Username:	Password:

Remember me

Forgot your username/password?

Print Email

Home>Articles

Griffin and the G.O.A.T.s

By Sean Kates

March 27, 2009

At the very bottom of his second look at this year’s tournament (aptly titled “Tournament 2”), this site’s namesake poses the following question: “Who was the last college player as good as Blake Griffin?” While not finding the answer, he does believe that the search has to begin in earnest before Beasley, before Durant and even before Wade and ‘Melo.

I was sort of taken aback. I watch a lot of college basketball and a lot of professional basketball. I can recognize that Blake Griffin is a great college basketball player, and has dominated this year’s game. He will be a fantastic professional player, and has most of the skills necessary to be an All-Star at that level. But at no point during my appreciation of his season and his prospects do I remember thinking that his achievements would merit such a title from someone who no doubt also watches a lot of college basketball, and isn’t one renowned for hyperbole.

So I brazenly sounded off in the comments section, implying that Blake Griffin, while beastly, was no better than Durant or Beasley, let alone the best player in college basketball over the last decade. Bill replied nicely that, in his viewing, Griffin was on an entirely different level. Beasley was actually used as an example of “Basketball 101,” while Griffin did things that made him “something else.” Bill also stuck with his view of Griffin as the better jumper, who was stronger and quicker. There were various points in both of our comments about Griffin’s age and draftability, all of which you could read if you just clicked over for five seconds. I’m not trying to summarize a comments discussion that’s on the same site, jeez.

I posted again, mostly trying to ask the question that drives this article. I don’t really care if Blake Griffin is a better college basketball player than Durant and Beasley were, or if he’s the best of the last decade, or the best of all time. However, the discussion provides a wonderful opportunity to ask: “How would we even decide that?”

Bill, in a refreshing turn of events, turns to personal experience, having seen all three of these guys play extensively in the same league as his beloved Jayhawks. I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to debate which of us has seen more games overall, or of these particular players, and I will stipulate for the sake of this article that he has seen more in both cases. Does that make his judgment of the players stronger than mine, if true? Maybe it does. This is basically the same fight we have in baseball every single day between scouts and numbers guys, the same fight that Jay Cutler fans have with Ben Roethlisberger fans, the same fight that Manny Acta seems to be losing with himself every time he writes a lineup card. I don’t think it’s as settled in favor of the objectivists’ side as most sabermetrically-inclined seem to believe. Value can be found in subjective viewing, especially trained viewing.

Scouts are used at all levels of the game, from high school through the pros. A particularly glowing report by scouts can overcome mediocre performance (I’m not talking only about you, Rudy Gay, but I am mostly talking about you, Rudy Gay), and more than one excellent performer has seen his hopes for success dashed by lukewarm reception by scouts (I hope Psycho T isn’t going to be invited to the draft…I can’t bear to watch him not blink for an hour while his name isn’t called). But how helpful can they be at the extremes? I have to imagine that a basketball scout looking at my professional prospects and Bill’s professional prospects would say about the same thing: “No Flipping Way. Terrible. Can barely be considered as a ballboy.”

We have a similar problem at the other end. Enough words have been written about Durant, Beasley and Griffin in college that we can’t really judge between them. Is Durant’s “great combination of height, length and athleticism that can score in a variety of ways” better than Beasley’s “dominating, fearless, strong, quick power forward” or Griffin’s “combo of size, strength, speed, athleticism, jumping ability and nastiness?” Is Durant’s failure to fully realize his defensive upside worse than Beasley occasionally taking plays off or fading to the corner in an offensive set, or Griffin’s inability to block shots at his height or handle the ball?

Do we go by comparables? Durant has few of these “comps” outside of a “better” Tracy McGrady. Beasley was lauded as a more athletic and harder-working Derrick Coleman. Griffin most frequently draws McDyess and Boozer comps, but usually with some form of qualification, like “healthier,” or “more athletic” or “less likely to stab a blind dude in the back.” How do we even tell whose comparables are better? When these problems arise in other sports, there are usually some objective measures to fall back on. Basketball is not quite there yet.

This past week has seen a relative explosion of talk surrounding basketball statistics. From the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics conference attended, and reported on, by Bill Simmons (among others), to new statistical measures of professional basketball players based very nearly on VORP and RAA, to increased social awareness of the good work being done at BasketballProspectus and by Ken Pomeroy specifically, this was a week to be a basketball stat guy. Sure, stat-favorite Memphis went down last night and the “Rise of the 6 seed” never really materialized when West Virginia and James Harden soiled the bed, but the fact that people even understand Defensive Efficiency and Tempo-Free statistics is a giant leap from where this field was even three years ago. You can only call Calipari’s Tigers overrated or a bust if you are aware that there are statistical arguments for them as leading championship contenders.

Still, basketball statistics generally, and individual college basketball statistics particularly, have a long way to go. There are no Win Shares for Atlantic 10 athletes, VORP for Mountain West walk-ons or park-adjustments for playing in an arena with worse-than-average sight lines. So we are left with an even more incomplete picture of a player’s worth or skill set than we have in baseball. And that’s before factoring in the far greater variability in team effect on a single player and vice versa.

Here’s what I can tell you about these three players in particular:

I can tell you that all three players used an extraordinarily high percentage of their team’s possessions: Durant at 31.6%, Griffin at 31.9% and Beasley at 33.5%. This is notable for a couple of reasons. One, the leader board of this particular stat is generally dominated by great players on mid-major teams with little around them. Two, it’s also usually dominated by guards. Here we have three guys at 6’9’’ or above on major conference teams cracking the top 25 of this particular stat. Still, this doesn’t really tell us anything about how good they are, other than their coaches and teammates ran their plays through them.

I can tell you that all three were in the top 10 of Ken Pomeroy’s Offensive Rating, which judges how many points the player would score over 100 possessions. Durant and Beasley were both 5^th in the nation during their freshman season, while Griffin is 10^th this year, during his sophomore campaign.

I can tell you that Beasley is arguably the best rebounder, coming out largely even with Griffin on the defensive end, and outpacing him on the offensive end. Durant lags only slightly behind the other two, and that’s with 2-3 other strong rebounders on his team. All three were in the top 30 of Rebound Percentage for players who saw significant minutes in their respective years.

Griffin is a turnover machine, with some form of TO accounting for almost 19% of his possessions. Durant stuck around 14% and Beasley around 15%, both excellent numbers for players at their height and their usage rates.

Griffin is the more efficient shooter overall, putting up hilariously high True Shooting percentages and effective FG percentages. However, both Durant and Beasley held their own especially accounting for their positional differences.

None of these guys are what you would call defensive stoppers, not now and not in college. Still, Durant and Beasley blocked twice as many shots per possession as Griffin has, and that is hard to reconcile once positions and teammates are taken into account.

Griffin has no real outside game to speak of (yet), which puts him a great distance behind both Durant (40.4% over 200+ 3PA) and Beasley (38.0% over 95 3PA). This time, however, we have to account for positional differences in reverse, as Griffin is rarely asked to move more than 15 feet from the basket.

And finally, speaking of 15 footers, Griffin and Beasley each drew over 8 fouls/40 minutes, but only Beasley took advantage, hitting over 77% of his shots, while Griffin has converted less than 59% of his. Durant was no slouch, drawing 6.3 fouls/40, but knocking down well over 81%. As a result, both Durant and Beasley had 30-40 more made FTs than Griffin has this year.*

So where does this get us, if anywhere? We have no idea which scouts to believe and the statistics above can only explain so much. We are left, as ever, with more questions than we started with:

Anecdotally, this year’s Big 12 and entire college landscape is weaker than it was in 2007 or 2008. How can we factor that in? Is it even true? This year’s Big 12 is definitely shorter than in years past, but how much should that affect this discussion? Can we even effectively rank players at different positions who are asked to do different things, even if they are in the same year? Should we take into account that Kevin Durant has more or less proven himself an All-Star in the Association, while Beasley (and obviously, Griffin) could go either way? Does that make them a better college player? How much does age matter? Durant and Beasley are 6 and 3 months older, respectively, than Griffin, but already “graduated” to the next level. Does the best college player in recent memory have to sport a well-rounded game, or can he just excel beyond comparison at a few areas?** Perhaps most importantly, are we even looking in the right places?

I don’t know the answers to any of these questions. I don’t know if Blake Griffin is a better college player than Kevin Durant or Michael Beasley. I would suggest that they were close enough that I’d be more comfortable taking “the field” over Blake Griffin as the best player in college since 2002. Every day, these questions get answered in small ways, and to me, that’s much more exciting than this particular question. One can only hope that the transition to more stat-heavy analysis in basketball goes a little smoother and faster than it did in our native sport.

* I can also tell you that, after I sent her this article, my wife simply replied: “I wish you had told me it was a baseball article in a basketball article's shoes. What's up with all the statistics? I think there's some ‘it’ factor that we should leave alone with basketball. Baseball is boring. Basketball is awesome. Why try to make it more like baseball (i.e. boring)? You're going to ruin every good basketball conversation with your damn nerdy stats. Instead of just saying, ‘Whoa, that was awesome,’ it'll be ‘Whoa, his win share percentage insert other terms I don't understand blah blah blah will work out well for my fantasty league.’ Snooze.”

Our divorce is pending.

** Tangent to this question: Is Griffin the best at anything he does in college this year? He’s not the best rebounder; he’s definitely not a defensive force and he’s probably not the best pure scorer. Does that disqualify him in the discussion as the greatest college basketball player of the last half decade?

COMMENTS (31 Comments, most recent shown first)

SeanKates
"In today's (hideous) style of NBA play, even if he is Moses Malone he won't be Moses Malone, because of the way the game is now played."

Perfect synopsis, although I would withhold the hideous (mostly).

I think, sadly, that a great deal of possible future success depends on whether Blake is 6'10'' or 6'8''. He has a far greater chance to be special if it's the former.
10:18 PM Mar 28th

Richie
I would expect that BillJ would say that yes indeed Blake will be the fastest and quickest tall guy on the court. Not necessarily at age 21, but at age 24-25, yes.

That's where part of our difference lies. Well, just about the whole difference, maybe. You see Blake as a great college athlete who will then be a good NBA athlete. BillJ, and me I suppose, see him as a once-every-4-to-5 years NCAA athlete, who 2-3 years in will indeed be the best big-man athlete out on the court any night Dwight Howard is out of the arena.

In today's (hideous) style of NBA play, even if he is Moses Malone he won't be Moses Malone, because of the way the game is now played. If he is indeed the best athlete out there, he'll approach Moses. If not, he will fall short of Boozer.
9:30 PM Mar 28th

SeanKates
By the way, my prediction for Griffin puts him between my predictions for Durant and Beasley. Durant will be a top 5 scorer (if not player) within 2 years, and has a very high likelihood of reaching his upper potential. Beasley, to me, will likely top out around a soft 18-8 with foul problems and severe defensive uselessness.
8:33 PM Mar 28th

SeanKates
I agree that Malone was likely one of the top, if not necessarily the top player for those three years. Perhaps I spoke too quickly about being the same "ceiling," as presumably more teams would want a Moses Malone-like RANKING. That is, they want the best guy at that height/position.

He was however, playing a different game at a different time. He was Houston's dominant big guy and he was generally covering very traditional centers, and being covered by them. None of this is true about Griffin. He probably won't be guarding a traditional center, nor will he be guarded by one. He will be asked to guard guys from 6'8'' to 6'11 who extend the floor, probably as a PF. On offense, he will be expected to score inside, no doubt, but also offer spacing for a guard oriented penetration offense (which approximately 37 of the teams are running these days).

Malone had a very impressive face-up game, including that set shot, and supreme quickness to get around other centers. It's sort of important to note that the NBA has gotten taller and quicker in the past 30 years. Griffin will be faced by players either taller than he is, or just as quick. He's probably going to need a face-up game to succeed. Here's where the Boozer comps come in.

He's not the athlete that Malone and Griffin are. However, he's a similarly sized PF who has learned enough moves (both back down and face up) to be extremely successful in today's environment. He's incredibly tough on the boards and uses smarts, quick jumps and nastiness to carve out his own space.

Look, what's really at issue behind ALL of this is not some focus on stats, or failure to recognize Griffin has a lot of potential. Rather, it's where we each think he is now. When Boozer came into the pros, he was tough, smart, had an incredibly efficient inside game and a startling ability to jump faster than he was generally. He had good hands and finished strong. He lacked desire to play defense like he probably should, especially given where he went to school.

He was, in short, everything Blake Griffin currently is (at least to most scouts and, I guess, me), except less athletic and with a slightly better developed offensive repertoire. Hence the "rich man" Boozer comparisons, with the richness supplied by the superior athleticism.

Moses Malone was a completely different animal. If anything, he was more raw than either Griffin and Boozer (and should have been, coming out of HS), and he played in a different era where different things were asked of him. His offensive game was vastly superior to BOTH Boozer and Griffin, and it was largely predicated on being the fastest and quickest tall guy on the court. Griffin is not that player, anymore than Boozer was.

Griffin isn't going to get MORE marginally athletic at the next level, he will become less so. And he's already starting behind Malone there. And really, the only reason we have to compare Griffin and Malone (because their games were different, their eras were different and their likely positions are different) is that supreme athleticism. It makes more sense to create comps to players in similar leagues, with similar positions, and similar skill sets, even if it means comparing guys on opposite ends of the athletic spectrum.

As for the "Extending your game is overrated" part, I actually agree with you when you are talking about players like Sampson. No one is ever following him out to the 3 point line, just isn't going to happen. However, it only makes sense for giant players with no real aptitude for extending it. Griffin has all the makings of a player who CAN extend his game, and more importantly, he's not a giant who can live in the NBA paint. Yao Ming showed he could shoot, so his coaches worked with him on extending his game to 18+. It has been extremely successful. Rik Smits was similar, and Big Z has basically remade himself and kept himself healthy by constantly extending his already impressive range.

This discussion has long ago moved from its purpose (at least in my eyes) of assessing Blake Griffin's college career. To me, his pro prospects are not in any way important to assessing his college achievements. Michael disagrees, and that is probably a more central argument. Still, I don't think that anyone considers Mark Prior one of the greatest baseball players ever because he had great potential and wonderful skills. He lacked production, which is what we look at when we say things like "best in X years."

If you want my best guess, I bet that Griffin ends up being a 19-10 guy and a little bit of an underachiever (at least according to the principle that the number one pick in any draft, no matter how weak, should be an All-Star). All bets are off, however, if he develops actual offensive moves or even a mid-range jump shot.
7:51 PM Mar 28th

Richie
I'm starting to see some of our difference of opinion, which I guess Michael has seen already, but I'm just stupider than he is.

You may be WAY more in love with basketball stats than Michael and I. Moses Malone was the best basketball player in the world for a 3-year period there, 1980 through 1983. Carlos Boozer, ummm, granting his skill and production, is not. Has not been. Will not be. Any statistical resemblance between Carlos and the best basketball player in the world is an indictment of statistical resemblances.

Extending your game is overrated. Of all the extremely talented big men, Ralph Sampson worked more than any of them to extend his game. And it kept him from being a star. At 7'4", he should've perfected a short turnaround, perfected a hook, put on some lower body weight. Instead he f*rted around with dribbling the ball upcourt, with becoming passable at a medium-range jumper. Ralph had Hakeem's talents and an extra 6 inches. But he was so clearly less effective than Hakeem, even before the knees got him.

Only a few years earlier with the same franchise Moses put all his work into becoming the best at what he was built to do. By the end of his career he had a little 15-foot set shot, but he never extended his game anything beyond that. But he was the best I ever saw at carving out room in the paint. He worked to become great at what could make him great. I especially enjoyed watching him off the ball, the things he'd do to see that when the shot went up he'd have inside position, or when the ball got rotated he'd have his man pinned in the lane.

And now, in today's SternBall, outside of Rip I suppose, there's no point in watching anybody off the ball. Sighhhhhh.
7:09 PM Mar 28th

SeanKates
I still think you're looking at the pure scoring thing backwards. It's a skill. Not having it doesn't disqualify you from anything. Having it is a plus. NBA teams very much look for it. Looking at the number one picks is a trivial exercise. Looking at the type of college players that are drafted and when would be better. On the whole, longer, more athletic guys who can get their own shot are drafted above similarly tall (but not athletic) guys with better efficiency and performance. Call it a thirst for pure scoring, or players that fit the NBA game, or even closeted racism, but the NBA clearly values one-on-one ability and pays handsomely for it.

If Griffin is as dominant an inside scorer in the pros as he is now, then (a) I will be WILDLY shocked, but more importantly, (b) you will be right and no one will care that he never learned to extend his game. Of course, if he really is that dominant inside and ever worked to ALSO extend his game, he'd be better, but yes, few would complain.

As for comparables/ceilings, those are two different things, but I don't think it much matters. You are severely underrating what a rich man's Boozer looks like (say 21 ppg, 12 boards, 1 steal and block, 2.5 assists) and overrating what Moses Malone did (20ppg, 12 boards, 1.25 blocks, 1 steal, 1.5 assists). Yes, he was one of the 50 best players of the NBA, but he put up Boozer-esque numbers in a higher scoring environment. There's no real difference in ceiling, except maybe Griffin will dunk more like Malone than Boozer. I am sorry that you apparently never saw McDyess' peak (picked second overall in the Draft, btw, between Joe Smith, Jerry Stackhouse, Rasheed WAllace and Kevin Garnett....now THAT's a draft), but comparing someone who hasn't shown any advanced offensive moves against opponents shaped and sized like him to any of these guys is very generous, not a slight.
6:16 PM Mar 28th

Richie
Actually, part of the problem is that I'm talking about how important the trunk is, you're talking about how important the ear flap is, and Michael is talking about how important the tale (clever joke referring to Michael's "Griffith" spelling - ARFARFARFARFARF!!!) is, and you guys are taking references to the other guy's part of the elephant as references to your's. Not me, tho'. I'm innocent.

Thinking that one more game shouldn't make a big difference, I figure you can call Blake the best NCAA player in however many years right now, if you want. As to which I'm entirely agnostic.

Tossing my race obsession back into the basement storage area, my beef is with pure scoring. I really see nothing useful in the concept, and believe NBA draft practices illustrate little interest on their part. If Griffin proves to be that dominant an inside scorer, then nobody will or should care about however many ways he's not scoring points.

Maybe being only 6'10", he won't be dominant in that way in the NBA. But given his amazing athleticism, I think it's quite possible. His upside isn't a rich man's Carlos Boozer (yeesh), but Moses Malone. Downside? A rich man's Kent Benson. Which would then be well short in value of the current Carlos Boozer. But man, I don't see any basis for a Carlos Boozer comparison at all.
5:46 PM Mar 28th

SeanKates
I hope you enjoy yours, too. I'd give anything for just one or two close games that are played well.

Also, don't mean to drag you back in, but you managed to pinpoint the very fundamental problem all three of us are having. You said "We just look at it differently, and it is as premature to assess who is closer to correct as it is for Bill to assess the Atlanta Braves on paper from the 1990's." This is what at least you and Richie believe, whereas I believe that, whenever Oklahoma is done for the season, it is time to gauge how good of a college player Griffin is. Becoming the greatest NBA player of all time, or the next (for real) Derrick Coleman should not in any way affect who holds this "title."
4:56 PM Mar 28th

schoolshrink
Thanks for catching the Griffin-Griffith thing. At least I did not compare him to Dr. Dunkenstein. (A lot of Jazz players on this string -- probably not a coincidence.) Did not intend to twist your logic, by the way, or make a silly point about Tiger. We just look at it differently, and it is as premature to assess who is closer to correct as it is for Bill to assess the Atlanta Braves on paper from the 1990's. Enjoy the Elite 8.
4:51 PM Mar 28th

SeanKates
Richie - Good to have you back. I'm glad to be doing this instead of preparing for my BJOL fantasy draft tomorrow. I think that we're nearing some sort of nexus, where at least you and I can get some resolutions.

NBA GMs still love size. However, a couple of problems:

1.) Every team other than the Rockets who have drafted for size over skills in the past decade has deeply regretted it.

2.) Most draft size for defensive and rebounding purposes, not for scoring.

3.) Blake Griffin doesn't have what NBA GMs mean as far as size is concerned. He's charitably 6'10'', and would very much be playing out of position as an NBA C.

There is a push for very tall guys who can contribute in all parts of the game, but especially defense (see: Thabeet's inflated draft stock), while guys under 6'11'' are increasingly asked to stretch the defense and cover guys their height who can do the same. (By the way, this can also backfire...Bargnani-style)

I occasionally look over the numbers at prospectus and Hollinger's PER, but like every other measure of a player in sports, they need to be taken with a grain of salt and put into context. Sessions is underrated, though obviously no star. I think you will find that the numbers are better than the traditional stats (PPG, APG, RPG) in predicting success and gauging actual skills.
4:36 PM Mar 28th

SeanKates
Michael, I think you twisted a lot of things I said. When talking about comparables, Rudy Gay did not factor into the equation about these guys. Beasley was compared to a "drive" Derrick Coleman. Surely you can remember how purely talented Coleman was (very much like Griffin actually), but he simply didn't want it bad enough. It's the same problem Richie had with the Boozer comps but in reverse. You are comparing someone to what they could become talent-wise, not that all the extra-curriculars are going to be identical.

I believe that Griffin has nearly unlimited potential. So did/does Durant and Beasley. The whole point is that judging various "infinite" potentials against each other is (a) impossible and (b) not really important to discussing who the better COLLEGE player is/was.

The last bit is silly. I asked a question about whether someone can be the best player in college basketball over a period of years if they're not the best at any one skill in their own year. I didn't ever say they couldn't be and I even admitted that Griffin was likely the most efficient scorer in college, so even if the answer was "NO," he could still be considered as such. I believe that players without a single dominant skill could be the best college player ever, so it's not really an issue. The Tiger Woods thing is fatuous, because he's clearly the best player in the game at any number of skills, but even if he weren't, I would still consider him qualified to be the best golfer of the past decade.
4:25 PM Mar 28th

Richie
Uh, Michael, Griffin, not Griffith. As happy as I am to have someone additional break up Sean's and my ping pong match! :-)

With regard to the historical value put on pure scoring. Very, very little. NBA coaches and scouts have always wanted SIZE. SIZE. SIZE. Not just Bowie over Jordan, which just about everybody agreed with at the time. But Hakeem over Jordan, which if you'd argued in the other direction, everyone would've laughed you out of the room. Never mind that Jordan was far better at pure scoring than Olajuwon. Folks valued the dominant back-to-the-basket guy far more than anything else. And beyond the historical dominance level, why are the Kwame Browns and Tyson Chandlers and Eddie Currys drafted so high?

Is that now changing? Perhaps so, finally. It hadn't as of a few years ago, when Bogut went first.

As to statistical player rankings, they just don't work yet. I read the Basketball Prospectus stuff, which I think is what you're citing. As much as I enjoy it and appreciate it, the player rating stuff just doesn't work. They were showing Ramon Sessions as playing at a star level according to their numbers. Any such numbers were by definition wrong.
4:19 PM Mar 28th

SeanKates
This also hearkens back to what I said in the article above. Talking about skill sets is nearly impossible when we're talking about players at this level of ability. Go take a look at the scouting reports on Beasley, Durant and Griffin prior to their drafts. They look identical. If anything, Beasley and Durant have fewer negatives, and exactly the same positives (+long distance). Relying on the "skill set" argument is either grossly ANTI-Griffin, or puts skills in Griffin's range that no professionals seem to see.

To me, that says that, at best, Griffin-backers would need to rely on performance, but instead I find that they mostly want to completely ignore it in lieu of an analysis that seems decidedly against them.
4:16 PM Mar 28th

schoolshrink
Two more things: The player comparisons you continually cite (Beasley, Durant, now Derrick Coleman and Rudy Gay) have only had limited success at the next level. Thus, placing Griffith in that list is by default disregarding what Bill and I think is a much greater level of potential.

Also, though I commented once that just because you see a Randy Johnson or Magic Johnson does not mean the next Johnson will be the same (rim shot, please), someone down the road will at least have some similarity to those players. From the naked eye, Blake Griffith's upside as a player is ridiculous, and I think it is fair to think about what his potential could be rather than having to rely on college statistics that will only serve to disregard his potential. You said, "I don’t think it’s as settled in favor of the objectivists’ side as most sabermetrically-inclined seem to believe. Value can be found in subjective viewing, especially trained viewing." We agree, but you spent a fair amount of time looking at statistics to draw a conclusion about them. I have to think this because you think he is not the best rebounder, pure scorer, or even a defensive force. That would be like saying Tiger Woods is not the best golfer because he is not the best putter on the tour (I heard him say he wasn't the best putter once), but no one would deny he is the best player.
4:14 PM Mar 28th

SeanKates
Thanks for your words, Michael. Breaks up the Richie-Sean action. However, I think you (and Bill) make the same mistakes. First, when assessing a player's title as "the best college player of X time," achievement and performance is MUCH more important than skill set. We aren't talking about the most talented college player, but the one who was most successful at college basketball. That's probably at least 90% actual achievement, 10% skill set. Any other percentage and the title is wrong. Bill meant "the best college basketball player," not "most talented" or "most athletic."

Second, I think everyone on Griffin's side is way ahead of themselves of what that skill set is. He's a great finisher regardless of level. He's a great college rebounder. He has an average to above-average face-up game, and a nearly non-existent defensive game. He is supremely athletic, but has only parlayed that into actual "skills" in part of his game. He is not a good FT shooter, but is great at drawing fouls. He has exceptional hands, but a poor jump shot. He overpowers lesser competition, but we are basically guessing as to what he looks like against superior talent. There are, despite what you say, significant challenges in his game.

Third, the "he's a winner" stuff. I hate to use too many more stats here, but Oklahoma hasn't actually "won" anything. They also haven't really beaten "anyone." They have a sterling record. Their record consists of two wins over top 20ish teams: Purdue in the beginning of the year and Syracuse on Friday. The rest of their best opponents (Kansas, Missouri, Texas and OK St) went 4-3 against them, with all three wins coming over the worse two of those four. Yes, 1.5 of those losses were without him, but the other 2.5 games saw good teams simply beat the Sooners. Obviously there's some selection bias here, but against good teams, he turned the ball over at a hellacious pace.

Look, Griffin is a great player and Oklahoma is probably one of the best 10 teams in the country. They might even win the championship. I don't think that their doing so makes Griffin the best college player in a couple of years, anymore than their NOT winning it would decrease from it. But I refuse to give him additional credit for something that, frankly, he hasn't done, whether it be the parts of his game that athleticism COULD solve but yet hasn't, or games that matter that he and his team haven't yet won.
4:08 PM Mar 28th

schoolshrink
My prediction about Oklahoma making the championship game because of Blake Griffith reflects how great a college player he is, or has been this year. (I picked Memphis to win it all -- oh well.) If Bill decides to expand on his opinion, I suspect that he would think great players win championships (of course) and that the need for great players is more pronounced in basketball than in any other major team sport. Blake Griffith is the definition of a college player who does everything well to help Oklahoma win games. You will recall the Sooners' record when he was on the sidelines. You point out his free throw challenges. My comparison to Karl Malone is similar to that: the Mailman had free throw problems earlier in his career and he spent eighteen years working on that aspect of his game. In Griffith, given his skill set the challenge at the charity stripe will be something he can address over time, but beyond that he does not have any observable challenges to his game. Whether he approaches Malone's level will depend on whether he stays healthy. In the Mailman's nineteenth and last year, with the Lakers, he was injured for much of the season and at his age never was able to get to his previous level of skill. (He also might have been underutilized on that schizophrenic Laker team that lost to the Pistons, but that discussion is besides the point.) Griffith could approach Malone's level of potential or Greg Oden's depending on how he holds up.

Maybe Bill's point, and mine, is that the skill set of the player is as reflective of the player's greatness as the statistics the player generates during the season. Statistics are helpful as a guide to answer questions meaningfully, but they are not the be all and end all of analysis. Looking at players like Carlos Boozer, Malone and Griffith are like looking at horses, and if we ignore the stats and simply look at the skills these guys demonstrate, we might end up saying, "I want that guy on my team." This holds more true when thinking of the guys who never played college. Focusing on skills alone certainly was helpful for K.G., Kobe, and LeBron, and even though we have some information about Griffith's performance they should not interfere with assessing the natural talent of the player's themselves.
3:31 PM Mar 28th

Richie
Where we're addressing different things:

Race. I'm obviously on a soapbox on this issue, which I feel certainly ties into how Blake Griffin is assessed by basketball fans (and media 'analysts'). So I'm not bringing this up vis-a-vis your article so much as regarding the Griffin issue. So please don't take that personally in the sense of "he's implying WHAT about my article!?!?!"

What I'm contesting:

Pure scoring, both what you claim for its value and what you claim regarding how much scouts and coaches value it. Oops, gotta run now. So I'll contest that shot later.

Everyone bate your breath till I get back!
2:31 PM Mar 28th

SeanKates
I simply don't understand your race issue with THIS article. I agree with you that white and black players are treated differently. White players are compared to white players and black players to black players. People find it hard to admit that white players are athletic, because it just doesn't seem right. Conversely, it's hard for some to admit that black players play a cerebral game, as those aren't the traits that stereotypes encompass.

However, none of these problems were present in this article. No one is disputing Griffin (who I still don't think of as a white player, really, but that's another issue) has amazing athleticism. I watched him win that Slam Dunk Championship a few years ago, and he was unreal. He plays every game that way and with those moves. On the flip side, no one is disputing his headiness either.

If your problem is that I didn't go far enough in praising his athleticism, I don't disagree, in that I never really went into each player's underlying skills. To me, athleticism is a second level skill in basketball, something you need in order to do some other primary basketball skill. Griffin has it in spades, and it aids him in rebounding, running the court and (eventually) with developing strong moves on the court to help him beat bigger, stronger players.

I have a problem with what others (in this case, Bill) call athleticism. Face it, Love can't actually jump as high as most great shot blockers. However, he does have better timing, and he has better hand-eye control and body control. All of those things are just as athletic to me as being able to jump. He jumps high enough to block shots, and his other skills make him a good shot blocker.

Griffin is terribly fast, quick and has immense jumping ability. That's fantastic. He still blocks shots at a third of the rate as Durant, Beasley and Love did in college. He's athletic. Great. Now do something with it. It's an underlying skill, and it's great that he has it because it's a skill that can't be taught. But I'm not going to mention it as something that sets him apart from the BEST COLLEGE PLAYERS OF THE LAST DECADE because he's not actually doing basketball things with it. Durant and Beasley may be less athletic (by whatever definition we are using now), but they did more basketball things with that athleticism, which seems more important when discussing achievements.

P.S. Bringing up Love reminds me that he might have been a better college player than all of these guys if he weren't on a team with 5 future NBA players. He was a great scorer/possession, much better passer, elite rebounder, never turned the ball over, and had every shot in the book. He simply had a much lower usage rate than these guys.
12:50 PM Mar 28th

SeanKates
I think we are talking past each other on both the scoring and the race issue. Being a "pure scorer" isn't the same as being a "great scorer." Being a great scorer has multiple facets, including being an efficient scorer, being able to create your own shot (being a "pure scorer") and actual shooting ability. You can be a great scorer by mastering ANY of these skills, but the greatest master all three to some extent.

All the guys you mention are great scorers, but most come from the "efficient scoring" line of the tree. This tree generally envelops big guys with amazing moves and who simply cannot be stopped once they get the ball a certain distance from the hole. Griffin currently has that mastered, with one caveat, that caveat being that he has it mastered in college where his 6'10'' man body is equivalent to the other guys' 7'0'' man bodies in the pros. He won't be the best physical specimen next year, and he lacks the Dream Shake, or Jump Hook, or sheer strength of Shaq currently. In baseball scouting terms, he isn't an "80" in efficient scoring yet, and not as "uncontrollable" as the names you list might have been.

Actually, that might be the best way to talk about this. Great hitters are judged largely on two skills: their "hitting ability," and their ability to "hit for power." You can be a great hitter by being exceptional in either of these. Boggs, Gwynn, Pedroia all come to mind in the first set, while Howard (debatable "greatness"), McGwire and Dunn come to mind in the second. The best of the best, however, have both. Pujols, Bonds, Williams, Ruth, etc. could all hit all pitches in all places, as well as hit for power.

There are very few basketball players who combine efficient scoring with pure scoring, and only one that I can think of (Bird) combines all three that I mentioned (players who excel at shooting ability like Miller, Redick in college and others) tend to be both inefficient overall, but especially poor at creating their own shot.

Look, we have basically one guy in Lebron James who has every shot in the bag, and is largely efficient in taking and making those shots. He also happens to be the best player in the world. Wade and Bryant are both pure scorers, but far less efficient. Durant has an upside to be both, in a very scary way.

Going back to the baseball scouting analogy, all these guys we are talking about are anywhere from 55-80s on both scales. Most of the guys you mentioned are probably 55-60s at creating their own shot. Still better than the average player overall and probably very near the top of the rankings for people their size. All of them are 75-80s at efficient scoring. They are all great scorers.

However, you would generally prefer a guy to be a "70-70" than a "55-80," if such a thing is possible. NBA GMs see much more a 55-75 guy in Griffin, which is still fantastic, but he's not the best at creating his own shot. They still draft him first, because Curry (probably the best college pure scorer, although Meeks, Maynor and Hudson probably have some claim as well) is probably at best a 60-65 in that area, and FAR behind Griffin in pretty much every other area. This is a terrible year for pure scoring abilities, as it lacks guys who can get their shot when they wanted. In addition to Beasley, last year had guys like Curry (again), Courtney Lee, Bayless, Eric Gordon and OJ Mayo (when he wanted the shot). Durant's year had Fazekas, Thornton and Stuckey, all guys who are probably better than Curry is this year at having the whole package.

Coaches aren't downgrading anyone's skills, but they know that they'd rather a 70-70 or 70-65 6'10'' guy than what Griffin currently is. There's more certainty there. I still think that Griffin grows into a better face-up game, and grows his range. In that event, we are looking at a very good professional player, with a ceiling a little bit higher than a more athletic Boozer, or good Antonio McDyess. But that's not who he is yet, and he's running out of time, despite his youth.

Race question answered below...
12:34 PM Mar 28th

Richie
wilt, Kareem, Lanier, Moses, Ewing, Olajuwon, Shaq were not easier to shut down because they relied on a post pass to get them the ball. Goodness knows we could add Hayes, McHale, Malone, who knows how many other players to that. Nor do scouts and opposing coaches downgrade that skill. Amazing low-post scorers have always been drafted very, very highly. Ain't no coach or scout gonna suggest this year that Curry should be drafted ahead of Griffin.

Now, if you're suggesting that's now changing, you may have me there. Perhaps soon - maybe now - a Laimbeer-type will/does have more value than a Lanier-type. In good part because they're now letting the high-pick big man just tackle the little guy trying to get around the pick. David Stern just adores the 2-man half-court game.
11:30 AM Mar 28th

Richie
As to the black/white thing, when folks stop treating black and white athletes differently, I'll stop noticing that they're treating them differently. According to their skin color.

Heard it last year with Kevin Love. He'd just blocked his third shot in the first half of some game, and the color analyst said that jumping was actually a weakness of his, Love just blocked shots because of effort and superb timing. Ummmm. As Bill Russell first observed, you HAVE to leave your feet to block a shot. You HAVE to jump. I've never, ever, ever heard it said of a black prolific shot-blocker that "he can't really jump, tho'". Color analyst was just trying to conjure up some reason why the white-so-therefore-automatically-unathletic guy was blocking lots of athletic black guys' shots.

Blake Griffin is an amazing athlete. Such amazing athleticism has always been the signature of stories and analysis about such basketball players. Until the white guy comes along with it.

Not that I feel at all sorry for him, of course. When Blake's knees are shot at age 35, everyone will be falling all over themselves to hire the heady and hard-working white guy to run their basketball team for them.
11:16 AM Mar 28th

SeanKates
Then call it whatever you want. "Create-a-shot-ability." "One-on-one ableness." "Dangerousness with the ball in space." People call it pure scoring not because of some virginal quality or how pretty the shot is, but because the scoring skill set is all there.

It's an important skill. Not the most important. But an important one. Griffin doesn't have it yet (as I've said before, he has the talent to acquire it). The points all count the same, but if you rely on a post pass, or are limited in where you can score from, then you are more easily shut down or controlled. That's it. I guess you can ignore that, if you want to, but scouts and opposing coaches don't, which was ultimately the point.
11:04 AM Mar 28th

SeanKates
To add to that double posting disaster, I just wanted to point out that Boozer is definitely in the top 4 players drafted in his year, and probably the top 2. The only other players who legitimately belong other than Boozer from that class are Yao Ming (number 1 overall), Amare Stoudemire (pick 9), Caron Butler (Pick 10) and Tayshaun Prince (pick 23). Luis Scola is an excellent player as well, but he's probably disqualified because he (a) isn't quite up to the standards of the other five and (b) was drafted just to gain rights, and then allowed to remain in Europe until his rights expired.

The 2002 draft is a fairly recent draft to have so many players already completely washed out. While Dunleavy, Nene, Krstic, Wilcox and Salmons are still in the league, each has had major issues in establishing themselves....and those are the best of the rest.
10:59 AM Mar 28th

Richie
I still don't understand what 'pure scorer' is. I do understand that Kareem sinking a sky hook after a pass into the low post is a less pure score than Durant draining a three or Beasley creating a bit of space off the dribble. That creating your own shot is more pure than hitting a turnaround off a pass.

Which means, Sean, that there really is no such thing as 'pure scoring'. It's something folks have conjured up. Something which still can be analytically helpful, mind you. But this isn't. It signifies nothing, it predicts nothing. It calls to mind Calvin Klein more than Adam Smith. There's just nothing useful in it.
10:55 AM Mar 28th

SeanKates
Richie -

Lots of things wrapped up into your comments. First, the "pure shooter" designation. I don't think it's the be-all and end-all of the debate. I am saying that it's possible that some people think that the best college player over a period of time should at least be the best player at a particular skill. Pure scoring is just one of those. Griffin is probably the most efficient scorer in college basketball (though his FTs drag that down), and he's definitely the most efficient high volume scorer. But he's not the best pure scorer. It's not a big thing, just not what the designation means.

I do think the big guy/small guy stuff is misleading. First, really small guys are FAR more likely to be disqualified from pure scoring qualification, because they can rarely back their guy down, or find openings in the paint. Big guys have that natural advantage at least. That's why today's best pure scorers are all the swingmen in the 6'6'' to 6'10'' range. Second, today's college AND pro game are moving towards mobile big men who can spread the floor, so being a pure scorer at Griffin's listed height (6'10''), especially if he's not a defensive plus in the paint, isn't exactly asking the same thing as asking Kareem to be so. He has the skills to develop that game, but he doesn't have it now. That is a drawback. It matters that he's less of a pure scorer than the two other guys in the article, because they will all asked to be that kind of scorer in the Association.

As for the comparable stuff, you are looking at it the wrong way, and maybe you don't follow the NBA, so I can't blame you. If you told any NBA GM that their first pick in the draft was going to turn into Carlos Boozer or Antonio McDyess before his rash of injuries, they would wet themselves in joy. It's what they are during their prime, not what they are now, or where they were drafted. When people compare Chris Paul to Magic Johnson, they're not saying he's as good as a 55 year-old multi-billionaire with HIV, or the guy drafted out of Michigan St.

Boozer is a perennial NBA All-Star whose being drafted in the second round is constantly seen as one of the greatest underdrafts of the last twenty years. McDyess' prime years (before he started missing half a season every year) looked like this: 20 pts, 11 boards, 2 assists, 1 steal, and 2 blocks. He also committed very few fouls and a limited amount of turnovers for a man his size. That's actually better than Boozer's best years, because it shows some semblance of defense. If Blake Griffin even approaches either of those guy's numbers, the (insert lottery winning team) will be happy that this season went so poorly for them.

The race stuff is meaningless to me. One, he's half white-half black. Comparing him to a dark skinned black man and a light skinned black man seems to go against the grain, if anything. I actually believe Griffin is a "heady" player; he has extremely good instincts on the court. But he's not even close to Bird, perhaps the purest scorer the League had seen until LBJ developed a jump shot (in progress). They play two entirely different types of games, and Griffin's just not Bird-talented. I'm not sure why we force a white-half white comparison that makes less sense than the ones we already have. That's a step backward.
9:31 AM Mar 28th

Richie
The more I look into this, the more astounding it is. Griffin is being compared to Carlos friggin' Boozer?? A guy who got drafted in the 2nd Round???

I think what this most reminds me of is 20 years ago, when Tommy Heinsohn said on air that 2nd stringer Delaney Rudd was a half step quicker than 1st stringer John Stockton. It was during a playoff series in which Kevin Johnson and Stockton were going mano-a-mano, then when Rudd would come in KJ would absolutely destroy him. All Tommy was looking at was that Rudd was black and Stockton white, ergo the laughably bad Rudd must be a half-step quicker.

If Griffin were a 'heady' player, folks would accept it and compare him to Bird. But they just can't grasp a super-athletic white guy. I mean, has a black (soon-to-be) number one pick ever been compared to McDyess, never mind Carlos friggin' Boozer?
11:11 PM Mar 27th

Richie
So it sounds like there's something 'less pure' about big guys scoring. Don't know that Kareem 'created his own shot' more than once a season. He set up in the low post, and somebody else got the ball to him there.

If you indeed see there being "others" plural better pure NCAA scorers out there than Blake Griffin, well, I feel safe in demoting 'pure scoring' into the Netherland of Absolutely Meaningless Notions. Why should anyone care that World B. Free was far better at purely scoring than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? What relevance could such a conceptual artifice possibly have?

Umm, not that I want to discourage your writing. I do enjoy and appreciate it.
10:39 PM Mar 27th

evanecurb
Well written. Loved the line about Manny Acta and the footnote about your wife. I don't watch much basketball, so I don't really know anything about any of these players, but the statistics you mention are logical measures to use.

I wonder what percentage of projected superstars in the major professional sports actually turn into all stars in the big leagues. For every Lebron James, there seems to be a Kwame Brown.
10:06 PM Mar 27th

SeanKates
He's not the best pure scorer because he can't create his shot as well as others, including Curry. Durant was easily the best pure scorer of his year, because, as the scouts say, he could score from anywhere at anytime, in anyway. Beasley was close as well, but less clearly the best pure scorer. Griffin is simply not that guy. He has a better than average face-up game. He has amazing touch near the basket. He's not a pure scorer.
9:20 PM Mar 27th

Richie
Why is he not the best pure scorer? Because of that Curry guy? Because there's something less pure about big guys scoring?
6:54 PM Mar 27th

Griffin and the G.O.A.T.s

COMMENTS (31 Comments, most recent shown first)

Leave a comment

Report inappropriate comment


Type of Abuse:
Comments: