Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Bob McAdoo

Expand Messages
  • Mike G
    ... any ... who ... were ... Well, I guess. Buffalo s 1st playoff appearance (1974) got them a matchup with the eventual champion Celtics, and they went 6
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 13, 2002
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
      > McAdoo's tough to judge, and had one of the more complex careers of
      > NBA player. ...
      >... 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 the
      > 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 best
      > ever, the 1972 Lakers. Garfield Heard went to the finals as a
      > with Phoenix. Randy Smith was an all-star. Ernie D -- well okay,
      > a defensive hole there, but he was a top notch point guard

      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 of
      Smith 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
      no more.

      > And after he left Buffalo, and wandered throughout the wilderness
      of New
      > York, New Jersey, Boston, and Detroit, with at best modest success
      > 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 be
      > 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 in
      > the league -- but so what? 32 years is not old for a true superstar

      Mac wound up in Philly in 1986, and was still a capable scorer (10
      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 really
      > 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 good
      > and in the right situation, McAdoo could be an excellent player, as
      > Buffalo. But it had to be just the right situation, with the team
      > revolving around his offense. And even when the team did revolve
      > his offense (I believe that's what the Knicks tried) most teams
      > 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 put
      > into the same category: if you build your team around a player like
      > 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 only
      > 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.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.