RealGM

I think Jerry Lucas is one of the most underrated players of all time. Prolific rebounder, prolific memory, ahead of his time range, and has one of greatest overall basketball careers of all time(won in HS, College, Olympic, and NBA. Top 75 player).

Who was the better player better in their respective times? Who would you take today?
And who ultimately will have the better career or has the ship sailed for that?

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

Lucas is clearly the better player and I doubt Towns reaches his level careerwise.

I would take Towns now even though I don't rate him that highly since I don't know how well Lucas will translate to the modern game.

I've always been quite low on Lucas, or at least certainly much lower than media, which seems to think he was the #5 player of the 60s for whatever reason (and by "whatever reason" I mean huge slashlines ofc). To me he seems like a Carmelo Anthony kind of guy (in terms of approximate level and O/D split, not playstyle). Haven't watched much of him though, open to be convinced otherwise.

Towns is currently a top 10-15 kind of guy, it's tough to argue above that, and I think Lucas reached a higher ranking than that almost by default, probably a top 10ish guy at his best. Still, I think Towns peaked higher in a point-differential kind of way (more neddle-movers right now).

Good longevity, so I probably could see him with a Melo kind of career (around #85), but I actually have him lower. Towns still does not reach him anyway, but I think he will without much problem in the future.

TT8198 wrote:I think Jerry Lucas is one of the most underrated players of all time (...) Top 75 player)

Yeah, I don't think that's anything close to a lock.

What makes Jerry Lucas better than even someone like Dan Issel, apart from just standing out a little more in his own era?

Jaivl wrote:I've always been quite low on Lucas, or at least certainly much lower than media, which seems to think he was the #5 player of the 60s for whatever reason (and by "whatever reason" I mean huge slashlines ofc). To me he seems like a Carmelo Anthony kind of guy (in terms of approximate level and O/D split, not playstyle). Haven't watched much of him though, open to be convinced otherwise.

The major difference is that, especially with Cincinnati, he was wildly efficient and twice led the league in scoring efficiency. Once, he even did it posting 59% TS which, keeping in mind the league averages of the time, is kind of wild. He was also probably like an 18-20% TRB guy in his hey day, based on the numbers we have for him in his rebounding decay years. He didn't drop huge volume bombs, but then, he was also playing alongside Oscar on a team that was the best offense in the league 3 times in 6 years, and 2nd-best twice. Good passer, good range, knew the other team's sets about as well as they did often enough (anecdotally, anyhow).

I'm curious, what has you low on Lucas?

AEnigma wrote:What makes Jerry Lucas better than even someone like Dan Issel, apart from just standing out a little more in his own era?

Is there anything that makes KAT better than Issel?

70sFan wrote:

AEnigma wrote:What makes Jerry Lucas better than even someone like Dan Issel, apart from just standing out a little more in his own era?

Is there anything that makes KAT better than Issel?

I would imagine kat is the much better long distance shooter?

tsherkin wrote:I'm curious, what has you low on Lucas?

Possible reasons for cynicism on Lucas.

1) Just for this comp his box composites are more good than exceptional.
2) He got to play with the best point guard of the time whom has been acknowledged as making teammates better getting them the ball where they liked it. Latterly got to play with Frazier and a ball moving Knicks team. Numbers could be argued to have been inflated.
3) The WoWY family data has him as as very ordinary, especially through to '70. Now it's a very noisy tool. But ordinary as in circa average and maybe slight negative (for career WoWR and negative movement in Cincy and SF), way below what what the 50 or 75 would have you expect.
4) His reputation as stats chaser. Think I've seen this from multiple sources and from sources saying players at the time knew it (Phil Jackson writes about DeBusschere making it work, accepting Lucas despite regarding him as someone who played for stats to some degree - in 11 Rings).
5) Maybe ... maybe ... concerns about him as a teammate/competitor/person. Sports Century doc documentary has him regarding it as a profession (and for instance contrasted as a competitor with Cousy, less willing to dive for a loose ball), him being at times distracted by other business ventures (and latterly involved a pyramid scheme), perception of him as different/aloof, comparison with Rick Barry as a person and later in the show suggested he lacked "tact" until a Christian conversion . Of course there are more positive angles on his fit and role with the Knicks and a positive presentation of his educational work, Christianity.
6) Defense. Limited info here but otoh don't recall hearing much positive (though perhaps not a lot in general). Kalich's Basketball Rating Handbook graded him a 4 out of 10 on D. Only one source and perhaps somewhat arbitrary but far lower than his average grade far lower than any other elite forwards in that category (I think it's rating peaks and Baylor who's immediately in front of him among then active forwards grades a 7, the next forward to get a 4 is Cazzie Russell, anecdotally a sieve though a pre-Lakers Hairston is also a 4 and I wouldn't stake my life on these grades or anything). Off limited information I'm inclined to think this a flaw and possibly a substantial one.
7) Personal one here ... and I don't like the "tougher in my day" quotes in general ... and I can't locate the quote so there's a chance of misattribution here. That said ...

I believe he said the reason people don't get 20 rebound is they don't want it enough. And I think in the context of it's either put to him or he's considered availability of rebounds and he dismissed it. Okay so ... couldn't find it where I thought it was hence the caveats but searched online, I posted it before, apparently it's in Plutp's [edit: Pluto's] Tall Tales

You can talk about eras all you want and how guys shoot for a higher percentage today and there are fewer missed shots, but the players of my time simply wanted to rebound more and we rebounded better. I went into games expecting to get 20 rebounds. So did Wilt, Russell and Nate Thurmond. Now when a guy gets 20 rebounds, it's an event. Back then, it was just doing your job.

So for all the memory ... ego trumps critical thinking (and in terms of relevance to basketball assessment may raise questions about mind for the game beyond little tricks, though maybe that's a different level from on-court stuff).

I think three in concert with 4, 6 and aspects of 5 are most damaging. I.e. there's apparent signal to suggest he was significantly worse than his box-score and there's reasons to think that that's plausible.

70sFan wrote:

AEnigma wrote:What makes Jerry Lucas better than even someone like Dan Issel, apart from just standing out a little more in his own era?

Is there anything that makes KAT better than Issel?

Athleticism, shot, range, handle, hands, shotblocking, rebounding, passing, post play — but he does have the distinct disadvantage of not being born in the 1950s-1970s, and I know that is a tragically prohibitive factor to consider.

Owly wrote:stuff

Helpful, thanks. I don't really know a lot about Lucas, so that at least gives me some context. Cheers!

falcolombardi wrote:

70sFan wrote:

AEnigma wrote:What makes Jerry Lucas better than even someone like Dan Issel, apart from just standing out a little more in his own era?

Is there anything that makes KAT better than Issel?

I would imagine kat is the much better long distance shooter?

Probably, as Issel never shot threes really.

AEnigma wrote:

70sFan wrote:

AEnigma wrote:What makes Jerry Lucas better than even someone like Dan Issel, apart from just standing out a little more in his own era?

Is there anything that makes KAT better than Issel?

Athleticism, shot, range, handle, hands, shotblocking, rebounding, passing, post play — but he does have the distinct disadvantage of not being born in the 1950s-1970s, and I know that is a tragically prohibitive factor to consider.

I don't think KAT is really clearly more athletic than Issel. He's smaller than him, but he was also quicker and springier.

Shot is tough at midrange, but I give KAT the edge for his three point shooting.

I agree with shotblocking, hands, rebounding and passing. I don't agree with post game, Issel was very simplistic with his moves but he was usually quite effective.

I don't know, I think these two are quite close. I want to see KAT playing next to Gobert to compare it to Issel+Gilmore.

KAT is the better player but Lucas was better for his era in that the degree to which Lucas was better than players in his era is greater than the degree to which KAT is better than players in his era. Most players today travel routinely by 1960s rules although I have not thought about this specifically for KAT. If KAT was able to dribble and not travel and we time travelled KAT back to the 1960s, KAT would dominate the 1960 NBA more than Jerry Lucas did.

70sFan wrote:

AEnigma wrote:

70sFan wrote:Is there anything that makes KAT better than Issel?

Athleticism, shot, range, handle, hands, shotblocking, rebounding, passing, post play — but he does have the distinct disadvantage of not being born in the 1950s-1970s, and I know that is a tragically prohibitive factor to consider.

I don't think KAT is really clearly more athletic than Issel. He's smaller than him, but he was also quicker and springier.

Shot is tough at midrange, but I give KAT the edge for his three point shooting.

I agree with shotblocking, hands, rebounding and passing. I don't agree with post game, Issel was very simplistic with his moves but he was usually quite effective.

I don't know, I think these two are quite close. I want to see KAT playing next to Gobert to compare it to Issel+Gilmore.

I think KAT is more athletic than 1980s Issel. I am not qualified for 1970s Issel. I think KAT can jump to the left or right for a block better than Issel. I think KAT can rebound better than Issel when both are trying. I don’t think either of KAT or Issel were always willing to do the dirty work required to be a great rebounder.
Lucas was willing to do the dirty work of rebounding.

KAS deeper range but Issel was a shooting machine and Issel was a very good finisher on fast breaks.
If I could add one of KAT or Issel to my 1980s Celtics I choose KAT.

AEnigma wrote:What makes Jerry Lucas better than even someone like Dan Issel, apart from just standing out a little more in his own era?

Lucas was the more efficient shooter, especially in comparison to his peers. Lucas was the better rebounder (we don't have TRB% for Lucas' prime in Cincinnati but even in 70 and 71 his TRB% was better than any season Issel had, even including his ABA years), and Lucas was the better passer. Lucas also had the superior memory, which (he claimed) helped offset his very pedestrian lateral quickness because he could memorize his opponent's offensive preferences and thus frequently guessed correctly where the ball was going or which direction the guy he was guarding would be going.

AEnigma wrote:What makes Jerry Lucas better than even someone like Dan Issel, apart from just standing out a little more in his own era?

Better rebounding, better range (Issel had good range for a center but still is more of a mid range/post up scorer; Lucas was famous for the length of his shots, shooting a decent percentage from up to 3 point range, the kind of open long range shot they nicknamed a "Lucas layup." And even with that extra range, a more efficient scorer though lower volume scorer in the NBA.

Here are the top ten seasons among Lucas, KAT (& Issel since he came up too) by TS+ and TS Add...

17/18 Towns (116 TS+ | 243 TS Add)
68/69 Lucas (120 TS+ | 228 TS Add)
63/64 Lucas (119 TS+ | 227 TS Add)
16/17 Towns (112 TS+ | 218 TS Add)
21/22 Towns (113 TS+ | 211 TS Add)
67/68 Lucas (114 TS+ | 210 TS Add)
81/82 Issel (113 TS+ | 210 TS Add)
76/77 Issel (113 TS+ | 205 TS Add)
18/19 Towns (111 TS+ | 188 TS Add)
64/65 Lucas (115 TS+ | 186 TS Add)

Lucas with the edge in efficiency, KAT with higher volume.

Anyone want to take a stab at ranking the 3 defensively?

penbeast0 wrote:Anyone want to take a stab at ranking the 3 defensively?

Feels like kind of a cop out answer since its essentially newest/tallest to oldest/shortest, but my instinct is KAT, Issel, Lucas.

For whatever it is or isn't worth, Defensive Win Shares per 48 Minutes shakes out to...

Issel (.0540)
KAT (.0536)
Lucas (.0520)

penbeast0 wrote:Anyone want to take a stab at ranking the 3 defensively?

That would be pretty tough to do and feel anywhere close to confident in the choices. Compared to their peers, I'd probably go with:

1. Lucas - tough because we have less data on his prime in the 60's. His DWS is better than the other two, but his best DWS years were his Knick seasons, hardly a surprise since the Knicks were a top-level defensive squad then with elite defenders like DeBusschere and Frazier doing the heavy lifting. Although to Lucas' credit, the Knicks were still #3 in defense in 72 with Reed only playing 11 games and a past-prime Lucas averaging 38 min/game over 77 games as an undersized center. I think Luke was a better defender playing the 5 because it was easier to hide his lack of quickness there than as a 4. While Lucas gets heavily penalized on offense with the lack of a 3-point line, I think he benefits from that on defense because the less spacing and packing the paint style better suits him defensively. So just comparing him to his peers, I would rate Lucas a bit higher defensively than KAT compared to his peers.

2. KAT. Probably the opposite of Lucas in that he may be better suited defensively as a 4 instead of a 5 (although a lot of his offensive value comes as a unicorn-type center because of his 3-point shooting). Not a standout in any area of defense and tends to get into foul trouble, especially when hanging back and trying to protect the rim. Not a great rim protector despite his size. But Minny's defense notably improved this past season and KAT was a key part of that as his Drtg also improved. Since I'm trying to look at this over a bigger piece of time than just each player's one year peak, he gets dragged down by his (and his team's) poor defense prior to the past season. If he continues this trend over a few years, I'd be more comfortable considering him better than Lucas defensively.

3. Issel. Just basing it on the eye test, I think Issel is below the other two defensively. Similar to Lucas in that he was plagued with average (at best) lateral quickness but Lucas was a better low post defender and defensive rebounder than Issel.