Larry Nance vs. Shawn Kemp

[Ol Roy]

Who was the better player?

[MiamiBulls]

As quiet as kept, Shawn Kemp was an absolute Turnover Machine. He led the NBA in Turnovers Per 100 in both 1996 & 2000. He very sloppy and tried to force the action in turn would get tripped of the ball routinely.

[migya]

Nice comparison, both underrated PFs who were very good on both ends. Nance is forgotten I think and may actually have had the better career, pretty hard to say who had better peak or prime but maybe that is also Nance. Nance was a very good shotblocker, more than Kemp and seemed more balanced offensively.

[AStark1991]

It's a close call when talking about overall career value, but I think 1995-96 Kemp was better than any version of Nance. Both deserve a lot of credit. Great players that have slipped through the cracks of history.

[Djoker]

Excellent comparison between two underrated PF's. I'd probably lean very slightly towards Kemp when comparing their peaks. Both guys were great leapers and Nance could really blocks shots but Kemp was more agile and just an aggressive player who inspired more fear in the opposition. Nance would sometimes get passive. In terms of careers, I'd probably lean towards Kemp as well. He has more high end accolades. More all-stars, more All-NBA...

[Owly]

Going almost entirely otoh here, so may be wrong on the details - maybe, maybe Kemp for peaks (depending on team needs - how much one tilts towards playoff - would want to look closer really), pretty confident in Nance for career.

Suspect Kemp's box peak might be slightly higher and has a nice playoff run too in 1996 (and in general good playoff production iirc). Foul trouble lowering minutes, maybe bbiq at the margin (turnovers have been noted, not a great passer, probably a lesser defender than his box numbers, though by no means bad). And on box aggregates some of the above might mean BPM lower on his O than the other Reference measures.

Nance also missed time, in his case too often in sixty-something games, though I think the "WoWY" type numbers from missed games showed he was missed by his Phoenix team. Nance has much better turnover economy. And was one of the guys the first-gen box-all-in-one books guys from the late eighties noted ... "Hey this guy's really good". Might be a slight playoff "dropper" though iirc smaller sample as much of prime Phoenix weren't making the playoffs because they were no good in the games he missed. Nance has an intangibles advantage, regarded as a consumate pro ... whilst even before Kemp blew up you could read about him getting benched from a successful team (Seattle 92-93, 49-24 at the time - yes I looked that one up) due to issues with lateness and lack of focus.

Without looking closely at minute totals each year (given the Kemp mpg, Nance's games missed) I'm pretty confident Nance gives you a better body of work. High value player for nearly all his career. Kemp's window at a high-level was I think quite a bit shorter.