Re: Bob McAdoo
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
> McAdoo's tough to judge, and had one of the more complex careers ofany
> NBA player. ...who
>... his Buffalo years:
> Jack Ramsey centered the team's offense around McAdoo -- by itself,
> could argue with that decision? But they never went far in thewere
> playoffs...partly that may have been due to having other teams that
> just plain better than them.Well, I guess. Buffalo's 1st playoff appearance (1974) got them a
matchup with the eventual champion Celtics, and they went 6 games.
In '75, they went 7 games with the Bullets, who would go on to the
In '76, they beat the Sixers of McGinnis and Collins, then lost in 6
again to the glory-bound Celtics.
But it's not as if he had chumps for
> teammates: Jim McMillian had been a starter on one of the bestteams
> ever, the 1972 Lakers. Garfield Heard went to the finals as astarter
> with Phoenix. Randy Smith was an all-star. Ernie D -- well okay,there's
> a defensive hole there, but he was a top notch point guardoffensively.
Not chumps per se, but not stars the likes of which surrounded
Cowens, or Unseld.
> But too much focus on McAdoo means that the offensive skills ofSmith and
> McMillian don't get fully utilized.Smith and McMillian weren't any greater offensive stars before or
after McAdoo, as near as I can tell. Good, well-rounded players, but
> And after he left Buffalo, and wandered throughout the wildernessof New
> York, New Jersey, Boston, and Detroit, with at best modest success(and
> often abject failure) at each stop,I recall a magazine article at the time of Mac's resurrection in LA.
He said he had been called a 'malingerer' in Detroit. He didn't
think of himself as a malingerer. He said he was injured and he
wasn't getting respect. So why should he play injured, in that
> In just the right situation, and with a good coach, McAdoo could berole
> useful. He proved that with the Lakers -- note that he was only a
> player though.The same article quoted one of the Lakers saying 'Mac is a star'. So
he had his respect, and without the burden of carrying a team. In 4
LA seasons, he averaged 55 games. So he was a part-time part-timer.
Still, he was good for 20 off the bench, in the '82 playoffs.
> I'm sure you're correct that that was his 10th year inMac wound up in Philly in 1986, and was still a capable scorer (10
> the league -- but so what? 32 years is not old for a true superstar
pts in 21 min.). Apparently this wasn't enough, and by age 35 he was
out of the league.
I believe Dr. J was
> about that age when he won his NBA MVP (granted he didn't reallydeserve
> it,Julius' best years were 1980-82, when he was 29-31 years old. And he
was quite deserving of MVP in those years. (Relatively speaking;
Kareem was better, but he had enough.)
> As a leading player, as opposed to role player, again with a goodcoach
> and in the right situation, McAdoo could be an excellent player, asin
> Buffalo. But it had to be just the right situation, with the teamaround
> revolving around his offense. And even when the team did revolve
> his offense (I believe that's what the Knicks tried) most teamsfound
> little success with him.I still say Mac had very little help in Buffalo, New York, certainly
Detroit, or Boston. Coming in as a Savior is a sure recipe for
> No question that Wilkins was better than Aguirre, but I still putthem
> into the same category: if you build your team around a player liketeam
> that, you can have a good team, but not a great one. On a great
> (such as Detroit 1988 and 1989) players like Aguirre will be onlyrole
> players.Mike, are you saying anything, other than making the obvious comment
that one player does not win a championship? Of Course, if Wilkins
or McAdoo are the only great player on the team, they are a long shot
to win a title. Of Course, if McAdoo is the 4th or 5th option he
must be on a hell of a good team.
It's easy to argue, for example, Detroit trading Dantley for Aguirre
caused them to win their titles. Then you can go on to say Dantley
could never be on a championship team, and Aguirre could.
I'd say, someone has to win, and not everyone can. Assigning cause
and effect is another matter.
I'd also say, given the maturing of Dumars, Salley, and Rodman, the
Pistons might have been even more dominant by keeping Dantley
(providing he doesn't get injured on the same timeline.)
Oops, now I've gone and played the Dantley card.