BadBaronRudigor

Good post Najee and I agree; I think they were similar players and in terms of individual talent, Nance probably was better than worthy. but . . . Worthy was a similar player on a great team and winning is what it is all about so that elevates a player's value too (not enough by itself . . . Robert horry . . . but compared to players of similar value).

In college however, Worthy impressed me a lot more than Nance, I was quite surprised at how terrific a player Nance became in the pros where his open court skills came into play.

__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk

Najee

Save that James Worthy wasn't a power forward; he played small forward during his NBA career.

Worthy's 6-foot-9 frame made him a tough matchup for most small forwards in the 1980s and early 1990s because of his size advantage, and he had an incredibly quick first step on the baseline (probably the quickest I've ever seen). Worthy also was an excellent transition player, and both that and his first step is a reason why he has such a gaudy career field-goal percentage.

Najee

It's not that James Worthy shot poorly in the regular season, either (.521 for his career); it's the fact that Worthy was actually BETTER in the postseason (.544 for his career) when most people's numbers tend to trend down than he was in the regular season (where he generally performed at an all-star-caliber level) is a testament of how he was an outstanding player.

In the postseason, the style of play becomes more halfcourt-oriented. Obviously, that meant the Lakers looked to Worthy more in given set possessions than in the regular season. I guess the question is would you rather have someone who stepped up in the postseason or someone who stepped down and/or choked when it mattered (see Scottie Pippen).

Mateo

Overrated: Bill Russell, Bill Walton

Underrated: Gary Payton, Walt Bellamy, Artis Gilmore, Dikembe Mutombo

Najee

Nothing personal, but when has Larry Nance ever been the hands-down best player/leader of a team? He generally deferred to Walter Davis and Maurice Lucas in Phoenix and did the same with Brad Daugherty and Mark Price in Cleveland.

Conversely, Dominique Wilkins was a dominant player for more than a decade for Atlanta, and generally was among the league leaders not only in scoring but statistically (namely, his PER). 'Nique generally ranked only behind Larry Bird as the top small forward in the late 1980s and during Bird's decline in the early 1990s he was the best small forward. As far as scoring was concerned, only Michael Jordan was better than him in the mid-1980s through early 1990s.

And as for Bernard King, he was one of the league's best players in 1984-85 and before his devastating knee injury in 1985-86 was arguably the best in the game. Nothing against Nance, but he's never been in the running for arguably THE best player in the NBA.

I don't know if the Nance teams in Phoenix and Cleveland were better than 'Nique's mid-1980s Atlanta teams, but I would say that Nance had better teammates than what Wilkins had. 'Nique's best teammates during his run were Doc Rivers and Kevin Willis, while in Cleveland Nance deferred to Daugherty, Price and for a short time Ron Harper.

If you have a good team established and you need a solid No. 3 man, then Nance is your guy. But in a vacuum and judging players individually, Nance ranks behind 'Nique and King.

BadBaronRudigor

On the other hand, when did Nique ever do anything at an above average level other than volume scoring and dunking whereas Nance was an excellent defender, scored at an extremely efficient clip, and is one of the top 10 all-time shotblockers (the top non-post player), plus he outdunked Wilkens at the first slam dunk competition, lol. Inefficient volume scorers are always overrated and Wilkens more than most for his flair and nickname.

King was at least an effective scorer, just one with injury and selfishness issues . . . you could count on Nance to be there, you couldn't count on King.

__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk

Najee

Dominique Wilkins was an exceptional rebounder for a small forward, averaging 6.8 boards per game for his career.

You also forget that Larry Nance also was not a player around whom a team could be built. He was excellent as a No. 3 option, but he was a player who willingly took a back seat to players such as Brad Daugherty, Mark Price and Walter Davis.

I guess it's a matter of would you rather a Carmelo Anthony-caliber player who wants to be the man or would you rather have a Rashard Lewis-caliber player who excels as your third-best player. The reason why 'Nique is more remembered than Nance is because there are fewer players in NBA history who could do what he did, while Nance's good skills are more replaceable plus his back-seat demeanor may have cost him in the legacy category.

Kid Chocolate

Man, I had planned to come in here and blindly post my underrated candidate...Larry Nance, but I see a debate has already spawned on him!

__________________
I'm posting with no pants on.

Kid Chocolate's Non-All Star Draft - SK Cherkassy Monkeys
PG - Derek Harper/KC Jones
SG - Darrell Dr. Dunkenstein Griffith/Dell Curry/Super John Williamson
SF - Cedric Cornbread Maxwell/Jerome Kersey
PF - Sam Big Smooth Perkins/Mickey Rubber Band Man Johnson/Kurt Rambo Rambis
C - Clifford Ray/Darryl Chocolate Thunder Dawkins

Najee

Najee

"Relative value" is the operative term here. Both Larry Nance and James Worthy are the same caliber of player. However, Worthy had Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as teammates while Nance played with good combos (Walter Davis and Maurice Lucas in Phoenix, then Brad Daugherty and Mark Price in Cleveland) who were not quite as dominant.

Because of that, Nance would have to carry more of a load if Phoenix and Cleveland wanted to aspire to the Lakers' level -- he simply couldn't be "as good as Worthy" in that context, because his best teammates were not as good as Worthy's best teammates.

Also, it doesn't mean Worthy carried less of a burden -- just that he had better help than Nance did. If Worthy was a lesser player (say, a Byron Scott or an A.C. Green) then this argument would have more weight in Nance's favor. But Worthy was equally as good as Nance, so the fame and accolades are more tipped in his favor because all other things being equal Worthy played just as well with better teammates and thus enjoyed better team results.

For the context of this thread, that doesn't make Worthy a questionable choice as a hall of famer -- nor does it make Nance a more suitable choice as a hall of famer. In fact, this argument can be used to explain the difference between Joe Dumars vs. Sidney Moncrief, Scottie Pippen vs. Shawn Marion, etc. -- players of similar value who are separated by the weight their teammates pulled and overall team accomplishments.