Jamaal Wilkes vs Andre Iguodala
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:47 am
Who do you think peaked higher?
Who had better career overall?
Who had better career overall?
Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1976664
RCM88x wrote:I'd probably go with Andre for both. Jamaal was definitely the better scorer and might be more valuable in today's league than he was then, but Iggy's all around offensive skillset and defense give him a pretty clear leg up on Wilkes I think.
Odinn21 wrote:Wilkes was the better scorer by some distance. He rebounded better. He was better at defending bigger players / low post defense. Iggy's defense is better on overall. Also, there's a slight edge in passing for Iguodala.
I think this is one of the most "recency bias" poll outcomes in here recently. 5-2 for Iguodala. Sure, I see Iggy's case for having a better career value. But peak to peak, I'm gonna go on a limb and will say it's not that close. Wilkes was the better player.
RCM88x wrote:Odinn21 wrote:Wilkes was the better scorer by some distance. He rebounded better. He was better at defending bigger players / low post defense. Iggy's defense is better on overall. Also, there's a slight edge in passing for Iguodala.
I think this is one of the most "recency bias" poll outcomes in here recently. 5-2 for Iguodala. Sure, I see Iggy's case for having a better career value. But peak to peak, I'm gonna go on a limb and will say it's not that close. Wilkes was the better player.
I don't think Wilkes was the better scorer by "some distance". Adjusting for pace there is only a 2-3ppg gap, and while Wikes efficiency was a little better he did get to play with Kareem, Magic, and Norm Nixon. While Iggy had Andre Miller and Lou Williams.
To me the team situation makes it hard to directly compare primes/peaks here. Iggy was the only real impact guy on an average 6ers team while Wilkes was the #2/3 on a historically stacked Lakers team. IMO Iggys defense and playmaking/IQ gets pretty underrated, even after it made such a difference for GS
Odinn21 wrote:Wilkes was the better scorer by some distance. He rebounded better. He was better at defending bigger players / low post defense. Iggy's defense is better on overall. Also, there's a slight edge in passing for Iguodala.
I think this is one of the most "recency bias" poll outcomes in here recently. 5-2 for Iguodala. Sure, I see Iggy's case for having a better career value. But peak to peak, I'm gonna go on a limb and will say it's not that close. Wilkes was the better player.
G35 wrote:Odinn21 wrote:Wilkes was the better scorer by some distance. He rebounded better. He was better at defending bigger players / low post defense. Iggy's defense is better on overall. Also, there's a slight edge in passing for Iguodala.
I think this is one of the most "recency bias" poll outcomes in here recently. 5-2 for Iguodala. Sure, I see Iggy's case for having a better career value. But peak to peak, I'm gonna go on a limb and will say it's not that close. Wilkes was the better player.
I agree Jamal was a better scorer and Andre was a bit better everywhere else.
I think its situational...
If this is who is the better #1 option then its Wilkes pretty easily imo, we saw what Andre could do in Philly and Denver as the #1 guy and I think his game suffered overall when he had to do too much.
OTOH, they both were put in an ATG team situation where they were a cog in the machine. I think in that situation Andre's utility abilities and higher defensive impact gives him a sizable edge and was key to the Warriors versatility and defense. Whereas Jamal was a key player but I think that the Lakers had so much offense anyway he was not as "needed"......
Odinn21 wrote:RCM88x wrote:Odinn21 wrote:Wilkes was the better scorer by some distance. He rebounded better. He was better at defending bigger players / low post defense. Iggy's defense is better on overall. Also, there's a slight edge in passing for Iguodala.
I think this is one of the most "recency bias" poll outcomes in here recently. 5-2 for Iguodala. Sure, I see Iggy's case for having a better career value. But peak to peak, I'm gonna go on a limb and will say it's not that close. Wilkes was the better player.
I don't think Wilkes was the better scorer by "some distance". Adjusting for pace there is only a 2-3ppg gap, and while Wikes efficiency was a little better he did get to play with Kareem, Magic, and Norm Nixon. While Iggy had Andre Miller and Lou Williams.
To me the team situation makes it hard to directly compare primes/peaks here. Iggy was the only real impact guy on an average 6ers team while Wilkes was the #2/3 on a historically stacked Lakers team. IMO Iggys defense and playmaking/IQ gets pretty underrated, even after it made such a difference for GS
Firstly; it was very clear that Iggy shouldn't be a number 1 scoring option on any team. We knew that at the time. And it was also confirmed by RAPM numbers.
Iggy's offensive RAPM numbers from 2006-07 to 2010-11; -1.3, -1.1, +0.4, -0.2, -0.7.
Also Iggy's scoring having a certain limit was very very obvious in postseason. In his time in Philly, his scoring always regressed in the playoffs, besides 2009.
OTOH, Wilkes' scoring provided way more impact while also being higher/better. And Adjusting pace for is not a good argument. I've stated many many times in here that per poss numbers don't take distributions into account. If a player scores 22 ppg in a season with a pace of 100 and a player scores 20 ppg in a season with a pace of 91, 22 ppg player is the better scorer if their efficiency numbers are on the same level.
Wilkes was 18.9 ppg scorer from 1975-76 to 1983-84, with one blip on his first season in LA. Iggy's top 2 scoring seasons; 19.9 and 18.8.
Wilkes was the better scorer by some distance. "Adjusting for pace" doesn't take into account the drastic change in minute allocations, doesn't take into account distributions.
One other way to put it would be;
Iguodala was providing that much scoring when his team was desparate for any scoring volume, and he barely did it with negative impact.
Wilkes OTOH, provided that much scoring because his scoring was good enough to be a positive impact on that level.
RCM88x wrote:We don't have Wilkes RAPM numbers so I think it's unfair to penalize Iggy for his. We also know that there was a significant talent disparity between their respective teams during their primes.
We aren't really sure if Wilkes scoring was actually impactful with the data we have. Just looking at the basics Iggy looks a lot better in WS and OBPM despite not playing on as good of teams during his prime. Sure FG% favors Wilkes but relative TS I don't think the gap in efficiency is really even that significant if there's any at all.
Odinn21 wrote:I don't remember why Wilkes had that drop in his scoring in '84 playoffs though. I should look for the reason of it. I'll do it when I wake up.
wojoaderge wrote:Odinn21 wrote:I don't remember why Wilkes had that drop in his scoring in '84 playoffs though. I should look for the reason of it. I'll do it when I wake up.
He was injured at the beginning of the playoffs and never regained his minutes/starting role from Worthy and McGee
Odinn21 wrote:RCM88x wrote:We don't have Wilkes RAPM numbers so I think it's unfair to penalize Iggy for his. We also know that there was a significant talent disparity between their respective teams during their primes.
We aren't really sure if Wilkes scoring was actually impactful with the data we have. Just looking at the basics Iggy looks a lot better in WS and OBPM despite not playing on as good of teams during his prime. Sure FG% favors Wilkes but relative TS I don't think the gap in efficiency is really even that significant if there's any at all.
I went by memory because at the time, I watched entire games of the Lakers in the '80s playoffs basically. Even though I don't remember most of the games particularly, the impression I've gotten from those games is solid enough for me.
The gap in scoring is like day & night to me. I'd want to have Wilkes scoring more than 18 per game in because it's one of the Wilkes' impactful/strong suits. I'd never want to have a team that would rely on Iggy trying to score that much.
You don't have to rely on my memory though. That's yours to decide.
Talent disparity is also an argument nearly as lazy as ignoring per game numbers and solely going by per poss numbers.
Edit;
Here's statistical comparison BTW.
Iguodala from 2007-08 to 2012-13;
16.1 pts per game / 22.4 pts per 100 on .539 ts (+0.1 rts) in r. seasons, 455 games
15.0 pts per game / 20.3 pts per 100 on .513 ts (-2.5 rts) in playoffs, 36 games
Wilkes from 1975-76 to 1982-83;
19.1 pts per game / 25.2 pts per 100 on .539 ts (+1.5 rts) in r. seasons, 616 games
18.3 pts per game / 22.8 pts per 100 on .502 ts (-2.2 rts) in playoffs, 82 games
Wilkes' production and efficiency were better over a longer period. And going by memory, impact of Wilkes' scoring was definitely better. So, I don't see much of a case for Iggy in scoring department. Even with solely box numbers; 3 ppg gap is always significant enough.
I don't remember why Wilkes had that drop in his scoring in '84 playoffs though. I should look for the reason of it. I'll do it when I wake up.
RCM88x wrote:Wilkes is slightly better, I don't really think the gap is large enough (2-3 pts, ~.5 - 1.5 rts) to overcome the advantages Iggy has everywhere else. I believe he's probably better in just about every other facet of the game except for rebounding where Wilkes has a slight advantage as well, and free throw shooting I guess.
If anything, Wilkes has a hair advantage on offense (I'd probably say the opposite but I'll concede here), while Iggy has a massive defensive advantage in my opinion. I really don't see the argument here for Wilkes for either question, other than he won titles in his prime (rather than post) and had slightly better box score numbers.
FWIW Wilkes HoF probability is listed at %18.4 while Iggy is %6.1, so I don't really see "Wilkes is in the HoF he's the obvious pick" argument either. The biggest factor in Wilkes being in the HoF is his college career and the colors of his jersey. Not his performance as a NBA player, Mark Price has basically an equivalent HoF probability to Wilkes and no one in history has ever argued he should be in the Hall.
Odinn21 wrote:RCM88x wrote:Wilkes is slightly better, I don't really think the gap is large enough (2-3 pts, ~.5 - 1.5 rts) to overcome the advantages Iggy has everywhere else. I believe he's probably better in just about every other facet of the game except for rebounding where Wilkes has a slight advantage as well, and free throw shooting I guess.
If anything, Wilkes has a hair advantage on offense (I'd probably say the opposite but I'll concede here), while Iggy has a massive defensive advantage in my opinion. I really don't see the argument here for Wilkes for either question, other than he won titles in his prime (rather than post) and had slightly better box score numbers.
FWIW Wilkes HoF probability is listed at %18.4 while Iggy is %6.1, so I don't really see "Wilkes is in the HoF he's the obvious pick" argument either. The biggest factor in Wilkes being in the HoF is his college career and the colors of his jersey. Not his performance as a NBA player, Mark Price has basically an equivalent HoF probability to Wilkes and no one in history has ever argued he should be in the Hall.
There's major parts you're missing. But I didn't state one clearly, so it's on me I guess.
First; in a game usually decided within less than 10 points, 3 ppg gap is always significant. I don't know why you're still downplaying 3 ppg difference. I mean this is not like comparing 8 to 11. The gap is not neglectable. Wilkes was way closer to top of the scoring distribution.
But the part I didn't mention clearly is that; Iguodala became an impactful player when he was free of trying to score that much, and could utilize his actually impactful qualities like defending and facilitating.
If we compare Iggy's impactful seasons to Wilkes' impactful seasons, the gap between the two is undeniably big.
Solely volume wise, Wilkes was the better one by some distance. Comparing when they were impactful, that distance gets even bigger.
Wilkes had Iguodala kind of impact (I'd say better) while also scoring at a level Iggy had major issues.
How is Iguodala is a comparable scorer to Wilkes and how this gets this dragged on is beyond me. Some of the notions about recent names are just guided by recency bias and nothing else. At least to me TBH.