Was Lamarcus Aldridge better than Chris Bosh?

[Doctor MJ]

Didn't realize this was an old thread, but my stance on this is the same:

If you want a big man who volume shoots 2's at meh efficiency, then Aldridge is your man.
If you want to build a contender, then you don't want that.

Obviously that's simplistic, but the shift Bosh made to focus on 3 & D in Miami is the most impressive part of either of their careers to me.

[WestGOAT]

Didn't realize this was an old thread, but my stance on this is the same:

If you want a big man who volume shoots 2's at meh efficiency, then Aldridge is your man.
If you want to build a contender, then you don't want that.

Obviously that's simplistic, but the shift Bosh made to focus on 3 & D in Miami is the most impressive part of either of their careers to me.

I think Aldridge was actually also capable of adapting his game for winning basketball, or do you not consider the 2016 and 2017 Spurs contenders?

[Doctor MJ]

Didn't realize this was an old thread, but my stance on this is the same:

If you want a big man who volume shoots 2's at meh efficiency, then Aldridge is your man.
If you want to build a contender, then you don't want that.

Obviously that's simplistic, but the shift Bosh made to focus on 3 & D in Miami is the most impressive part of either of their careers to me.

I think Aldridge was actually also capable of adapting his game for winning basketball, or do you not consider the 2016 and 2017 Spurs contenders?

I would consider the Spurs contenders largely from Duncan's arrival to Kawhi's exit, so yes, those Spurs were contenders, but they didn't take a leap forward on offense with Aldridge's arrival despite Kawhi becoming a much more capable offensive player.

I would also argue that the acquisition of Aldridge followed by the choice to get DeRozan for Kawhi showed Pop to be trying to do something other than embracing the paradigm shift of the time. Pop clearly thought that a team built around Aldridge & DeRozan could be a contender, and I think he was flat out behind the curve on that assessment.

Pop's career is arguably GOAT among NBA coaches and I don't want to come off like he's not an all-time, but I don't see any way to reconcile choosing an approach that would put you last in the league in 3's in '18-19 with being strategically with-the-times, and so the poster boys of that part of Pop's career - Aldridge & DeRozan - don't come off looking that great to me there...and of course this fits with their general careers. I'd say both guys have games designed around the previous era of the league.

I do think some sympathy should be included for guys who build a great game around the era they grew up with...but in a comparison with a guy born sooner who successfully adapted to the new era, they can't help but come off looking lacking.

[One_and_Done]

Didn't realize this was an old thread, but my stance on this is the same:

If you want a big man who volume shoots 2's at meh efficiency, then Aldridge is your man.
If you want to build a contender, then you don't want that.

Obviously that's simplistic, but the shift Bosh made to focus on 3 & D in Miami is the most impressive part of either of their careers to me.

I think Aldridge was actually also capable of adapting his game for winning basketball, or do you not consider the 2016 and 2017 Spurs contenders?

I would consider the Spurs contenders largely from Duncan's arrival to Kawhi's exit, so yes, those Spurs were contenders, but they didn't take a leap forward on offense with Aldridge's arrival despite Kawhi becoming a much more capable offensive player.

I would also argue that the acquisition of Aldridge followed by the choice to get DeRozan for Kawhi showed Pop to be trying to do something other than embracing the paradigm shift of the time. Pop clearly thought that a team built around Aldridge & DeRozan could be a contender, and I think he was flat out behind the curve on that assessment.

Pop's career is arguably GOAT among NBA coaches and I don't want to come off like he's not an all-time, but I don't see any way to reconcile choosing an approach that would put you last in the league in 3's in '18-19 with being strategically with-the-times, and so the poster boys of that part of Pop's career - Aldridge & DeRozan - don't come off looking that great to me there...and of course this fits with their general careers. I'd say both guys have games designed around the previous era of the league.

I do think some sympathy should be included for guys who build a great game around the era they grew up with...but in a comparison with a guy born sooner who successfully adapted to the new era, they can't help but come off looking lacking.

The Spurs acquired DeRozan because they couldn't get much of anything in a trade. There's no evidence Pop thought they would be a contender.

[Doctor MJ]

I think Aldridge was actually also capable of adapting his game for winning basketball, or do you not consider the 2016 and 2017 Spurs contenders?

I would consider the Spurs contenders largely from Duncan's arrival to Kawhi's exit, so yes, those Spurs were contenders, but they didn't take a leap forward on offense with Aldridge's arrival despite Kawhi becoming a much more capable offensive player.

I would also argue that the acquisition of Aldridge followed by the choice to get DeRozan for Kawhi showed Pop to be trying to do something other than embracing the paradigm shift of the time. Pop clearly thought that a team built around Aldridge & DeRozan could be a contender, and I think he was flat out behind the curve on that assessment.

Pop's career is arguably GOAT among NBA coaches and I don't want to come off like he's not an all-time, but I don't see any way to reconcile choosing an approach that would put you last in the league in 3's in '18-19 with being strategically with-the-times, and so the poster boys of that part of Pop's career - Aldridge & DeRozan - don't come off looking that great to me there...and of course this fits with their general careers. I'd say both guys have games designed around the previous era of the league.

I do think some sympathy should be included for guys who build a great game around the era they grew up with...but in a comparison with a guy born sooner who successfully adapted to the new era, they can't help but come off looking lacking.

The Spurs acquired DeRozan because they couldn't get much of anything in a trade. There's no evidence Pop thought they would be a contender.

Well let's start by thinking in these terms:

When you're a contender forced to trade an all-star, in general you'd expect to take one of two paths:

1. Trade him for another all-star so you can keep trying to contend.
2. Trade him for multiple draft picks and rebuild.

The idea that you'd choose a path that didn't let you contend and didn't build for the future just doesn't make sense.

One could quibble and say he didn't quite think they'd contend with DeRozan...but they largely lived in the lottey with DeRozan, so they really weren't close.

[mhd]

Didn't realize this was an old thread, but my stance on this is the same:

If you want a big man who volume shoots 2's at meh efficiency, then Aldridge is your man.
If you want to build a contender, then you don't want that.

Obviously that's simplistic, but the shift Bosh made to focus on 3 & D in Miami is the most impressive part of either of their careers to me.

So being 3rd fiddle, getting dominated by old man Duncan, scoring 0 points in game 7 against the Spurs, letting Dirk blow by you in pivotal game 2, letting Roy Hibbert clown you was more impressive then dominating (and winning) a playoff series as the man against Houston (and prime-ish Dwight Howard)?

Bosh was never an elite big IMO. He never had a series like LMA did against Houston. He wasn't capable of carrying any team on his back. He was a follower and not a leader. Most overrated player in the last 25 years. Wouldn't even sniff the HOF if he spent his career in the west. He was never same league as the tier 1 bigs of Duncan, Dirk, and KG. After that tier, Amare, LMA, Pau, and Z-bo all were more important and more impressive than Bosh ever was. At least those aforementioned 4 didn't shy away and put up nothing burgers in the playoffs. Amare was dominating a prime Duncan;. Bosh couldn't score 1 point against old man Duncan in the biggest game of the season. Pau is the reason the Lakers beat Boston in Game 7. Is Bosh doing what Pau did in Game 7? Zbo won a playoff series against the Spurs in 2011 as being one of the main men. Is Bosh ever doing anything like that?

Zbo, Pau, Amare, and LMA all had significantly higher playoff success as the man than Bosh ever did. No team worried about Bosh because they knew he'd mentally fold and couldn't defend inside. I'd take Zbo, Pau, Amare, and LMA any day of the week over Bosh.

[maradro]

Bosh was more talented overall. Heatles don't win their 2 titles without Bosh turning into KG on the defensive end for that run.

LMA was a great player with comparable stats but I don't know if he'd have the same impact that Bosh had.

And yet old man Duncan dominated him during that 2nd title run by the Heat. Bosh is the most overrated HOF ever. Game 7 of that series, Bosh scores 0 points. Bosh did squat for that 2nd title.

At least Aldridge was the #1 option on a team that won a playoff round. Bosh (as the #1 option) lost to the fronctcourt of Mikki Moore, Jason Collins, and Josh Boone.

When people say "Bosh was a good defender," they largely aren't referring to his defense on centers. It was his ability to hedge hard on picks and get back or double and get back or just rotate very rapidly that allowed the very aggressive, swarming defense that the Heatles-era Miami team played so effectively. Tim Duncan is both an all time great and a different type of player than Bosh's defense was most effective against, but still, Duncan only averaged 15 points and 2 assists a game in that series. I wouldn't say he DOMINATED.

What that series did, though, was sound the death knell for the type of hyper aggressive, trap and recover defense that the Heat had used so effectively the previous two years tactically. It showed that a smart team with good ball movement and a variety of shooters could spread the floor so effectively that it was almost impossible to recover quickly enough. Some of that was probably unsustainable (Kawhi and Patty Mills shooting a combined 57% on 40+ 3PA), but a lot of it was smart roster decisions and great ball movement getting good shooters open shots against scrambling opposition. I thought it was a beautiful offense to watch and really paved the way for what we saw with the Warriors offense the next two years.

He's referring to the year before, Duncan 19/12 vs bosh 12/9, game 7 24/12 vs 0/7. Yeah I would call that domination, even if bosh got the key rebound for the Allen 3 (while Duncan sat )

However you are correct that bosh is a modern PF, they are both supposed to be PF but reality is bosh is the mobile defender with a jump shot vs Aldridge who was basically a post player with a jump shot, decent rim protection and rebounding.. opposite styles and a clear example of how the league changed. On a modern team Aldridge would have to adapt or condemn his team to mediocrity. Aldridge definitely helped the spurs but there were also times he struggled to adapt or became pouty about touches.. as a spurs fan I feel he made the effort and managed to get better both in terms of adjusting his game and improving his attitude, but if I have to nitpick, I think he could have been smarter/more open about integrating himself into the team, by the time that happened kawhi was gone- probably not a coincidence though I'm not insinuating Aldridge is to blame for kawhi and his uncle.

So I think it's fair to say, bosh was better as a modern supporting player and Aldridge was better as a lead scorer but would be forced to play the 5 in the modern game

[One_and_Done]

I would consider the Spurs contenders largely from Duncan's arrival to Kawhi's exit, so yes, those Spurs were contenders, but they didn't take a leap forward on offense with Aldridge's arrival despite Kawhi becoming a much more capable offensive player.

I would also argue that the acquisition of Aldridge followed by the choice to get DeRozan for Kawhi showed Pop to be trying to do something other than embracing the paradigm shift of the time. Pop clearly thought that a team built around Aldridge & DeRozan could be a contender, and I think he was flat out behind the curve on that assessment.

Pop's career is arguably GOAT among NBA coaches and I don't want to come off like he's not an all-time, but I don't see any way to reconcile choosing an approach that would put you last in the league in 3's in '18-19 with being strategically with-the-times, and so the poster boys of that part of Pop's career - Aldridge & DeRozan - don't come off looking that great to me there...and of course this fits with their general careers. I'd say both guys have games designed around the previous era of the league.

I do think some sympathy should be included for guys who build a great game around the era they grew up with...but in a comparison with a guy born sooner who successfully adapted to the new era, they can't help but come off looking lacking.

The Spurs acquired DeRozan because they couldn't get much of anything in a trade. There's no evidence Pop thought they would be a contender.

Well let's start by thinking in these terms:

When you're a contender forced to trade an all-star, in general you'd expect to take one of two paths:

1. Trade him for another all-star so you can keep trying to contend.
2. Trade him for multiple draft picks and rebuild.

The idea that you'd choose a path that didn't let you contend and didn't build for the future just doesn't make sense.

One could quibble and say he didn't quite think they'd contend with DeRozan...but they largely lived in the lottey with DeRozan, so they really weren't close.

The Spurs chose between trying to be competetive while on a record playoff streak, or blowing it up (knowing they could always blow it up later if it didn't work out). I think their choice was perfectly reasonable. I personally would have tried to trade Demar in the 2019 offseason, but I'm honestly not sure he had much value. They seemed to spend years trying to trade him.

I think it's fair to say they had some bad luck, or they might have made a few more playoff appearances. But once it wasn't working they tanked, quite correctly.

You talk about trading for draft picks, but the only good draft pick rumour I heard that was credible was the Spurs trying to trade for the Kings pick to draft Luka. The Boston/Philly/Laker packages all sucked, both at the time and even with the benefit if hindsight to an extent. There weren't going to be any high picks, and 8 years into his career it's still debatable how good Ingram is (certainly he looked much worse a prospect in 2018. If the Spurs tanked they got their own pick of course, which would be high, but they were on a record playoff streak. Trying to keep it going and tanking later was a fair choice when the offers are meh.

[WestGOAT]

Didn't realize this was an old thread, but my stance on this is the same:

If you want a big man who volume shoots 2's at meh efficiency, then Aldridge is your man.
If you want to build a contender, then you don't want that.

Obviously that's simplistic, but the shift Bosh made to focus on 3 & D in Miami is the most impressive part of either of their careers to me.

I think Aldridge was actually also capable of adapting his game for winning basketball, or do you not consider the 2016 and 2017 Spurs contenders?

I would consider the Spurs contenders largely from Duncan's arrival to Kawhi's exit, so yes, those Spurs were contenders, but they didn't take a leap forward on offense with Aldridge's arrival despite Kawhi becoming a much more capable offensive player.

Are you sure the Spurs actually do not to take a such a leap offenseively, and either way why that would be necessary?
2015 SAS RS ORtg +2.9 PS (07 GP) ORtg +3.0
2016 SAS RS ORtg +3.9 PS (10 GP) ORtg +5.8
2017 SAS RS ORtg +2.3 PS (16 GP) ORtg +8.2

If you'd calculate overal ORtg, weighing playoff games 10:1 to RS games, it would be
2015: +2.9
2016: +5.0
2017: +6.2

Doesn't Aldridge simply being a key contributer to the 2016 and 2017 Spurs prove he can be part of a genuine contender? Based on SRS 2016 and 2017 Spurs are actually strong contenders that would have been favoured to be champs in a lot of other years.

Looks to me that the Spurs core of 2013 and 2014 were in decline and Aldridge extended, with the emergence of Kawhi as a superstar, that run instead of merely being a passenger on the bus.

[Doctor MJ]

The Spurs acquired DeRozan because they couldn't get much of anything in a trade. There's no evidence Pop thought they would be a contender.

Well let's start by thinking in these terms:

When you're a contender forced to trade an all-star, in general you'd expect to take one of two paths:

1. Trade him for another all-star so you can keep trying to contend.
2. Trade him for multiple draft picks and rebuild.

The idea that you'd choose a path that didn't let you contend and didn't build for the future just doesn't make sense.

One could quibble and say he didn't quite think they'd contend with DeRozan...but they largely lived in the lottey with DeRozan, so they really weren't close.

The Spurs chose between trying to be competetive while on a record playoff streak, or blowing it up (knowing they could always blow it up later if it didn't work out). I think their choice was perfectly reasonable. I personally would have tried to trade Demar in the 2019 offseason, but I'm honestly not sure he had much value. They seemed to spend years trying to trade him.

I think it's fair to say they had some bad luck, or they might have made a few more playoff appearances. But once it wasn't working they tanked, quite correctly.

You talk about trading for draft picks, but the only good draft pick rumour I heard that was credible was the Spurs trying to trade for the Kings pick to draft Luka. The Boston/Philly/Laker packages all sucked, both at the time and even with the benefit if hindsight to an extent. There weren't going to be any high picks, and 8 years into his career it's still debatable how good Ingram is (certainly he looked much worse a prospect in 2018. If the Spurs tanked they got their own pick of course, which would be high, but they were on a record playoff streak. Trying to keep it going and tanking later was a fair choice when the offers are meh.

I'm curious your theory about luck here.

Re: once it wasn't working they tanked. They acquired DeRozan to not-tank, and then kept him until that contract was over. If that's tanking, I'm not sure what non-tanking would look like here other than acquiring players better than DeRozan.

Re: would've traded DeRozan in 2019 but not much value. Which is interesting because Pop traded Kawhi for him in 2018 and I don't think a lot changed about DeRozan's perception between 2018 & 2019. Generally if you trade a Superstar A for Player B and then afterward you can't get much for Player B, that's considered a huge downgrade in assets.

Re: hindsight. Well, there's nothing "hindsight" about me saying it was a bad idea to acquire DeRozan. I thought Toronto was going to be boxed into a corner where they felt compelled to give DeRozan another big contract, and consider them getting rid of DeRozan to be a genius move even aside from the Kawhi acquisition. And fast-forward, I thought Chicago building their future around a Big 3 of DeRozan/Lavine/Vucevic was probably just about the worst idea I've seen in years in the NBA.

[One_and_Done]

Well let's start by thinking in these terms:

When you're a contender forced to trade an all-star, in general you'd expect to take one of two paths:

1. Trade him for another all-star so you can keep trying to contend.
2. Trade him for multiple draft picks and rebuild.

The idea that you'd choose a path that didn't let you contend and didn't build for the future just doesn't make sense.

One could quibble and say he didn't quite think they'd contend with DeRozan...but they largely lived in the lottey with DeRozan, so they really weren't close.

The Spurs chose between trying to be competetive while on a record playoff streak, or blowing it up (knowing they could always blow it up later if it didn't work out). I think their choice was perfectly reasonable. I personally would have tried to trade Demar in the 2019 offseason, but I'm honestly not sure he had much value. They seemed to spend years trying to trade him.

I think it's fair to say they had some bad luck, or they might have made a few more playoff appearances. But once it wasn't working they tanked, quite correctly.

You talk about trading for draft picks, but the only good draft pick rumour I heard that was credible was the Spurs trying to trade for the Kings pick to draft Luka. The Boston/Philly/Laker packages all sucked, both at the time and even with the benefit if hindsight to an extent. There weren't going to be any high picks, and 8 years into his career it's still debatable how good Ingram is (certainly he looked much worse a prospect in 2018. If the Spurs tanked they got their own pick of course, which would be high, but they were on a record playoff streak. Trying to keep it going and tanking later was a fair choice when the offers are meh.

I'm curious your theory about luck here.

Re: once it wasn't working they tanked. They acquired DeRozan to not-tank, and then kept him until that contract was over. If that's tanking, I'm not sure what non-tanking would look like here other than acquiring players better than DeRozan.

Re: would've traded DeRozan in 2019 but not much value. Which is interesting because Pop traded Kawhi for him in 2018 and I don't think a lot changed about DeRozan's perception between 2018 & 2019. Generally if you trade a Superstar A for Player B and then afterward you can't get much for Player B, that's considered a huge downgrade in assets.

Re: hindsight. Well, there's nothing "hindsight" about me saying it was a bad idea to acquire DeRozan. I thought Toronto was going to be boxed into a corner where they felt compelled to give DeRozan another big contract, and consider them getting rid of DeRozan to be a genius move even aside from the Kawhi acquisition. And fast-forward, I thought Chicago building their future around a Big 3 of DeRozan/Lavine/Vucevic was probably just about the worst idea I've seen in years in the NBA.

The Spurs weren't tanking till they traded DeRozan. It looked like they were open to trading him for a few years, but couldn't get any decent offers. I think the Spurs felt they could still make the playoffs in 20 and 21, but got a bit unlucky. Unlucky how? Well, if Marcus Morris doesn't stab them in the back they make it in 2020. They were very close to the play-in as it was, one crazy shot basically eliminated them and they tanked the last game once it was over, and Morris skillset and impact would have made a big difference to that team. The Spurs would have been at least a 500. club with Morris, maybe better. He was a very good starter back in 2020. Instead the Spurs had to start Trey Lyles.

Then in 2021, when they had a reasonable expectation to make the playoffs again with their pair of promising young guards in White & Murray... LMA falls off a cliff, probably due to his heart condition, and becomes useless. That's pretty bad luck. White was also injured that year if I recall.

[Doctor MJ]

Didn't realize this was an old thread, but my stance on this is the same:

If you want a big man who volume shoots 2's at meh efficiency, then Aldridge is your man.
If you want to build a contender, then you don't want that.

Obviously that's simplistic, but the shift Bosh made to focus on 3 & D in Miami is the most impressive part of either of their careers to me.

So being 3rd fiddle, getting dominated by old man Duncan, scoring 0 points in game 7 against the Spurs, letting Dirk blow by you in pivotal game 2, letting Roy Hibbert clown you was more impressive then dominating (and winning) a playoff series as the man against Houston (and prime-ish Dwight Howard)?

Bosh was never an elite big IMO. He never had a series like LMA did against Houston. He wasn't capable of carrying any team on his back. He was a follower and not a leader. Most overrated player in the last 25 years. Wouldn't even sniff the HOF if he spent his career in the west. He was never same league as the tier 1 bigs of Duncan, Dirk, and KG. After that tier, Amare, LMA, Pau, and Z-bo all were more important and more impressive than Bosh ever was. At least those aforementioned 4 didn't shy away and put up nothing burgers in the playoffs. Amare was dominating a prime Duncan;. Bosh couldn't score 1 point against old man Duncan in the biggest game of the season. Pau is the reason the Lakers beat Boston in Game 7. Is Bosh doing what Pau did in Game 7? Zbo won a playoff series against the Spurs in 2011 as being one of the main men. Is Bosh ever doing anything like that?

Zbo, Pau, Amare, and LMA all had significantly higher playoff success as the man than Bosh ever did. No team worried about Bosh because they knew he'd mentally fold and couldn't defend inside. I'd take Zbo, Pau, Amare, and LMA any day of the week over Bosh.

Well obviously if you take Bosh's worst moment and compare it to Aldridge's best that's going to make Aldridge look better, but to the repeatedly implied question:

In a sport where the goal is to win a championship, being a supporting player on a championship team means more to me than being able to beat a 1st round opponent as the star.

To your various comparisons, other key points to me:

1. Bigs mostly matter because of defense so focusing on who was better at being "the man" at scoring means you're focused on the wrong thing. A bit like deciding which point guard you'd want based on his defense.

2. I do think it's worth noting that Aldridge & Bosh were skinny guys who couldn't bang in the paint the way the other guys could. Back in the '90s (and early '00s) people would have seen both guys as offensively problematic because of this.

And I'd say the main thing that people were wrong about back then was in not seeing the value of such a player stretching the floor. If you have a guy who can't hit the 3 and be your defensive anchor, you've got something really valuable. Bosh became that when it made sense for his team. Aldridge never made such an adjustment.

[Doctor MJ]

I think Aldridge was actually also capable of adapting his game for winning basketball, or do you not consider the 2016 and 2017 Spurs contenders?

I would consider the Spurs contenders largely from Duncan's arrival to Kawhi's exit, so yes, those Spurs were contenders, but they didn't take a leap forward on offense with Aldridge's arrival despite Kawhi becoming a much more capable offensive player.

Are you sure the Spurs actually do not to take a such a leap offenseively, and either way why that would be necessary?
2015 SAS RS ORtg +2.9 PS (07 GP) ORtg +3.0
2016 SAS RS ORtg +3.9 PS (10 GP) ORtg +5.8
2017 SAS RS ORtg +2.3 PS (16 GP) ORtg +8.2

If you'd calculate overal ORtg, weighing playoff games 10:1 to RS games, it would be
2015: +2.9
2016: +5.0
2017: +6.2

Doesn't Aldridge simply being a key contributer to the 2016 and 2017 Spurs prove he can be part of a genuine contender? Based on SRS 2016 and 2017 Spurs are actually strong contenders that would have been favoured to be champs in a lot of other years.

Looks to me that the Spurs core of 2013 and 2014 were in decline and Aldridge extended, with the emergence of Kawhi as a superstar, that run instead of merely being a passenger on the bus.

I'm confused by your stats.

How are you calculating a PS ORtg of +8.2 for 2017?
Using that approach, what would you calculate for 2014?

Re: Doesn't Aldridge being on those teams prove he can be a part of a contender? A part? Sure. Was he adding star value offensively? I'm not really sold.

[MrGoat]

I would lean yes, prime LMA was better than Chris Bosh ever was

[KembaWalker]

I think a lot of people in this thread are hypothetically putting 2 superior players with the 3rd option Bosh they remember watching and not offering the same luxury to Aldridge.

[Spicy P]

If I’m building a team from scratch, I’m taking Aldridge over Bosh. Neither guys are franchise players, but Aldridge is closer to it.

[tsherkin]

Definitely taking Bosh over LMA.

[MiltownMadness]

Wow I think Bosh is clearly better than LMA. Bosh was really underrated offensively because he was behind 2 ATG's, and on defense it isn't even close. Am I wrong saying bosh is a better offensive player in todays game?

[tsherkin]

Wow I think Bosh is clearly better than LMA. Bosh was really underrated offensively because he was behind 2 ATG's, and on defense it isn't even close. Am I wrong saying bosh is a better offensive player in todays game?

He was a better offensive player then, too.

[MiltownMadness]

Wow I think Bosh is clearly better than LMA. Bosh was really underrated offensively because he was behind 2 ATG's, and on defense it isn't even close. Am I wrong saying bosh is a better offensive player in todays game?

He was a better offensive player then, too.

I agree! LMA is esteemed as this great midrange shooter, but a guy like Khris Middleton shoots 6% better than him from the midrange over their careers. Guess this thread confirms my thoughts that LMA was quite overrated