Thread Tools

Display Modes

BadBaronRudigor · 01-28-2008, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Najee

I have to say my perception of Terry Cummings is not colored by his injury-filled years (I saw him play since his days at DePaul with Mark Aguirre). And actually, Cummings was solid for his first 10 NBA seasons (1982-83 through 1991-92) before he suffered a serious knee injury in a pickup game that derailed his career.

Quite frankly, I followed Cummings, Dominique Wilkins and James Worthy since their college days and I generally rated him behind those two. Cummings was more a complementary type player who would do well paired with a good leading player; that was evident in Milwaukee, much less with the Clippers. 'Nique was more of the franchise player while Worthy was a team player who could step up to be The Man when needed.

Cummings simply never had that quality -- he was more like Larry Nance in that regard, meaning he was a good wingman for a top-level player but he would be average in the role of the lead dog. And maybe you mean efficiency in another manner besides PER, because 'Nique's typically was higher than Cummings' annually.

I also wouldn't call Cummings a Rasheed Wallace-type player, but more of a David West-type forward with a better outside shot.

West is probably a better comp though Cummings also had those massive biceps. And I'd take Larry Nance over Nique as I've said several times . . . complementary player or not. I think Nance, especially in his early years as a 3, was Sean Marion level or better which is far superior to Nique is every aspect of the game except dribbling, volume scoring and flash . . . and Nance beat Nique in the first NBA dunk contest so he had a bit of flash too, though certainly not Nique level.

Najee · 05-30-2008, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadBaronRudigor

West is probably a better comp though Cummings also had those massive biceps. And I'd take Larry Nance over Nique as I've said several times . . . complementary player or not. I think Nance, especially in his early years as a 3, was Sean Marion level or better which is far superior to Nique is every aspect of the game except dribbling, volume scoring and flash . . . and Nance beat Nique in the first NBA dunk contest so he had a bit of flash too, though certainly not Nique level.

I can name quite a few players I would take over someone regarded as their better as well, but that doesn't mean that the player I pick is better. The fact you would rather have Larry Nance on your team doesn't mean he's better than Dominique Wilkins. Not to mention Nance was more of a combination forward than a true small forward like Wilkins -- especially when you factor in the important aspect that Wilkins' greatest strength (volume scoring) was one a level on a handful of players in NBA history could match. Nance doesn't have a strength that would be considered elite level in NBA history.

BadBaronRudigor · 05-31-2008, 05:09 AM

No? Nique is 11th on the all-time points list for volume scorers. Larry Nance is top 20 all-time in a category too, though true to his strengths, it's a defensive category, he is 16th in blocked shots.

That wouldn't sound that impressive but as you say, Nance was a combo 3/4 forward. How many non-centers have had more blocked shots than Larry Nance? ZERO, he is the all-time shot blocking leader for noncenters.

As I've said, I think volume scorers who aren't efficient and don't play good defense are badly overrated. Nique is the perfect example, but even more so because he had one of the flashiest games and coolest nicknames of all time. He's Pete Maravich equivalent; and I'd take Nance over him or Bobby Jones over Maravich . . . assuming I cared about winning more than flash.

Najee · 05-31-2008, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadBaronRudigor

No? Nique is 11th on the all-time points list for volume scorers. Larry Nance is top 20 all-time in a category too, though true to his strengths, it's a defensive category, he is 16th in blocked shots.

That wouldn't sound that impressive but as you say, Nance was a combo 3/4 forward. How many non-centers have had more blocked shots than Larry Nance? ZERO, he is the all-time shot blocking leader for noncenters.

And meanwhile, Dominique Wilkins is in the Basketball Hall of Fame for what he did and Larry Nance is little more than an afterthought in NBA history. I assume because it's much harder to find guys who can average 25 points per game for 10 consecutive seasons like 'Nique did (Michael Jordan, Jerry West, Karl Malone, Oscar Robertson, Shaquille O'Neal and Allen Iverson are the only other ones in NBA history). And for the thing Nance did well, more players did it more frequently than him and most of the other players are considered overall better than him.

'Nique perennially was one of the top players in the NBA (as numbers such as his PER from the mid-80s through the mid-90s state) while Nance was merely a good player. In overall evaluations by scouts and personnel people, 'Nique was considered a better overall player than Nance. End of story.

And please, tell me what in the world did Nance win from a team perspective to justify this illogical conclusion that you could win with him and not with 'Nique? Nance spent years as a No. 2 man on some struggling Suns teams (including a drug scandal that nearly destroyed the franchise) and as a No. 3 man on Cleveland teams that didn't do any better than 'Nique's Hawks teams (despite Cleveland having better overall talent than Atlanta).

I like Nance as a player, but I'm not so biased that I'm going to say he was overall a better player than 'Nique when their performances and history clearly say that wasn't the case.

That is nearly as senseless as your Bobby Jones (a good support player who was surrounded by strong talent) vs. Pete Maravich (a hall of famer who played on poor teams) argument -- basketball is a team sport, and how well a team does is largely affected by the talent on the team. Put Jones on an rebuilding team (Atlanta) and later on an expansion team (New Orleans) and if you honestly think Jones would have done a better job as a support player than Maravich did in the leading role then you're crazy. Surely you're not going to make the argument that playing in Philadelphia with Julius Erving, Moses Malone, Mo Cheeks and Andrew Toney is not a factor.

PauloCatarino · 05-31-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadBaronRudigor

No? Nique is 11th on the all-time points list for volume scorers. Larry Nance is top 20 all-time in a category too, though true to his strengths, it's a defensive category, he is 16th in blocked shots.

That wouldn't sound that impressive but as you say, Nance was a combo 3/4 forward. How many non-centers have had more blocked shots than Larry Nance? ZERO, he is the all-time shot blocking leader for noncenters.

As I've said, I think volume scorers who aren't efficient and don't play good defense are badly overrated. Nique is the perfect example, but even more so because he had one of the flashiest games and coolest nicknames of all time. He's Pete Maravich equivalent; and I'd take Nance over him or Bobby Jones over Maravich . . . assuming I cared about winning more than flash.

BadBaron, i'm a big fan of Larry Nance, but there is no way he is better than Nique.
I only had the chance to watch Nance in Cleveland, and he sure was a heck of a player: efficient scorer and tremendous blocker. But, at his best, Nance is nothing more than a great #2 or #3 player.
Nique was a superstar and franchise player.

Najee · 05-31-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PauloCatarino

BadBaron, i'm a big fan of Larry Nance, but there is no way he is better than Nique.
I only had the chance to watch Nance in Cleveland, and he sure was a heck of a player: efficient scorer and tremendous blocker. But, at his best, Nance is nothing more than a great #2 or #3 player.

Nique was a superstar and franchise player.

Exactly. Larry Nance grew up one hour from where I lived and he attended nearby Clemson University, so I had the chance to see him both in college and throughout his NBA career.

There is a difference between choosing a particular player over another because of personal preference (for instance, as a Marques Johnson fan I may pick him for a team over, say, Larry Bird) and saying that Johnson was a better player than Bird when evidence says otherwise. Let's try to be as objective as possible when evaluating players and not let personal bias be so obvious, Baron.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes