No, it doesn't. Joe Johnson can play with Kobe Bryant on any given night. That doesn't mean he has that skill and talent. Basketball performance is subject to variance. Joe Johnson's very best can approximate Kobe's average. Joe Johnson's average is nowhere near Kobe's. In my opinion, the same was true of Wallace, with regards to Garnett and Duncan. His very best could approximate their average. His average was significantly lower, because he had less skill and talent. Ultimately, we can claim anyone's talent was at any level. Darius Miles could have been better than Michael Jordan if he tried harder. He was super talented. Lamar Odom could have been Magic Johnson if he tried harder. I find these to be fairly silly, just as I find it silly to claim Wallace was as talented as all-time greats. Could any of these players maybe have squeezed out a little more with more effort? Maybe, maybe not. The idea that it could have bridged the chasm between the results in the real world is pretty unlikely, IMO.
You're talking about variance and average in terms of production, not talent or skill. Although, you're still wrong that Johnson's "very best" approximates Kobe's average. That just isn't true. I still see your point: You have to move more sigmas out on Johnson's distribution than you do on Kobe's to get their production to line up. However, that is still comparing production, and not actually separating talent and skill from mindset and hard work. I would guess that most people agree that Kobe has more of a killer and competitive mindset than Johnson. How much of that is responsible for the shift in basketball production distributions? I don't know, but it has something to do with it, IMO.
It wasn't meant to be exact...I haven't looked up Joe Johnson's best games. And what I'm saying is that variance in production can allow a lesser player to produce as much as a better player in any given game, even if the talent/skill is not equivalent. Not that talent/skill is subject to variance. That's what I meant by Wallace being able to "play with" Garnett and Duncan on any given night. That he could occasionally produce like them, when he was on. I don't believe that he had the talent to produce like that on average if he had only worked harder.
Let me see if I get what your saying or I'm missing it. Work ethic is something that comes with all time great talent. If you don't have the work ethic then ultimately you don't have the talent.
Andalusian covered a lot of what I was going to say. IMO Sheed was on their level when he wanted to be. And its not just body type and skill. Sheed had the "it" factor when he was motivated. He had that ability to dominate games that Duncan and KG had, that Kobe has, I would say JJ definitely does not have it (at least not like they do). JJ and Kobe have similar physical gifts and basketball skills but the talent level is unquestionably different because Kobe has the killer instinct, the special something that separates those guys from the rest of the pack. Kobe can dominate a game. Joe Johnson doesn't dominate games IMO. Duncan and KG dominate games (they did much more so in their primes). When Sheed was on he had that "dominance" where he was unstoppable on both ends and the impact on the game was off the charts IMO. Does work ethic or drive come into play with regards to talent? To me it seems like the antithesis of talent. Talent is natural ability. Sheed had the tools and the skills but he also had talent in that the game seemed to come easy to him. I'd say KG was certainly the better physical specimen but I'd also say the game probably came easier to Sheed and that is an aspect of talent. KG will go down as one of the best PFs of all time while Sheed will probably not be remembered much historically at all because KG had tremendous, unrelenting drive and intensity and will to win. Sheed could have dominated like KG and Duncan every night. It seemed like it was a simple as flicking a switch for him. Joe Johnson doesn't have that switch. He can go balls out and never be on Kobe's level as far as dominance.
I'll try to restate my point as simply as I can: It's possible that Wallace could have been an all-time great if he had simply worked harder. The possibility exists for every individual that they could have been better with more work. However, the fact that he had great games is not evidence of that, IMO, because basketball performance, like most things, is subject to variance. There are a number of players who are capable, talent-wise, of lighting it up occasionally but are not capable of lighting it up every game. That is usually variance at work, not lack of effort or caring. For me, the default is that Wallace was one of those players: talented enough to be great sometimes, but not talented enough to be consistently great. That also fits with my observational view of him, in college and the pros...he had skills and talent, but he never looked like a dominant talent to me. It is possible that those who think he could have been an all-time great, which Duncan and Garnett are, with more work are right. That's not my view and I don't believe that his best nights are good evidence that he was an all-time great talent.
Right NOW, Aldridge is having a better half-season than Wallace ever did. If he keeps it up (or close to it) for a while, he'll have a better career than Rasheed did. Hopefully he does. It's hard to answer the poll question, though, because Wallace was really good for a pretty long time. Ed O.
LaMarcus has many miles to tread before he nears Sheed's level of completeness. He's our best current player but lags far behind Sheed in scope and range of talents/skills both on offense and defense. I can't think of even one thing he is better at. Most importantly, Sheed's focus was always on how to help the team. He is the ultimate teammate.
More important in this comparison are the stats you left out. Assists, steals, blocks, and those we can't track such as good outlet passes, setting solid picks for their teammates, on-court communication, blocking out...
Yes, I understand what you are saying, which is what I restated later in my post... the part you deleted. Talent/skill is not subject to variance. Production is subject to variance. The variance in production is what can make Johnson as good as Kobe on some nights, but not on average. It is my opinion that some of the variance is due to the mental part of the game. How much? I don't know, but I do know that talent isn't the only source of variance in overall basketball production.
Yep, good old Rashweed, the ultimate teammate. That's why he refused to lift weights with everybody else, and why he kept picking up stupid technical fouls. He was just "helping" the team! Same thing when he got kicked out of a WCF game against the Lakers in the first half. It was always the team first with Rashweed!
How do you mean? Variance means deviation in both directions...positive and negative. If a player constantly "varies" their performance in the positive direction, that's simply a higher average. Do you mean that players with better mental approaches limit their variance...have fewer highs and lows? It might be true that elite players, like Kobe, are less volatile statistically, but wouldn't really change my point, since ultimately a player's "level" is seen in their mean. My belief was that Wallace's mean talent-based level was lower than Duncan's and Garnett's. He may also have been more volatile (pun fully intended), but that's a separate issue, IMO.
I do not believe that you had to look at his best games to see his talents. He was as fast as KG and faster than Duncan, he was strong as hell when he bothered to be in shape, he could post, his handles were not bad for his position, he could shoot the jumper with lots of range, he could run the floor, he had good footwork, understanding of team game - the skills were there, the talent was there. He had a long enough career that this was not a once in a lifetime thing. He displayed the skills, the talent and the ability to dominant enough. He just never did it consistently - and his disinterest in lifting weights and doing some of the other things other players did was well known. 'Sheed had world-level talent. That's, unfortunately, is where it stopped. His problems were clearly mental - either by never working as hard as the other guys did - or by losing his cool on the court to the detriment of his game and his team.
Hmmm. I think we're having differing definitions or ideas on the words "talent" and "skills". The way I look at it, "talent" and "skill" have no variance for a given player. Just like height, and weight. So, to me, the statement "talent-based mean" doesn't make sense. A player's "production" has variance. IMO, it is a combination of a player's talent level and mental state. If you believe Wallace's talent level is lower than Garnett and Duncan, I have no argument there. I just disagree that a player's production variance doesn't have some correlation with their mental approach to the game. I also believe that if Wallace had a better mental approach to the game, his "production mean" would have been close(r) to Duncan and Garnett.
I mean the same thing with "talent" and "skills." You're misunderstanding what I meant by "talent-based mean." I wasn't talking about the mean of talent...I agree that that doesn't make sense. I meant the mean of his production based on his talent. That's what I was wondering. In what way do you believe a player's mental approach impacts his production variance? That is, how do you believe a player's variance changes with mental approach? More variance, less variance?
I would argue that this is correct for talent - but skill can be enhanced and refined with work. LMA had the tools to work in the post before - but it took a summer of close work with Bayno and studying tape combined with a mindset to do it to enhance his skill to get more of this talent in the post. This is basically the way I see it as well. 'Sheed had all the tools - and he actually had the skill as well - he did not have the work ethic to be in as good a shape as possible - nor did he have the mental mindset to dominate consistently.
I've pointed out the same fact a bazillion times now... Sheed had really small hands (relative to his height) and could barely palm the ball. This might have benefited him as a shooter but definitely worked against him as a low post option where being able to control the ball through all the swiping at it, really helps a lot. Basically I disagree with your assessment that he had the same sort of talent as KG and Duncan based on this subtle but very real physical achilles heal which limited his offensive effectiveness. As far as Wallace vs LA, I voted equal talent. As of right now, Wallace was the better defender, while Aldridge has shown you can run an offense through him. Prior to this year, Sheed had the upper hand in the comparison so LA has closed things with his play this season. If he keeps this pace up I'll rate him the better player. STOMP
Wallace simply didn't have the drive to make himself a elite player. He had the talent and he did well inside when he wanted to do the work, but he migraged outside more and more. To me it was mostly mental with him and how well he played.
