.

[Warspite]

These 2 guys hated each other. They had a huge rivalry. Im a Pistons fan but I think Sikma was a little bit better. I dont think Sikma however was mobile enough to play for the Pistons who were the 2nd fastest team in the NBA for most of Laimbeers career.

I prefer Sikmas high post and some low post offense to Bills spot up shooting and garbage baskets.

[fleet40]

Laimbeer and Sikma did not hate each other (though they both tangled with each other from time to time), in fact they had known each other for many years. And Sikma was in Laimbeer's Converse commercial back in the day.

Both players deserve hall of fame inductions.

Sikma the far more polished and used post player and so he was the all around better offensive player - Excellent rebounder, and very good touch from the outside and the line. Was in a few more all-star games as well because of his great rebounding and scoring numbers.

Laimbeer the better outside shooter (it was his only offensive weapon) But I give him the edge in toughness by quite a bit. Both good passers, (Laimbeer did not hold the ball as much and so his assist numbers were never great, and as such his passing ability under rated by some). But wathcing him play, he was a master outlet passer.

I may just give them both a draw in rebounding ability, but Laimbeer's far more big game boarding (playoff spotlight) far outshines Sikmas.

Laimbeer with his toughness, huge competitive spirit and his banging night in and night out puts me ever so slightly more in his corner. But I am an intangibles guy - as guys simply being effective scorers have always been a dime a dozen in the league. I want winners first and foremost. (Sikma was a winner, no discredit to him - But Laimbeer with his team beat/played the far better talent competition in my opinion, and won more big games)

[Chicago76]

Sikma better defensively!? Elaborate, please.

This really just boils down to Laimbeer's unconventional defensive style being easier to notice on the court relative to Sikma's more conventional style. It's easy to observe that effort/unorthodox play and assume he was a more effective defender when in fact he wasn't. The difference in style comes down to different physical skill sets. Sikma was the "longer" player who could get could use that length to play the more conventional style. Comparisons:

Post entry: Laimbeer had to clutch, grab, deny, etc. If the ball got in, he was in a relatively worse defensive position. A relatively skilled player could shoot or finish over Laimbeer more easily. Sikma could still deny (and with longer arms and a wider leg base, it was easier for him to do so without clutching, etc. With his extra arm length, he also wasn't as desperate to gamble on denying the post. If the entry was made, he could stay in front with his hands up and be a much more effective defender than Laimbeer.

Help: Sikma was better at getting out on a player 14 feet from the basket to contest a shot. His short distance straight line closing speed was better. Sikma could help on the other side of the lane in a more conventional manner: quick lateral step, hand up, contest shot, etc. Laimbeer was more of a high risk/high reward guy in this respect: a block from behind (which if he missed, was going to put him away from the bucket in poor rebounding position) or something he was a master at, taking the charge. Opposing players went at him inside because they knew he couldn't get up to contest them. So he either beat the hell out of them or tried to take the charge. If he was successful, it looked great, but in reality it was no better than forcing a miss that resulted in a defensive rebound. If he wasn't successful, you either had a block (possibly a and one situation) or a no call with either a made bucket or a miss that he couldn't rebound because he was on his backside.

This isn't to say Laimbeer was a poor or even average defender. He was above average. It's just to say that Sikma played a more conventional boring style that was more effective in terms of "core" center defensive responsibilities (controlling the interior in a 12-14 foot radius from the basket through defensive position and length, and maintaining spacing). Laimbeer played the way he had to that involved a risk reward element. It was easy to identify the reward component (charges, weak side blocks, aggressively denying the entry pass) but it was more difficult to recognize the cost (sometimes being overly aggressive to mask physical deficiencies, poor rebounding position, ie, he could have been a much better defensive rebounder than he already was). Laimbeer was also better at a few things like chasing down a ball in the corner or defending a guy 19 feet out on a forced high screen switch...but both of these things aren't "core/common" defensive occurences for a center.

I'm not a fan of advanced defensive stats because they are obviously poor at capturing the elements and impact of defensive ability, but in this case, they also consistently support what my own eyes told me.
+Drtg for the years in which both played (to control for league avg): Sikma was consistently better.
+Drtg relative to team drtg: Sikma was better.
+Advanced statistical +/- at peak defensive ages (25 to 32): Sikma was always better.
+Drtg and team drtg considering supporting cast: Detroit's D at its best (1990) was not as good at Seattle's in 82. This was post DJ and a lot of the interior help Sikma had when they were contenders/titlists a couple years earlier. Ignoring Sikma v. Laimbeer for a moment, the only areas that weren't clearly in Detroit's favor was Dumars v. Williams (probably Dumars, but call it a draw) or if Thomas was forced to guard a much bigger player. The rest was Detroit in a landslide (SF = part-time Rodman and Aguirre actually making a defensive effort, Detroit's bigs of Mahorn, Salley, Rodman part time, Edwards were better than anything SEA had). Sikma was just more effective defensively.

I appreciate Laimbeer's effort and hustle and he probably maximized his defensive ability given his physical tools as well as any center ever, but that doesn't make him better. The other argument I often here for him is that he "taught" the other guys how to be defensive minded. I don't buy it. Mahorn, Salley, Rodman, Thomas, Dumars, etc weren't exactly a bunch of soft milk drinkers before they ever played with Laimbeer.

[Laimbeer]

Mahorn, Salley, Rodman, Thomas, Dumars, etc weren't exactly a bunch of soft milk drinkers before they ever played with Laimbeer.

Laimbeer was on the team when Dumars, Rodman, and Salley joined the team as rookies.

[penbeast0]

They weren't actually a good defensive team in Laimbeer's first couple of years (82,83) though, despite having Terry Tyler and John Long. Of course, the year before they got Laimbeer halfway through (and drafted Isiah -- a small detail), they were the absolute worst team in the league offensively. Each year they got better offensively while being mediocre defensively until they were the most efficient OFFENSIVE team in the league in 84 with Isiah, Tripuka, and Laimbeer being their big 3 in scoring (Tyler and Long still there).

They stayed mediocre defensively and good offensively until 87 when they traded Tripuka for (defensive stopper?) Adrian Dantley, started Dumars all year, and brought in Rodman, and Salley and Mahorn finally making top 10 in defensive efficiency (5th). Then they stayed top 5 throughout Laimbeer's career until his last real year (93) where he only played 41 games and despite still having Rodman and Dumars, slipped back to the 15th spot they had consistently averaged before Laimbeer got the defensive help. The next year Laimbeer barely played and Rodman didn't and the older Isiah and Dumars led team dropped to 26th out of 27.

The point is that Laimbeer can't really get all the defensive credit there; it was only when the other guys with defensive reps came on board that the Pistons really improved at that end. Was he a good defensive center? Sure, but he didn't seem to be that key defensively before Dumars and Rodman. I do think his offensive influence is understated as his range opened the lanes for Isiah/Dantley/Aguirre etc. to go to the hole.

[Chicago76]

Mahorn, Salley, Rodman, Thomas, Dumars, etc weren't exactly a bunch of soft milk drinkers before they ever played with Laimbeer.

Laimbeer was on the team when Dumars, Rodman, and Salley joined the team as rookies.

I'm well aware of that. What I was referring to is something I often hear from Laimbeer fans/supporters: his toughness rubbed off on all the other guys, so even if he wasn't the X best player on the team, he had a bigger impact. My response to that is that all of the guys I mentioned were tough, hardnosed players who took defense very seriously before they ever met Laimbeer. If I had to pick a non-obvious player who really influenced that team, it would have been Dantley. He was the guy who repeatedly was mentioned by the likes of Salley, Dumars, etc as the guy who taught the young guys what it took to prepare yourself physically and mentally for the NBA.

[fleet40]

Isiah Thomas, and Bill Laimbeer were the two leaders that helped shape and mold the inner workings of the locker room. Isiah was the Don, and Laimbeer the conciliary. They together shaped the face of the franchise, and every one of the new guys who came in (all of them) were given their ground rules. Dantley was pushed out because in the end he did not fit their vision (Isiah's first and foremost)

When Rick Mahorn came to the Pistons, he was fat and out of shape. Laimbeer drilled into him what he needed to become. And at fisrt Mahorn pushed back and hated Laimbeer. But Mahorn fell in line and together they formed as vicious a front court duo as there has been physically. And Laimbeer and Mahorn are the best of friends to this day.

Yes the pistons of the early 80's were a run and gun offensive team. Laimbeer and Thomas who both CRAVED winning the NBA championship changed the culture of the franchise. Mcclosky brought in players to help change that, but the team was built around Thomas, and then Laimbeer. They were 1 and 2 -

[Laimbeer]

Mahorn, Salley, Rodman, Thomas, Dumars, etc weren't exactly a bunch of soft milk drinkers before they ever played with Laimbeer.

Laimbeer was on the team when Dumars, Rodman, and Salley joined the team as rookies.

I'm well aware of that. What I was referring to is something I often hear from Laimbeer fans/supporters: his toughness rubbed off on all the other guys, so even if he wasn't the X best player on the team, he had a bigger impact. My response to that is that all of the guys I mentioned were tough, hardnosed players who took defense very seriously before they ever met Laimbeer.

Evidence, please.

[penbeast0]

Evidence for Mahorn, etc. being tough physical defensive minded players before coming to Detroit?

Well, before Mahorn came to Detroit, Johnny Most nicknamed he and Ruland. "McFilthy and McNasty." The Bullets with those two replacing Unseld and Hayes were an undertalented but extremely physical bunch led by Mahorn defensively.

[Laimbeer]

Evidence for Mahorn, etc. being tough physical defensive minded players before coming to Detroit?

Well, before Mahorn came to Detroit, Johnny Most nicknamed he and Ruland. "McFilthy and McNasty." The Bullets with those two replacing Unseld and Hayes were an undertalented but extremely physical bunch led by Mahorn defensively.

And the others? Let's save some time, there is none.

[penbeast0]

Don't remember seeing any of the others in college . . . Mahorn I saw close up as a Bullet with some consistency. I think it was actually Isiah who set the chip-on-the-shoulder nasty boys tone of the team with his personality and the Dumars/Rodman/etc. brought a floorburn effort to the team they needed although I always loved Laimbeer from the moment I first saw him in Detroit (he played like me!) but I don't have any actual evidence, except some weak anecdotal evidence, for that. Don't remember him in Cleveland although I'm sure I saw him once or twice.

[Chicago76]

Evidence for Mahorn, etc. being tough physical defensive minded players before coming to Detroit?

Well, before Mahorn came to Detroit, Johnny Most nicknamed he and Ruland. "McFilthy and McNasty." The Bullets with those two replacing Unseld and Hayes were an undertalented but extremely physical bunch led by Mahorn defensively.

And the others? Let's save some time, there is none.

This would only be a conclusion someone with the screen name "Laimbeer" could reach.

Are we supposed to suspend all intuitive belief and think that over the sum total of each players' cumulative basketball experience up to reaching the NBA, that they didn't know how to be tough? Was McCloskey just hoping that Bill Laimbeer and Isiah Thomas could wave their magic wands an make these guys "tough", or did he draft players that fit his toughness theme as a way to combat Boston's frontcourt? Seriously?

The evidence:
John Salley. Salley blocked more shots in his final two years of college than Georgia Tech's opponents. Chuck Daly said this about Salley: "He's a 7 footer that can play. He can extend the defense and help with traps." How did Daly know this? One piece of evidence would probably be the work he did in guarding Len Bias. He couldn't do it the entire game (as a PF/C), but he did stymie Bias and that was credited in he media as a big reason GA Tech beat MD all three times they played in 85/86. Bob Knight had some nice things to say about him which shed some light on Salley on television at one point, telling him that everyone knew (including himself) that he was never going to be a good offensive player, but he was always a smart defensive player that did whatever it took. Knight said he could win with players like that and he really enjoyed the way he played. If you know anything about Knight, he hates the NBA and never watches it. He was referring to Salley's GA Tech career. Salley on his style of play and how he learned it: Guys who said we played dirty couldn't have played in the '80s and the '70s. I watched those games in the '80s and '70s, and it's how I learned to play that hard. You fouled a guy who needs to be fouled. If he's going to the basket, you don't give a knick-knack foul and then argue with the ref. You foul him so he knows, so the next guy coming behind him knows, so his team knows you can't go in the lane. …

Rodman. Rodman tore up the Plymouth Invitational, playing all over the court, putting back shots, getting rebounds, locking players down, rebounding the hell out of the basketball, etc. He won MVP. He didn't get that award by showing a refined offensive game because he never possessed a refined offensive game. Even at SEOK when he was scorng 25 a game vs NAIA competition, he was grinding out those buckets off offensive boards. He wasn't drafted for hi offenset. Daly said of him right after the draft he's the quickest 6-8 guard I've ever seen. Repeat: guard. The truth is, Daly had no clue where he'd play him. He just knew he wanted him to fly all over the court and outrebound guys, jump passing lanes,etc. In short, be tough,defensive, and a complete pain in the ass to opponents.

Dumars: tougher to document, but really, you think a guy just magically becomes one of the best lock down defenders in basketball because he rubbed shoulders with Laimbeer. I could bust out old NBA draft guides I have somewhere from the 80s or my old tapes of the 84 Olympic trials, but my recollection of 84 was that Knight was looking for guys to fill specific roles. He wanted a shooter (Alford), he wanted a big PG to pass over the top of guys (Fleming) and he wanted a defensive guard (Robertson). Robertson (an excellent defender) won that spot, but Dumars played very well in that role and was one of the last guys cut from a tryout roster that started with 60-80 players and at least a dozen guards. Common sense regarding the draft and Detroit's competition would help make the case too: Milwaukee, Atlanta, and Chicago (primary Central competition at the time of the draft) were playing big guards. DET has a small PG in Thomas. If you're Detroit and taking a 6-3 SG, he better be able to hang with bigger dudes.

Really, the entire notion that you somehow need prof that these guys weren't tough defensive minded guys when they joined the Pistons is silly. Players entering the draft aren't going in tabla rasa. They've been playing basketball and observing most of their lives. Can players change? To some extent. But they have certain mentalities and attributes they developed long before they arrive at their first NBA training camp. They didn't just get injected with some "Bill Laimbeer tough serum" when they checked in.

So I've got to ask. Where's the proof that these guys weren't tough or were soft before they got to Detroit? I'll save the the time. There isn't any.

[JordansBulls]

Laimbeer a 4x allstar and 2x champion. I would say he has a better chance.

[flow]

They weren't actually a good defensive team in Laimbeer's first couple of years (82,83) though, despite having Terry Tyler and John Long. Of course, the year before they got Laimbeer halfway through (and drafted Isiah -- a small detail), they were the absolute worst team in the league offensively. Each year they got better offensively while being mediocre defensively until they were the most efficient OFFENSIVE team in the league in 84 with Isiah, Tripuka, and Laimbeer being their big 3 in scoring (Tyler and Long still there).

They stayed mediocre defensively and good offensively until 87 when they traded Tripuka for (defensive stopper?) Adrian Dantley, started Dumars all year, and brought in Rodman, and Salley and Mahorn finally making top 10 in defensive efficiency (5th). Then they stayed top 5 throughout Laimbeer's career until his last real year (93) where he only played 41 games and despite still having Rodman and Dumars, slipped back to the 15th spot they had consistently averaged before Laimbeer got the defensive help. The next year Laimbeer barely played and Rodman didn't and the older Isiah and Dumars led team dropped to 26th out of 27.

The point is that Laimbeer can't really get all the defensive credit there; it was only when the other guys with defensive reps came on board that the Pistons really improved at that end. Was he a good defensive center? Sure, but he didn't seem to be that key defensively before Dumars and Rodman. I do think his offensive influence is understated as his range opened the lanes for Isiah/Dantley/Aguirre etc. to go to the hole.

It wasn't simply a roster shake-up that caused the defensive turn-around in the '86/87 season. A concerted decision was made by Chuck Daly to transform the way he coached & the team played following their 1st round loss in '86. That is why Laimbeer's (and everyone else on the team) defensive attention & production improved in '87 and beyond. Not because certain players were drafted or brought in.

[penbeast0]

Coaching can make a big difference defensively sure, but the players have to be there too. The player difference around Laimbeer was pretty dramatic as well.

[trex_8063]

Just quick note that you’ve misrepresented their respective mvp shares: Laimbeer has .012…..not 0.12.