RealGM

Curious what y’all think.

He'd be good. He was a great shooter and skilled passer. When he was young, he wasn't immobile either. Think about slightly better version of prime Al Horford on offense and slightly worse version of prime Marc Gasol on defense - that's a very valuable player.

70sFan wrote:He'd be good. He was a great shooter and skilled passer. When he was young, he wasn't immobile either. Think about slightly better version of prime Al Horford on offense and slightly worse version of prime Marc Gasol on defense - that's a very valuable player.

I think the rich man's version of Horford on offense seems pretty spot on. Sikma was a better pure shooter (85% FT shooter to Horford's 76%) and he was a solid 3-point shooter at a time when 3's weren't practiced or emphasized anywhere close to the way they are in Horford's era. If Sikma were born in 1986, I feel very confident that he would be among the league's best 3-point shooting big men. He was also a very solid rebounder with better DRB and TRB% numbers than Horford. His biggest challenge in today's game would be how well he could defend quicker players on the perimeter when he gets switched onto them. As you said, he wasn't immobile in his youth although he wasn't the quickest big of his era either. I think he'd be an average defender in his youth and a below average defender in his later years but his shooting, especially as a stretch big, would be excellent throughout his career.

I was just watching some Sikma highlights. His shot looks a lot like Jokic's.

I had a friend who used to practice that behind the ear shot all the time, thought it made him hard to block. Of course, I thought the same thing about my running hook shots I copied from another friend, though I found out it was quite vulnerable from behind. And neither of us were great shakes at actual shot blocking.

He’d be a Neanderthals man Jokic or a Cro Magnon man’s Bill Walton.

Hair Jordan wrote:He’d be a Neanderthals man Jokic or a Cro Magnon man’s Bill Walton.

What does it suppose to mean?

So, a Neanderthal's Jokic . . . that means he's shorter but stronger, tougher, and arguably more adaptable though less imaginative and predictive. I think you may be overestimating Sikma. He was a very good player but Jokic is on a whole other level.

For a contemporary comparision: what about a much better shooting [though lesser vision/passing/playmaking] version of Alperen Sengun?


They're the same height and build, similar athleticism (I want to say Sengun a little better all-around athlete, though truthfully I cannot tell how much of that is natural and how much is simply the benefit of better physical training [than existed in the NBA 40 years ago]......I suspect a lot of the latter).

Both reasonably affective defensive big men without being especially notable rim protectors. Both good rebounders.
Both have decent passing acumen for bigs (though Sengun better).


The most notable difference otherwise is the shooting ability (massive edge to Sikma). The difference there is big enough that one might ask why I bothered to make the comparison at all. I guess because I started with someone who appears to be a similar phyiscal specimen, and who [like Sikma] is sufficiently affective defensively without blocking a lot of shots.

He faded early within his own era while the league gradually improved. He might or might not drown in today's talent pool.
He would probably be a serviceable rotation player at best.

Mazter wrote:He faded early within his own era while the league gradually improved. He might or might not drown in today's talent pool.
He would probably be a serviceable rotation player at best.

That's completely baseless statement.

Mazter wrote:He faded early within his own era while the league gradually improved. He might or might not drown in today's talent pool.
He would probably be a serviceable rotation player at best.

After 11 years in the league with MVP votes in 5 of them including his 8th year, and his 10th year being a bit subpar as he was traded to Milwaukee, he developed a credible 3 point shot and was relevant for 3 more years as a rotation piece despite decreased mobility and retired at age 35.

If that sounds like fading early, that takes out the majority of today's max money players who can't match it.