RealGM

Who is the better overall player? Prime Dominique Wilkins or current Jayson Tatum?

I think it's definitely Tatum at this point. I don't love his offense, but I don't think Nique has any clear edge on that front and Tatum is much better defender.

Prime Wilkins.

Tatum is clearly the better defender. And I think he eventually - he is not even age 25 yet - surpasses Dominique.

But prime Wilkins drew a ton of fouls - getting the opposition into foul trouble often - compared to Tatum, and was the much better offensive rebounder.

kcktiny wrote:Prime Wilkins.

Tatum is clearly the better defender. And I think he eventually - he is not even age 25 yet - surpasses Dominique.

But prime Wilkins drew a ton of fouls - getting the opposition into foul trouble often - compared to Tatum, and was the much better offensive rebounder.

Dominique was better at drawing fouls but was also providing significantly less spacing offensively, struggled as a playmaker/passing hub given his high usage and crashing the glass instead of getting back defensively was a negative--not a positive.

Domique FTR [Prime RS/PS]: .360 / .376
Tatum FTR [Prime RS/PS]: .273 / .390

I understand the small sample size but Tatum has, over his short prime, been better at getting to the free throw line in the post-season than Wilkins was.

I don't think the fouls make up for the efficiency gap (career .571 for Tatum v. .536 for Nique) even without Tatum's extra spacing

I would also guess a great deal of the offensive rebounding gap is coaching; modern coaches rarely send the wings in to offensive rebound preferring the extra defensive help against possible fast breaks off the defensive board.

I don't think the fouls make up for the efficiency gap

From 1983-84 to 1992-93 - ten whole years - Wilkins attempted the 5th most FTs. Only Barkley, Jordan, and the Malone brothers (Moses and Karl) attempted more.

He averaged close to 8 FTAs per game over an entire decade. Think of all the opposing players that had to sit early because of foul trouble, players/starters that were not on the floor when their teams needed them because Wilkins sent them to bench, and some reserve had to take their place in the lineup. That's a very important part of basketball, even today.

I would also guess a great deal of the offensive rebounding gap is coaching

That same 10 year span Wilkins had 2186 offensive rebounds, 600 more than any other SF. But you're going to blow that off with a comment like it was due to coaching?? He went to the basket looking for offensive rebounds only because he was told to do so?

He was the best offensive rebounding SF in the league for an entire decade.

Not only was this guy sending opposing players/starters to the bench early on a regular basis, he was also gaining many extra ball possessions through his offensive rebounding.

Dominique was better at drawing fouls but was also providing significantly less spacing offensively, struggled as a playmaker/passing hub given his high usage and crashing the glass instead of getting back defensively was a negative--not a positive.

What? He "struggled" as a playmaker? Since when does a team's leading scorer also have to be that team's leading passer too?

Wilkins was the ages of 23-32 that decade, played 37 min/g, scored 27.5 pts/g, passed for 2.8 ast/g.

In that same age range Dirk Nowitzki played 37 min/g, scored 24.5 pts/g, passed for 2.9 ast/g. Did he struggle as a playmaker/passer too considering his high usage? Did that hurt Dallas all those years, his inability to pass the ball?

And less spacing? This guy's MO was getting to the basket and drawing fouls, probably better than any other SF during that decade. What does "less spacing" have to do with it?

Michael Jordan also got to the basket a ton and drew a ton of fouls. Did he too ruin spacing for the Bulls all those years? Is that why the Bulls didn't win a title until Jordan's 7th season, because all those years he was scoring 30+ pts/g he was actually ruining their spacing?

Aren't players who score a lot and get to the FT line a lot also the players that get double-teamed the most? Don't players that get double-teamed often mean a teammate is open because his man is doing the double teaming? How is that ruining spacing when because of you being double teamed your teammate is open more often?

That decade Wilkins lead Atlanta in scoring every season. Only one other Hawks player averaged as much as even 20 pts/g in a single season all that time. He scored over 20,000 points those 10 seasons, no other Hawks player scored even 9,000 points.

He's a HOF player that was routinely an all-star and all-NBA 2nd or 3rd team 7 times.

He was indeed, but then so is Tatum assuming he stays on his career arc. Nique's main focus was his scoring. Tatum make more shots and even with Nique's foul draw advantage, is the more efficient scorer. The extra fouls have value, so does the extra spacing. I would say overall, Tatum is slightly better as a scorer.

So it comes to their secondary value beyond scoring. Tatum gives you better defense and playmaking; Nique gives you better rebounding particularly on the offensive boards. I value Tatum's contribution more just as I did Alex English's better efficiency, defense, and playmaking v. Nique's rebounding edge when they were playing.

The key is that Nique (and English) did it for over a decade, we will have to see if Tatum lives up to his career so far.

I'd take Nique on offense by a slim margin and Tatum by a small margin overall due to the defensive gap.

Wilkins the slight edge as the on-ball scorer and a larger edge on the glass.

Tatum a bit better playmaker for others and a better off-ball offensive player.

Defensively I don't mind Nique, but I have Tatum as legitimately quite good.

kcktiny wrote:

Colbinii wrote:Dominique was better at drawing fouls but was also providing significantly less spacing offensively, struggled as a playmaker/passing hub given his high usage and crashing the glass instead of getting back defensively was a negative--not a positive.

What? He "struggled" as a playmaker? Since when does a team's leading scorer also have to be that team's leading passer too?

Wilkins was the ages of 23-32 that decade, played 37 min/g, scored 27.5 pts/g, passed for 2.8 ast/g.

In that same age range Dirk Nowitzki played 37 min/g, scored 24.5 pts/g, passed for 2.9 ast/g. Did he struggle as a playmaker/passer too considering his high usage? Did that hurt Dallas all those years, his inability to pass the ball?

First I do want to start out saying that I am lower on Dominique than you in a vacuum. I am higher on the Modern NBA Skillsetsthan you, specifically passing/playmaking [Generating points when collapsing a defense, finding the open shooter in very difficult defensive setting and getting back on defense to prevent the easiest offense--the fast break].

Addressing your points, however:

RE Playmaking: Dominique averages an abysmal amount of Assists given his usage rate. Using the same period of time as you are using [Age 23-32], Dominique averaged a 30.3% USG%, 11.9 AST% and 21 FGA/75 Possessions. This is an abysmal Assist rate, for example DeMar DeRozan averaged similar numbers during the same period yet significantly better passing [28.7 USG%, 22.7 AST, 18.5 FGA/75]--a more ample comparison for Dominique than Dirk [Which I will get to in a moment].

During this Period, only 6/10 seasons did the Hawks have an offense above league average, which was a nice 5-year period where the Hawks were between +3 to +5 Offensive Efficiency.

Unfortunately for Dominique, his numbers torpedoed in the post-season as defense worked harder to stop his driving game and he really struggled with creating for others in these situations.

As for the Dirk comparison, he averaged a mere 18.8 FGA/75 Possessions, 13.9 AST% and 28.5% USG% over the same period but his teams were all-time great offensively, with the team above league average offensively every season including 4 seasons of leading offenses signifciantly higher than Dominique did AND being Signifciantly better against post-season defenses.

And less spacing? This guy's MO was getting to the basket and drawing fouls, probably better than any other SF during that decade. What does "less spacing" have to do with it?

Well, the idea of providing spacing for your teammates is to provide them with ample passing lanes, more space to shoot and operate when the ball is in their hands and--in some cases--morph or impact a defenses decisions when the ball isn't even in your hands. Granted, Wilkins had the ball a tremendous amount [As pointed out earlier, >30% Usage is an insane amount] but had Wilkins been able to impact the game in a meaningful way the other 70% of possessions perhaps his team results would have improved.

RE: Best Foul Drawing SF of the 1980s

No. Adrian Dantley crushes Dominique and I would prefer Bernard King to him as well.

Michael Jordan also got to the basket a ton and drew a ton of fouls. Did he too ruin spacing for the Bulls all those years? Is that why the Bulls didn't win a title until Jordan's 7th season, because all those years he was scoring 30+ pts/g he was actually ruining their spacing?

I like to think your strawman argument isn't something you believe and certainly isn't something I believe. Do you recall when you said Dominique averaged a mere 2.8 Assists/Game, Jordan averaged--in the 7 years prior to winning a championship, over twice this many at 6.0 Assists per game. To answer your question, Jordan was infinitely better offensively than Dominique and should never be compared.

But...since you decided, remember when you were gushing over Dominique's free throw rate? Dominique from 1983-1992 was .344 while Jordan's was .420 prior to his first Championship in 1991.

Aren't players who score a lot and get to the FT line a lot also the players that get double-teamed the most? Don't players that get double-teamed often mean a teammate is open because his man is doing the double teaming? How is that ruining spacing when because of you being double teamed your teammate is open more often?

Excellent point. Why yes, being double teamed is certainly something a player should be able to capitalize on with his playmaking. But, as you said, 2.8 Assists per game is putrid--HORRIBLE--for a player who you state is being double teamed all the time. Was Dominique this bad at passing to an open teammate or did Dominique simply not pass out of double teams as much as he should have?

That decade Wilkins lead Atlanta in scoring every season. Only one other Hawks player averaged as much as even 20 pts/g in a single season all that time. He scored over 20,000 points those 10 seasons, no other Hawks player scored even 9,000 points.

He's a HOF player that was routinely an all-star and all-NBA 2nd or 3rd team 7 times.

Yes, good player but in my mind [and eyes] never a Top 5 Player in the league type guy [Perhaps he snuck in once or twice] while Tatum has strong arguments in 2022 already--in a stronger and deeper league.

Nique would (maybe) have won in 94 if the hawks didnt trade him for Danny Manning. Should have traded for Parish who could have split time with Koncak at the center spot. The Chief was still a 10-12ppg and at least 7rpg at that point in his career. Nice piece off the bench for a contending team.

I think Tatum would have a much more positive impact on a contender than Nique would. I honestly don’t think the Celtics make the Finals with Nique in Tatum’s place.

this means nothing in the comparison I know but just found this kinda interesting.
Career per 100 tatum has a 111 o rating compared to 112 nique and a 107 d rating compared 108 for nique one less in both categories.

dooki667 wrote:this means nothing in the comparison I know but just found this kinda interesting.
Career per 100 tatum has a 111 o rating compared to 112 nique and a 107 d rating compared 108 for nique one less in both categories.

D Rating is better though but you're just using Basketball-reference.com estimated numbers

Colbinii wrote:

dooki667 wrote:this means nothing in the comparison I know but just found this kinda interesting.
Career per 100 tatum has a 111 o rating compared to 112 nique and a 107 d rating compared 108 for nique one less in both categories.

D Rating is better though but you're just using Basketball-reference.com estimated numbers

I did not know that my friend where would I go to get the more accurate numbers ?

I struggle to see the pro-Nique argument. He was a dude who was more entertainment than value until comparatively late in his career.

tsherkin wrote:I struggle to see the pro-Nique argument. He was a dude who was more entertainment than value until comparatively late in his career.

I wouldn't go that far. He was the main force behind some very solid Hawks teams, some of them being actually quite excellent in RS. Wilkins anchored +4 offense and +5.5 SRS overall during 1987-89 period. Of course, these teams in Atlanta were quite good and it's not all about Wilkins, but he was a good offensive player. His postseason career is a bit underwhelming, but calling him like that is a stretch to me.

70sFan wrote:

tsherkin wrote:I struggle to see the pro-Nique argument. He was a dude who was more entertainment than value until comparatively late in his career.

I wouldn't go that far. He was the main force behind some very solid Hawks teams, some of them being actually quite excellent in RS. Wilkins anchored +4 offense and +5.5 SRS overall during 1987-89 period. Of course, these teams in Atlanta were quite good and it's not all about Wilkins, but he was a good offensive player. His postseason career is a bit underwhelming, but calling him like that is a stretch to me.

Sure, I mean he was okay. 87 to like 93, he was a reasonably good offensive player and a net negative on defense. We've seen lots of those guys. 90-93, he was even somewhat efficient relative to league average. It's just that he's almost the paradigm of "inefficient volume scorer and weak playmaker who is bad on defense," right? So he's like the banner boy for "don't be like this guy," and guys today won't have the benefit of being innovative and exciting dunkers like he was in his own career. He'd be even less valuable in today's game, though that has only so much merit as an analytical point. I have a very low view of players like Nique and Melo.

dooki667 wrote:this means nothing in the comparison I know but just found this kinda interesting.
Career per 100 tatum has a 111 o rating compared to 112 nique and a 107 d rating compared 108 for nique one less in both categories.

That's one of the more important stats mentioned so what u mean it means nothing

Chronz wrote:

dooki667 wrote:this means nothing in the comparison I know but just found this kinda interesting.
Career per 100 tatum has a 111 o rating compared to 112 nique and a 107 d rating compared 108 for nique one less in both categories.

That's one of the more important stats mentioned so what u mean it means nothing

Well we got niques whole career Rookie peak prime and post prime decline where Tatum we only have rookie up to the start of his prime no peak imo no late career decline so it doesn't seem apples to apples comparison to me.

tsherkin wrote:

70sFan wrote:

tsherkin wrote:I struggle to see the pro-Nique argument. He was a dude who was more entertainment than value until comparatively late in his career.

I wouldn't go that far. He was the main force behind some very solid Hawks teams, some of them being actually quite excellent in RS. Wilkins anchored +4 offense and +5.5 SRS overall during 1987-89 period. Of course, these teams in Atlanta were quite good and it's not all about Wilkins, but he was a good offensive player. His postseason career is a bit underwhelming, but calling him like that is a stretch to me.

Sure, I mean he was okay. 87 to like 93, he was a reasonably good offensive player and a net negative on defense. We've seen lots of those guys. 90-93, he was even somewhat efficient relative to league average. It's just that he's almost the paradigm of "inefficient volume scorer and weak playmaker who is bad on defense," right? So he's like the banner boy for "don't be like this guy," and guys today won't have the benefit of being innovative and exciting dunkers like he was in his own career. He'd be even less valuable in today's game, though that has only so much merit as an analytical point. I have a very low view of players like Nique and Melo.

That ‘87-‘93 stretch is interesting. By the end (1992 and 1993), Wilkins was a very clear heavy defensive liability and was never likely ever even a neutral defender. He had a solid OBPM, but was underwhelming efficiency wise on their best teams and was somewhat efficient in ‘90-‘92 and quite efficient in 1993.

The Hawks’ best offenses in this stretch took place in years in which Wilkins was not all that efficient and of course wasn’t a playmaker. One thing, however, was that Wilkins was very careful with the ball and either got shots up or got fouled. It’s still somewhat awful thst he has such a relatively poor rTS% given his high FTr. And these Hawks teams were great offensive rebounders and Nique was part of this though Willis, Livingston, Moses, etc., were the ORB engines. Their offense also fell off sharply the year Doc Rivers was gone.