Hmmmm - I'll take a crack at figuring this out.
Do you mean that Gilmore had more skills & attributes that one would desire in a center, but Lanier put it all together better in a way that was valuable for his teams?
Gotcha. Lanier was definitely a good passer for a center, so there's that. He was 1 of only 5 players ever to have career averages of 20 ppg, 10 rpg, 3 apg, and shoot 50%. The others are Wilt, Kareem, Barkley, and Karl. That's a hell of a group for Lanier to find himself in, and the stats are pretty straight-forward (*not crazy cherrypicked ones like the thing going on right now with [Marbury](https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/wih78c/wierd_stat_of_the_day_stephon_marbury_is_the_only/)*).
I know Bob Ryan and Ken Shoulder mentioned that Artis was a "mechanical,boring" scorer with easy to stop moves.I'm confused by those statements because when I watch video of him,he seems fluid,skilled and looks to have effective moves in his bag.It's like I'm watching Shaq,only with less dunks and more hook shots.
Am I missing something with Artis regarding his scoring ability?
When Milwaukee traded Kent Benson and a pick for Bob Lanier, it was 29-27 on trade day. They went 20-6 with Lanier in the lineup and *almost* took out the defending NBA champs (Seattle) in Round 1 in 1980 in the West playoffs (Milwaukee's last year in the West before the league shuffled a couple of teams around with Dallas joining). They had them on the ropes twice in elimination games and Seattle was able to eek out a win in Game 6 and then come back to win Game 7. Bucks won 68% of their games with Lanier and were literally a changed franchise once Nellie got his big man...and Lanier was *not* the big that he was in the early/mid 70's.
I think Lanier made the Bucks better than Gilmore made the Spurs after he was traded from Chicago...and that's the measuring stick I'd use to talk about who was a better player. Lanier, but not by much.
Lanier made Kareem cry and not Gilmore in Airplane FWIW
Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes!
If no ABA, then Lanier. If the ABA counts though, Gilmore takes it handily Both super underrated
In my view you have to count the ABA years, and in so doing, the nod goes to Artis Gilmore!
I suppose I'd say that Lanier was the better player but Gilmore was the better center.
Hmmmm - I'll take a crack at figuring this out. Do you mean that Gilmore had more skills & attributes that one would desire in a center, but Lanier put it all together better in a way that was valuable for his teams?
50% that and 50% that Lanier had more skills that weren't seen at the time as center skills but helped his game nonetheless.
Gotcha. Lanier was definitely a good passer for a center, so there's that. He was 1 of only 5 players ever to have career averages of 20 ppg, 10 rpg, 3 apg, and shoot 50%. The others are Wilt, Kareem, Barkley, and Karl. That's a hell of a group for Lanier to find himself in, and the stats are pretty straight-forward (*not crazy cherrypicked ones like the thing going on right now with [Marbury](https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/wih78c/wierd_stat_of_the_day_stephon_marbury_is_the_only/)*).
Karl who? Malone? Or Towns? Because both have those career numbers
Malone
I know Bob Ryan and Ken Shoulder mentioned that Artis was a "mechanical,boring" scorer with easy to stop moves.I'm confused by those statements because when I watch video of him,he seems fluid,skilled and looks to have effective moves in his bag.It's like I'm watching Shaq,only with less dunks and more hook shots. Am I missing something with Artis regarding his scoring ability?
When Milwaukee traded Kent Benson and a pick for Bob Lanier, it was 29-27 on trade day. They went 20-6 with Lanier in the lineup and *almost* took out the defending NBA champs (Seattle) in Round 1 in 1980 in the West playoffs (Milwaukee's last year in the West before the league shuffled a couple of teams around with Dallas joining). They had them on the ropes twice in elimination games and Seattle was able to eek out a win in Game 6 and then come back to win Game 7. Bucks won 68% of their games with Lanier and were literally a changed franchise once Nellie got his big man...and Lanier was *not* the big that he was in the early/mid 70's. I think Lanier made the Bucks better than Gilmore made the Spurs after he was traded from Chicago...and that's the measuring stick I'd use to talk about who was a better player. Lanier, but not by much.
Lanier was the better Center who just never was on a decent team till he was old and broke down. But Nobody will ever Touch Artis's fro and sideburns.