Re: Gilmore
JoeMalburg wrote:
Do you find my criticisms valid?
To some extent, yes. I don't think he was a great basketball IQ, who (like Howard; again, I strongly agree with that comparison) heavily relied on his athleticism, which is why he peaked very early in his career. I would say '75 was his best year, followed by ‘72: age 25 and 22 respectively (Howard peaked in either ‘09 or ‘11 (age 23 and 25, respectively).
Both had/have finite skill levels and bball IQ, but both were phenomenal athletes. Dwight more explosive and aggressive at attacking the rim (Gilmore at times looks soft by comparison); though some of that may be the mentality of the break-away rim generation. But then Gilmore was like 4” taller. Gilmore had more shooting touch out to about 12-14 feet, and a better FT-shooter.
To some degree (at least in some years), I think his box-based advanced metrics OVER-sell his impact (just as Dwight Howard’s probably have in the last few seasons), though it’s more difficult to assess due to lack of impact indicators.
Re: playoff disappointments.
It’s a fair criticism, though I’m never sure how much blame to level on to one player (it’s a team result, after all; there’s all of his teammates, as well as coaching who likely share some of the blame, as well as perhaps just giving credit to over-achieving opponents).
Take the ‘72 ABA series (won 68 rs games, but then lost to a 44-win team 4-2 in the first round), for example…..
*They had some injury concerns for one (Mike Gale and Darel Carrier).
**And otherwise most of his fellow starters appear to under-perform as far as ppg (Issel in particular scores just 22.0 ppg in playoffs vs 30.6 ppg in rs).
***Rick Barry for the opposing squad appears to have a nice series, and guard John Roche apparently goes bonkers (dropping 30.0 ppg in the series vs a 12.9 ppg avg in the rs).
****Gilmore’s cover (Billy Paultz) scores just 13.3 ppg w/ 1.8 FTA/g in the series (vs. 14.5 and 3.6 in rs).
I’m not trying to absolve him of all blame…...I just really dislike grading players so directly based on what their team accomplishes (or doesn’t accomplish), so I’m throwing a few of these contextual details out there for consideration wrt that year.
JoeMalburg wrote:What are the major "pros" you see in Gilmore's game and career?
I think he was an excellent defensive anchor early in his career when his youthful athleticism was at its peak. Note the ‘71 Colonels were a +2.5 rDRTG. In ‘72 they obtain rookie Gilmore and jump to a -4.4 rDRTG (1st in the ABA). Except for two 2nd-place finishes (in ‘73 and ‘76, at -3.5 and -1.4 rDRTG’s), they would otherwise be the #1 rated defensive team in the ABA every year with Gilmore (peaking at an extra elite -6.4 rDRTG in ‘75, a year in which they also won the ABA title, fwiw).
He appears to make a little bit of a splash, impact-wise, initially with the Bulls in the NBA……
In ‘76, the Bulls had Norm Van Lier, aging Bob Love, Mickey Johnson, Tom Boerwinkle, Jack Marin, (and just a few games from aging Jerry Sloan and Nate Thurmond). With that primary line-up they posted a respectable -0.3 rDRTG, but were quite poor offensively and finished 24-58.
In ‘77 they’ve lost aging Sloan and Thurmond, mostly lose Bob Love (plays just 14 games), and Marin getting somewhat old by this point. Major acquisitions include a rookie Scott May and Artis Gilmore. Their efficiency differential improves by +3.7 (+1.9 to their rORTG, -1.8 to their rDRTG), as they improve by 20 games to 44-38.
I admit that his stock as an effective rim protector is perhaps already falling by this point, despite what his block numbers may say (though fwiw, did still get All-Defensive 2nd Team honors in ‘78), and most of those Bulls squads are kinda subpar defensively.
However, one thing they do remain elite at defensively is defensive rebounding (which in no small way falls under Gilmore’s jurisdiction). They were already elite (#1 in the league) in DREB% in ‘76 prior to his arrival, but during his tenure they finished 2nd in DREB% every year (even after Boerwinkle was done after ‘77) except in ‘80 when they fell to 4th (probably not coincidentally that’s the year Gilmore missed 34 games).
Then in ‘83 (when Gilmore has left), they fall to #7.
The Spurs were #4 in the league in DREB% in ‘82, improve to #2 in ‘83 with Gilmore. They do then immediately fall to 17th the next year (although Gilmore missed 18 games that year, and was a touch banged up in general, if I’m not mistaken). When he’s back for a full [somewhat resurgent] season in ‘85, they improve to 4th in the league again in DREB%.
So defensively, I see him as an excellent rim protector and all-around defensive anchor early in his career, but whose overall defensive stock falls beginning in his late 20’s. However, he remains a solid rebounding anchor even into his mid-30’s, when he was becoming a somewhat more lumbering big.
Offensively, while always a decent scorer (not great, but considerably above average), he seems to become a center of more offensive import than defensive by the early 80’s. He leads the league in FG% for four consecutive seasons (‘81-’84)----leads league in TS% for FIVE consecutive years (‘81-’85)----on ABOVE average volume. And there are some suggestions of positive offensive impact [at the team level] for those years, too.
He was an excellent finisher at the rim, cleaning up on drive-n’-dishes, offensive rebounds, or other openings; had a decent little jump-hook from what I’ve seen, and could make his FT’s at a respectable rate.
Not a good passer at all, but then, neither was Moses (or Howard).
While I think his box-based metrics probably overstate his effectiveness [to some degree] for much of his prime, I would still say he was [to some degree] an effective player in pro basketball for 15 [durable] years (and even year 16 was fair/decent).
JoeMalburg wrote:How do you compare him with guys like McAdoo, Cowens and Reed who came just before him, won a lot more, achieved greater individual acclaim, but don't have the numbers to suggest the potential Gilmore seems to have had by those numbers?
McAdoo’s a substantially better offensive player, but also a lesser defensive center (vs any pre-1979 version of Artis, anyway, and pretty substantially less than early career Gilmore, imo). Career accomplishments are fairly comparable, imo, but his longevity doesn’t compare at all.
Cowens lacks Gilmore’s finishing ability or the general ability to get to the FT-line. He does provide better shooting range and good passing, though. So who’s better offensively? Idk, both have edges on the other; they’re just very different. I suppose it depends on the pieces you have in place. I would suggest Cowens is more portable, for what that’s worth.
Defensively is harder to gauge. Cowens wasn’t really the same type of defensive center (that is: the rim-protecting kind). Cowens was certainly a solid rebounding anchor, and a helluva hard-nosed low-post defender who also had the quickness, versatility, and aggressiveness to be effective on the perimeter and on pnr defense. I would say the
average level of defense that you get from Cowens over his career is better than the average defense you get from Gilmore over his career, though I’m not sure he peaked as high [defensively] as Gilmore appears to have in ‘75. Cowens did anchor an awfully nice -5.8 rDRTG team in ‘73, but let’s face it: that was kinda like the A-Team on defense (Havlicek, Chaney, Silas….Jo Jo White is like the weakest defensive link in the starting line-up, and he’s still pretty solid on that end).
Career accomplishment probably tips
slightly in Cowens’ favour, but longevity tips A LOT in Gilmore’s favour.
Willis Reed I think was much more talented offensively than his numbers suggest; that was just a true TEAM (everyone involved), and he merely did as much as was required of him. Really fantastic teammate/leader it seems based on all that I’ve read. But his offensive game is smooth as silk, imo. Sweet touch (with range), could run in transition, strong inside, and his long arms makes him effectively taller than he actually was. And just smart. I think he was a more cerebral player than he probably gets credit for. In short: better offensively than Gilmore, and not overly close. I don’t know if I’d say he was as good offensively as McAdoo, but I do think it’s close.
Reed was also much better defensively than his block numbers might suggest. I’ll see if I can find it when he’s gaining traction, but there’s a game on YT (from ‘69, I think) in which you can really see just how good he was defensively: he’s consistently physical in the post, forcing guys to catch the entry pass 2-4 ft further out than they want, he’s very adept on the pnr (especially for the time period), attentive and meeting rotations (again, seems sort of ahead of his time). At his peak, I think he’s arguably the best of all four of these guys, and likely has the best array of “accomplishments” to his credit.
Otoh, he’s also clearly the worst longevity of the four (and by a pretty good long margin vs Gilmore).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
