I actually think Aldridge is a better player. Not from numbers, but he isn't afraid to be a #1 option. This was something Sheed never embraced. In terms of talent I think Sheed was a better talent. But talent only gets you so far.
Too soon to answer this. At this moment, LA vs Sheed at his peak, it's Sheed. But LA is still young and continues to improve and I think will have a much longer peak than sheed. This poll is a decade too soon.
2010-2011 LaMarcus versus 1999-2000 Sheed is not as much of a contest as I thought it would be on stats: http://bkref.com/tiny/SIsvN This made me vote LaMarcus, though in my heart I knew it already: Beast Mode LMA is the Promise of Sheed that he never fulfilled himself.
LMA. Both have all the talent in the world. Sheed never had the head for it - and for a long time I was afraid LMA did not have the heart. Now that he has the heart - he has the heart, the head and the talent. 3/3 > 2/3 every day of the week.
I'd say that talent level is about equal with Sheed getting the slight nod, but Aldridge does all the other things that make him the overall better player. He's a good teammate, he accepts responsibility of being a highly paid player, he isn't a trouble seeker, he's marketable, etc. etc.
I'm a big Sheed fan, but I'm kind of puzzled when people say he was more talented than LA. I certainly don't think that's true on the offensive end. Everything Sheed could do, Aldridge can do. Well, Sheed could hit more three pointers, but he'd also take too many of them so it was a mixed blessing. Aldridge, however, has a much better handle and is a better offensive rebounder than Sheed was. He's also much better at forcing contact. Sheed was the better defensive player, though. Definitely the better low post defender.
I don't think Sheed was more talented than Aldridge. This harkens back to "Sheed was as talented as Duncan and KG." He wasn't, not remotely. Sheed was a great athlete and an excellent basketball player, but he didn't have all-time great talent. I think he and Aldridge are pretty comparably talented...I'd lean toward Aldridge on offense and to Wallace on defense. If Aldridge had Wallace's defensive ability, he might be a top-ten player in the league. Happily, though, Aldridge is at least solid on defense. It's not a weakness.
I think Sheed was a better defender in his prime, but Aldridge could get there. I'd take Aldridge over sheed every day of the week and twice on sunday.
Actually, comparing peak-to-peak, Aldridge's production this season is higher that Sheed's ever was. Aldridge 2010-2011 Age 25: 22.4PPG, 8.7 RPG, 21.6 PER Sheed 2001-2002 Age 27: 19.3 PPG, 8.2 RPG, 20.9 PER A couple things of note: Aldridge started the year horribly. His averages for the first month and a half were much lower (he had a PER around 16 through mid-December). What he has done for the past 3 months is way better than anything Sheed ever did for such an extended period. Aldridge has been carrying this team on his back for 3 months and dominating his opponents. Sheed could, and did, dominate his opponents and carry the team for a game or two, but then would disappear for the next week. Also, Aldridge is only 25. He may not yet be at his peak. He could still show additional improvement over the next two or three seasons, which would put his peak performance far ahead of Sheed's. However, Sheed has a ring and has gone deep in the play-offs many times. He also had a very long, productive career. Aldridge needs to have similar play-off success and continue to produce for many more years before we can declare him the better player. So, right now, I'd take peak Aldridge over peak Sheed, but I'd take career Sheed over career Aldridge. BNM
In terms of talent, I would call them equal. In terms of skills, thats more complicated. Neither were/are great rebounders. Wallace was the better defender. Up until this season, both seemed allergic to the low block, and were satisfied with being the 2nd banna on offense. LMA's current level of offensive production more than off-sets Sheed's 3 point shooting - but he needs to prove he can sustain this level.
Hey Boob just remember that Sheed had about 4 first round exits in Portland before 1998-03. If Aldridge and the Blazers can make it past the first round, we are headed in the right direction. I hope we can at least get a damn ring with Aldridge, Roy and Oden on the same team. I think all of us thought this was going to happen. With our luck it now just seems like a dream. Let's make our dream a reality man!
Sheed has so much talent and potential... he just never lived up to it. Aldridge seems to be on a much better path.
All things considered they're pretty equal but ultimately I'd take Aldridge because he has a better head on his shoulders and you can count on him to keep working and getting better and that's why he's at where he is now. I don't think Wallace had that kind of drive. Wallace had the talent to average better numbers but he simply didn't have that kind of mindset and that's why he was a perfect fit for the Pistons. Billups was the leader, Rip was the leading scorer and Ben Wallace was the backbone of the defense. Wallace fit in perfectly there and that's all he ever wanted. Basically what I'm saying is I think you can build a team around Aldridge because he wants it while Wallace didn't.
He had the ability to be dominant like those guys though. The difference is those guys had the dominant mindset 100% of the time, Sheed just had it in waves. At times he could dominate both sides of the ball like both of those guys (probably had better scoring skills than KG in fact but he loved floating on the perimeter). He just coasted along most of the time though. When he wanted it I think his killer instinct and general dominance was much better than Aldridge. IMO if he brought it 100% of the time he would have been better than KG overall but not Duncan. Nice to see Aldridge progress mentally and really become an inside scorer. I think it'll be hard for him to ever be a great defensive player if he has to drop 26+ points a game for the Blazers to win. But if you get some other great supporting players to help carry the load will it take away from his offense and thus the team's overall offensive efficiency? Something Popovic and Duncan really excelled at was balancing the team offense as well as utilizing Duncan's talent as much as possible. Like I've said before, Duncan could have put up 30 ppg for his career if he wanted but the Spurs wouldn't have won as many rings. Right now the Blazers need Aldridge to score but eventually they'll need some Ginobili's and Parker's. The thing I worry about with Roy, even if he gets back to what he used to be, is whether Aldridge will defer to him as the alpha guy on the team. Duncan's the man in SA even if Parker and Ginobili get more shots, everyone knows their role.
First thing that comes to mind is his attitude. 100x better than sheed's. That goes a loooooooong way in this leauge.
KG is one of the ten best big men in history, IMO. There's no way Wallace had that kind of talent. Lots of players have the ability to be dominant once in a while...that doesn't mean they could do it all the time if they had a different mindset. As I said in another post (not about Wallace), guys like Carmelo Anthony and Joe Johnson are capable of having Kobe Bryant-like nights. The reason they don't have nights like that every night is not because they don't play hard or lack the right mindset...it's because they're not as talented as Kobe. It takes Kobe Bryant talent to be as good as Kobe Bryant every night. Lesser talents can hit that level occasionally, but not on average. Wallace was talented enough to play with Garnett or Duncan on any given night, but he wasn't as talented as they were, so he couldn't sustain that level night to night. Physical tools are not the same as talent (and even his physical tools were overrated if people think he was as good an athlete as Garnett, who was an absolute freak). He didn't have a dominant, first-option mentality because he didn't have dominant talent. He was very good, not great, talent-wise. And I'm a Rasheed Wallace fan. I loved watching him play. He simply gets overrated in terms of talent because people assume that if you have great physical tools, only hard work is necessary to be a great player. I think that's completely wrong. Skill and instinct matter too. Wallace was more of an Antonio McDyess level talent...both had great athleticism, neither had all-time great talent. And both turned out to be excellent NBA players.
Sub-question: let's pretend this half of the season that LMA has been beasting is above where he'll eventually land. Obviously, he's made a change in his game and is benefiting from it. But let's also say he doesn't keep it up quite as much next season. Where would you like him to be, given what he's shown you? For me, 23pts/9reb/1blk is a fantastic line that I'd be happy to hang my hat on for next year. I think he can make that happen, too. It is in most every way better than his earlier career averages.
I am not buying this. Being able to play with Garnett or Duncan on any given night means he had the skill and that talent. What he did not have is the desire and/or work ethic. If he could not play with them on any given night means he did not have the talent. Sheed had the body, length, strength, accuracy, speed and even a comparable skill set to KG and Duncan (some things he was better at, some not as good at) - the talent was there. Unless we now define the desire/will/discipline to use these gifts night-in, night-out as talent - what you say just makes no sense. Ben Wallace never had the size, speed, agility and low-post skills of Sheed - but he worked his ass-off and had a comparable career, very good, not all-time great. Sheed had the talent and did not maximize it.
