RealGM

Two of the more overlooked Centers of all-time in my opinion. Both renowned for their brute strength and interior defense. Who do you think was the better all-around player when they were both at their respective peaks?

75 Gilmore has it all over Zo. Zo had a better mentality and Artis would retreat into passivity but in 75, Larry Brown challenged him to be aggressive every day and he did all season and through the playoffs to the championship (at a cost of Dan Issel having the worst season of his career and getting traded at the end of it). He was more intimidating on defense, scored more effectively on offense, and passed better as well. Plus the title.

Gilmore had flaws, but in this comparisons they are not that important because Mourning shared the same flaws without having many advantages.

It's Gilmore quite clearly to me.

Gilmore for me.

Gilmore is my choice as well.

Did Gilmore defend at the level of Mourning. Mourning may have had more scoring skills whether it translated to better scoring, might be.

migya wrote:Did Gilmore defend at the level of Mourning.

I'd say so, although he might have been less consistent (which doesn't matter that much in peaks discussions). Gilmore had less motor, but he had significant physical advantages over Mourning.

Mourning may have had more scoring skills whether it translated to better scoring, might be.

That's definitely not true, Gilmore was better and more skilled scorer.

70sFan wrote:

migya wrote:Did Gilmore defend at the level of Mourning.

I'd say so, although he might have been less consistent (which doesn't matter that much in peaks discussions). Gilmore had less motor, but he had significant physical advantages over Mourning.

Mourning may have had more scoring skills whether it translated to better scoring, might be.

That's definitely not true, Gilmore was better and more skilled scorer.

I don't know about more skilled, but definitely better. Artis had a height and strength advantage on virtually every opponent and, like Shaq, he didn't have to have a dream shake to be effective. So, even though he may not have had as many moves and counters as Zo, his were more effective due to his physical advantages. Zo had the naturally hyper-aggressive personality that Artis didn't but that was pretty much his sole advantage (though admittedly it's a big one).

penbeast0 wrote:

70sFan wrote:

migya wrote:Did Gilmore defend at the level of Mourning.

I'd say so, although he might have been less consistent (which doesn't matter that much in peaks discussions). Gilmore had less motor, but he had significant physical advantages over Mourning.

Mourning may have had more scoring skills whether it translated to better scoring, might be.

That's definitely not true, Gilmore was better and more skilled scorer.

I don't know about more skilled, but definitely better. Artis had a height and strength advantage on virtually every opponent and, like Shaq, he didn't have to have a dream shake to be effective. So, even though he may not have had as many moves and counters as Zo, his were more effective due to his physical advantages. Zo had the naturally hyper-aggressive personality that Artis didn't but that was pretty much his sole advantage (though admittedly it's a big one).

I don't think Mourning had more scoring moves than Gilmore though, that's my point. Mourning was quite limited scorer himself who relied on brute strength and physicality. Gilmore's post repertoire is actually quite decent, the only thing that limited him to some degree is his heavy reliance on right block scoring (usually with skyhook or jumphook to the middle). I don't think Mourning scoring bag is wealthier though.

70sFan wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:

70sFan wrote:I'd say so, although he might have been less consistent (which doesn't matter that much in peaks discussions). Gilmore had less motor, but he had significant physical advantages over Mourning.


That's definitely not true, Gilmore was better and more skilled scorer.

I don't know about more skilled, but definitely better. Artis had a height and strength advantage on virtually every opponent and, like Shaq, he didn't have to have a dream shake to be effective. So, even though he may not have had as many moves and counters as Zo, his were more effective due to his physical advantages. Zo had the naturally hyper-aggressive personality that Artis didn't but that was pretty much his sole advantage (though admittedly it's a big one).

I don't think Mourning had more scoring moves than Gilmore though, that's my point. Mourning was quite limited scorer himself who relied on brute strength and physicality. Gilmore's post repertoire is actually quite decent, the only thing that limited him to some degree is his heavy reliance on right block scoring (usually with skyhook or jumphook to the middle). I don't think Mourning scoring bag is wealthier though.

Saying that Zo was completely reliant on strength and physicality as an offensive player is just simply not true in my mind. He had a very respectable mid-range jumper that he could put in the hoop all the way out to 20 feet on a fairly consistent basis. Overall, I definitely feel that Zo was the more well-rounded player on the offensive end. As others have already said, Gilmore was able to get by just off of his sheer size and brute strength, and on top of that, the overall talent pool of Centers during his era was nowhere near what it was during Zo's era. What Zo was able to accomplish with all the other elite Centers in the league having a serious height advantage on him I think makes him the better offensive player on a pound for pound basis. I'm probably in the minority with these thoughts, but at the end of the day this is just my layman's opinion.

AStark1991 wrote:

70sFan wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:
I don't know about more skilled, but definitely better. Artis had a height and strength advantage on virtually every opponent and, like Shaq, he didn't have to have a dream shake to be effective. So, even though he may not have had as many moves and counters as Zo, his were more effective due to his physical advantages. Zo had the naturally hyper-aggressive personality that Artis didn't but that was pretty much his sole advantage (though admittedly it's a big one).

I don't think Mourning had more scoring moves than Gilmore though, that's my point. Mourning was quite limited scorer himself who relied on brute strength and physicality. Gilmore's post repertoire is actually quite decent, the only thing that limited him to some degree is his heavy reliance on right block scoring (usually with skyhook or jumphook to the middle). I don't think Mourning scoring bag is wealthier though.

Saying that Zo was completely reliant on strength and physicality as an offensive player is just simply not true in my mind. He had a very respectable mid-range jumper that he could put in the hoop all the way out to 20 feet on a fairly consistent basis. Overall, I definitely feel that Zo was the more well-rounded player on the offensive end. As others have already said, Gilmore was able to get by just off of his sheer size and brute strength, and on top of that, the overall talent pool of Centers during his era was nowhere near what it was during Zo's era. What Zo was able to accomplish with all the other elite Centers in the league having a serious height advantage on him I think makes him the better offensive player on a pound for pound basis. I'm probably in the minority with these thoughts, but at the end of the day this is just my layman's opinion.

And on an inch for inch basis, Muggsy Bogues was the greatest PG to ever play the game. I agree that Zo had a better mid-range jumper, but Gilmore's bag may have been more limited and reliant on size, still it was more effective.

Gilmore played against the guy I consider most similar to Mourning in league history, Mel Daniels. Both undersized, physical bangers with strong defensive games; Zo adds a level of shot blocking Daniels never achieved but both made the HOF on physical aggression with similar offensive games.

Gilmore and Mourning both probably top 10 centers of all time considering health in the mix.

Who do you think was the better all-around player when they were both at their respective peaks?

Availability is always the key factor, and Gilmore played far more minutes - even at their peaks - than did Mourning.

In his career Mourning had just 1 year of having played more than 2750 minutes in a season, never played 3000+ minutes in a season. Gilmore has 13 seasons of 2750+ minutes played, 7 seasons of 3000+ minutes played. Even in ABA seasons of 84 (not 82) games, Gilmore still played 39-44 min/g, Mourning never more than 38 min/g.

Gilmore's first 3 seasons in the NBA (1976-77 to 1978-79), his 6th to 8th seasons, he played more minutes than Mourning did in any 3 seasons, and more minutes than any other NBA C those 3 seasons, and among Cs grabbed the most 2nd rebounds (3184, only Malone had more), scored the 2nd most points (5346, only Jabbar scored more), blocked the 3rd most shots (540, only Jabbar and George Johnson blocked more), and attempted the most FTAs among Cs (1842).

We don't have blocked shot data for Gilmore's first 2 seasons, but if we arbitrarily assume peak here as the ages of 24-30 (7 seasons) for both players, on a per minute basis they are actually quite close. Again Gilmore played far more minutes (21,058 to 14,678) and thus had more points, rebounds, and blocks, but on a per minute basis:

- Mourning scored better, 23.2 vs. 22.4 ps/40min
- Mourning got to the FT line more, 9.4 FTA/40min vs. 7.7 FTA/40min for Gilmore
- Gilmore was the better rebounder (14.9 vs. 11.1 reb/40min)
- Mourning was the better shot blocker (3.4 vs. 2.6 bs/40min)

AStark1991 wrote:Saying that Zo was completely reliant on strength and physicality as an offensive player is just simply not true in my mind.

I didn't say he was "completely reliant", I know he can do a few things on offense. From my memory, Mourning always struggled against bigger and more athletic opponents, because that's his true strength. He relied on getting deep positions or pushing defenders around on drives, but if you can keep him away from the basket, he didn't have many reliable ways to punish you.

He had a very respectable mid-range jumper that he could put in the hoop all the way out to 20 feet on a fairly consistent basis.

Excluding 1997 from the sample (this year has ridiculous outlier data all over the place), 1998-02 Mourning shot 38% from close midrange and 43% from long midrange. The first number is just bad (and he took more shots from that range), the other is respectable but Mourning is highly inconsistent with his efficiency from outside the paint. It also doesn't translate to the postseason. He's also mediocre FT shooter.

If you mean that To could hit FT jumpers here and there then it's true, but he couldn't rely on that shot to score effectively on consistent basis. I don't even know if his midrange jumpshot is better than Gilmore's, he was just forced to use it more.

Overall, I definitely feel that Zo was the more well-rounded player on the offensive end.

Worse passer, less post moves, worse offensive rebounder, weaker finisher... I don't know, wide open midrange shots are not enough for me to take him over Gilmore. The only thing you can argue for is that he had a better driving game, but again - it's not very important in this comparison.

As others have already said, Gilmore was able to get by just off of his sheer size and brute strength,

So did Shaq and Wilt, both of them were much more skilled offensive players than Mourning.

and on top of that, the overall talent pool of Centers during his era was nowhere near what it was during Zo's era.

Strong disagreement on that one. Mourning peaked during the time when all the great 1990s centers got old (outside of Shaq) and the position had very little depth. Gilmore faced Kareem, Walton, Lanier, McAdoo, Moses, Hayes, Parish, Sikma etc. on consistent basis.

Unless you only talk about the ABA times, late 1970s are clearly superior for centers than this 1997-00 period in my opinion.

70sFan wrote: 1998-02 Mourning shot 38% from close midrange and 43% from long midrange. The first number is just bad (and he took more shots from that range), the other is respectable

League average in 98 was 35.4% from 10-16 feet. He had a rough season that year, but also only played 58 games. A year later, 35.1% and he shot 39.9%. In 2000, it was 36.5%, and he shot 40.4%.

It certainly tailed off after 2001, but he also started to see his volume (and proportionate representation) dipping after that point as well.

TL;DR, he was an above-average shooter at that distance, not "just bad," at least by in-era standards.

Strong disagreement on that one. Mourning peaked during the time when all the great 1990s centers got old (outside of Shaq) and the position had very little depth.

Did he? His scoring performance was pretty consistent from his rookie year forward. And he was dealing with Shaq the whole time, but he hit the league with prime D-Rob and Ewing, peak Olajuwon, and then some other quality guys as well, including defensive centers who weren't easy to beat up on like Mutombo. It certainly wasn't like facing Kareem and Bill Walton and Bob Lanier most nights, I'll cede that, but I think there should be more respect for Mourning's performance and competition. Granted, it weighed a little heavier in the West, but still. "Very little depth" probably isn't the best way to paint the situation for a guy who was drafted in 92.

Watch Zo in those Knicks/Heat series. His offense was clunky. In terms of elegant scoring, he makes peak Gilmore look like Kareem in comparison. I like Zo, he was a good player, but Gilmore was probably better on both ends.

One_and_Done wrote:Watch Zo in those Knicks/Heat series. His offense was clunky. In terms of elegant scoring, he makes peak Gilmore look like Kareem in comparison. I like Zo, he was a good player, but Gilmore was probably better on both ends.

He was clunky. So was Ewing. it did largely work, at least in the volume at which he worked. Ewing was more athletic when he was younger, and then tailed off in value as a volume scorer as he aged. Mourning was a lot better at getting to the rim and drawing fouls, by contrast. Neither of them were especially elegant.

Gilmore had a little more coordination to him, of course, and his hook didn't look like an epileptic seizure, which was nice.

tsherkin wrote:League average in 98 was 35.4% from 10-16 feet. He had a rough season that year, but also only played 58 games. A year later, 35.1% and he shot 39.9%. In 2000, it was 36.5%, and he shot 40.4%.

It certainly tailed off after 2001, but he also started to see his volume (and proportionate representation) dipping after that point as well.

TL;DR, he was an above-average shooter at that distance, not "just bad," at least by in-era standards.

Didn't realize how bad the league average looks for these late 1990s seasons, so yeah you have a point. I shouldn't call it bad, more like average-ish considering the context.

The point is that Mourning wasn't a good shooter, he had seasons with decent enough numbers but you can't rely on him to create efficient offense through his midrange game.

Did he? His scoring performance was pretty consistent from his rookie year forward. And he was dealing with Shaq the whole time, but he hit the league with prime D-Rob and Ewing, peak Olajuwon, and then some other quality guys as well, including defensive centers who weren't easy to beat up on like Mutombo. It certainly wasn't like facing Kareem and Bill Walton and Bob Lanier most nights, I'll cede that, but I think there should be more respect for Mourning's performance and competition. Granted, it weighed a little heavier in the West, but still. "Very little depth" probably isn't the best way to paint the situation for a guy who was drafted in 92.

I specifically meant 1998-00 period, when Mourning peaked. If you want to include 1994-97 years then it's another matter. It's still true that Gilmore faced more star-level centers on day-to-day basis.

70sFan wrote:

tsherkin wrote:League average in 98 was 35.4% from 10-16 feet. He had a rough season that year, but also only played 58 games. A year later, 35.1% and he shot 39.9%. In 2000, it was 36.5%, and he shot 40.4%.

It certainly tailed off after 2001, but he also started to see his volume (and proportionate representation) dipping after that point as well.

TL;DR, he was an above-average shooter at that distance, not "just bad," at least by in-era standards.

Didn't realize how bad the league average looks for these late 1990s seasons, so yeah you have a point. I shouldn't call it bad, more like average-ish considering the context.

The point is that Mourning wasn't a good shooter, he had seasons with decent enough numbers but you can't rely on him to create efficient offense through his midrange game.

Did he? His scoring performance was pretty consistent from his rookie year forward. And he was dealing with Shaq the whole time, but he hit the league with prime D-Rob and Ewing, peak Olajuwon, and then some other quality guys as well, including defensive centers who weren't easy to beat up on like Mutombo. It certainly wasn't like facing Kareem and Bill Walton and Bob Lanier most nights, I'll cede that, but I think there should be more respect for Mourning's performance and competition. Granted, it weighed a little heavier in the West, but still. "Very little depth" probably isn't the best way to paint the situation for a guy who was drafted in 92.

I specifically meant 1998-00 period, when Mourning peaked. If you want to include 1994-97 years then it's another matter. It's still true that Gilmore faced more star-level centers on day-to-day basis.

Gilmore's peak is 75, or generally his ABA years as was MVP as a rookie. When he broke in it was basically Mel Daniels, Dan Issel, and Zelmo Beatty. As it progressed, the ABA added Caldwell Jones, Billy Paultz, Sven Nater, a teenage Moses Malone plus whichever of Marvin Barnes or Maurice Lucas you considered the center in St. Louis. Some solid guys who went on to solid NBA careers (plus Moses) but that not a real murderer's row outside of Daniels.

70sFan wrote:Didn't realize how bad the league average looks for these late 1990s seasons, so yeah you have a point. I shouldn't call it bad, more like average-ish considering the context.

A shade above average, I'd say, even if the percentages are ugly, yeah. And given the tempo of the game at the time and all that, decent enough in-era.

The point is that Mourning wasn't a good shooter, he had seasons with decent enough numbers but you can't rely on him to create efficient offense through his midrange game.

"Good shooter" would be a bit of stretch, but he could and did shoot at a semi-reasonable level. The fact that high-30s and low-40s percent shots are high-variance does also have to be factored in, though, the same as with volume 3pt shooting. Sometimes they fall in bunches, sometimes not at all. It was a component of his game, and it was, relatively speaking, a strength.

It's also worth remembering that he wasn't fronting volume like the big boys, he was like a 19-21 ppg scorer for the bulk of his career as a starter. So obviously he's in a different category than anyone who was trying to act as a high-volume centerpiece.

I specifically meant 1998-00 period, when Mourning peaked. If you want to include 1994-97 years then it's another matter. It's still true that Gilmore faced more star-level centers on day-to-day basis.

Yeah, and I was sort of noting that his "peak" where offense is concerned doesn't really stand out. His highest-scoring season was his 4th year in the league, and he only once scored as much as 21.7 ppg thereafter, which is quite similar to his earlier stuff. 98-00 looked about the same as his first couple years, but with worse FT shooting. You might also choose to look at the very large proportion of his baskets which were assisted as relating to that higher FG%, and how 97 was Tim Hardaway's first full season with the Heat.

Food for thought.

penbeast0 wrote:

70sFan wrote:

tsherkin wrote:League average in 98 was 35.4% from 10-16 feet. He had a rough season that year, but also only played 58 games. A year later, 35.1% and he shot 39.9%. In 2000, it was 36.5%, and he shot 40.4%.

It certainly tailed off after 2001, but he also started to see his volume (and proportionate representation) dipping after that point as well.

TL;DR, he was an above-average shooter at that distance, not "just bad," at least by in-era standards.

Didn't realize how bad the league average looks for these late 1990s seasons, so yeah you have a point. I shouldn't call it bad, more like average-ish considering the context.

The point is that Mourning wasn't a good shooter, he had seasons with decent enough numbers but you can't rely on him to create efficient offense through his midrange game.

Did he? His scoring performance was pretty consistent from his rookie year forward. And he was dealing with Shaq the whole time, but he hit the league with prime D-Rob and Ewing, peak Olajuwon, and then some other quality guys as well, including defensive centers who weren't easy to beat up on like Mutombo. It certainly wasn't like facing Kareem and Bill Walton and Bob Lanier most nights, I'll cede that, but I think there should be more respect for Mourning's performance and competition. Granted, it weighed a little heavier in the West, but still. "Very little depth" probably isn't the best way to paint the situation for a guy who was drafted in 92.

I specifically meant 1998-00 period, when Mourning peaked. If you want to include 1994-97 years then it's another matter. It's still true that Gilmore faced more star-level centers on day-to-day basis.

Gilmore's peak is 75, or generally his ABA years as was MVP as a rookie. When he broke in it was basically Mel Daniels, Dan Issel, and Zelmo Beatty. As it progressed, the ABA added Caldwell Jones, Billy Paultz, Sven Nater, a teenage Moses Malone plus whichever of Marvin Barnes or Maurice Lucas you considered the center in St. Louis. Some solid guys who went on to solid NBA careers (plus Moses) but that not a real murderer's row outside of Daniels.

Don't see much separating 1975 from 1976 and I think 1977 (after some time to adjust) and 1978 are quite close to his peak level - just within clearly worse team situation.

Besides, if we strictly talk about offense, then I think that late 1970s Gilmore was a better on that end than 1975.