Laettner...WHY?

[dukie8]

Olympic fan,

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on Bird and Oscar. I would argue that Robertson took a moribund program with no tradition and turned it into a Final Four program. What great players did he have with him in 1959? Compare Cincy with Oscar and LSU with Maravich and you'll see what I mean.

I fondly remember Laettner's great game against Georgetown in 1989. But I think it's a stretch to argue that he was the primary reason Duke made it to that Final Four. This was Danny Ferry's team from beginning to end. Comparing a freshman who averaged 9 points and 5 rebounds to a senior, national player of the year who averaged 22.6 ppg and 7+ rebounds is pretty one-sided, IMO. Laettner, btw, fouled out in 21 minutes against Seton Hall, with 13 points.

looking at a freshman's stats for the season is a bit misleading because most frosh who are very good take some time to get adjusted and grow into their roles -- particularly when there is a consensus aa next to them in the frontcourt. i think that the previous point was that there was no way that duke would have beaten gtown had laettner not had a massive game. the stats bear that out:

http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketba...ameid=19890326

he drilled mourning, who has a decent shot at making the hof, with 24 pts (9-10 shooting), 9 rbs and 4 assts and held him to 11 pts and 5 rbs (ferry went for 21, 7 and 3). moreover, this game wasn't cited as laettner's tour de force game, but rather, the first of many truly remarkable performances that cause him to be on the very short list of greatest college bb players ever.

[dukestheheat]

why laettner didn't make a great pro, but was the BEST college player his senior year at Duke??

1) we all know that K is a master motivator.
2) he connected well with laettner, who is known as moody, sometimes distant, steely and also can mentally disappear at times.
3) K put all this together and was able to get the most out of Christian.
4) When Laett left Duke, he went to the NBA where there is little motivation outside of picking up a paycheck.
5) Lacking K's fire and motivation, he drifted a little.
6) Then, a little more.

that's my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. outside that, i have no clue why laettner didn't pan up to expectations, but this Duke Man sure does appreciate all he gave to the Gothic Playground and I still remember my heart popping a QT-wave when he hit that beauty versus Kentucky. I jumped up and down, pointing at the TV, and remember saying over and over 'you're a STAR! you're a STAR! you're a STAR!'

dth.

[JBDuke]

Olympic, I don't think people usually put OR in the top ten greatest college players of all time, it's usually NBA play. And he has one stat that when put into perspective could make him the greatest pro player ever. (If like the Easter Bunny and Jack Frost such a thing existed.) OR is the only player to EVER average a tripple double for a season. And he didn't do it once he did it three times. People look at basketball a lot of times as simply scorring but a player that can score rebound and knows how to pass truly impresses me. FYI: if I'm not mistaken only four players have ever had a quadruple double in a game....David Robinson, Alvin Robertson, Nate Thurmond and Hakeem Olajuwon, add 10 blocks to the three previous categories.

Actually, I think Robertson got his quadruple double with steals, not blocks.

[BobbyFan]

But when we start trying to identify the very greatest players of all time, shouldn't the ability to lift a team to greatness be a major factor in our consideration?

Of course an individual player's job is to make his team as successful as it can be. But many players don't have a chance to lift their team to greatness by default of how good their teammates are. There would be no greatness for Laettner to lift Duke to if he didn't have a supporting cast that included Hurley, Hill, etc.

So you can't limit your benchmark to championships and Final Fours. You have to normalize all other factors, which you continue to fail to do.

Laettner did not just start on four straight Final Four teams -- he was primary the reason Duke played in Four straight Final Fours.

Incorrect. The primary reason Duke played in four straight Final Fours was because those Duke teams were good enough to do it. You can argue that Laettner was the best player on three of those teams (certainly not all four), but that's it.

Laettner's case as one of the alltime greats is a lot like Tom Brady's case in the NFL or Bart Starr's -- they were good players in the regular season (Laettner did, after all, outplay Shaq twice in a row), but at championship time, they were superb.

Laettner wasn't significantly better in the NCAAs than he was in the regular season. It's been more than well documented as to how great he was against Kentucky and UNLV. But he also was subpar against Michigan and played poorly against Indiana. And he didn't have many other NCAA games in which he played well above his regular season level (which was certainly terrific).

As for the games against LSU, Shaq outplayed Laettner in the second game. And Shaq also received far more attention than Laettner did from the opposing defense.

But if you're going to try and argue that team success is not a factor in determing greatest, we're going to disagree -- strongly.

In determining the greatest individual player, what needs to be factored is the extent to which a player improves his team; not the end result of a team's success because that is clearly dependent on a multitude of other factors outside of said player's control.

How many championship teams would Laettner have been a part of without Grant Hill? None. And that shouldn't change the perception of how good Laettner was. But by your method, it would.

[dukie8]

How many championship teams would Laettner have been a part of without Grant Hill? None. And that shouldn't change the perception of how good Laettner was. But by your method, it would.

i think that is a bit presumptuous. grant hill wound up being one of the all-time greats at duke but let's not get carried away with what kind of a player he was his freshman year. in the final 4 that year his stats were:

11pts, 5rbs and 5 assts against unlv (laettner had 28, davis had 15 and hurley had 12)

10pts, 8rbs and 3 assts against kansas (laettner had 18, mccaffrey had 16 and hurley had 12)

do they beat unlv and kansas without him? i have no idea and neither do you. it's not like he was the best player (that was laettner) or the 2nd best player (that was hurley). there was a big drop-off from there with davis, mccaffrey, t hill and g hill all in the ballpark. however, take hurley off that team and there's no nc.

[SilkyJ]

i think that is a bit presumptuous. grant hill wound up being one of the all-time greats at duke but let's not get carried away with what kind of a player he was his freshman year. in the final 4 that year his stats were:

11pts, 5rbs and 5 assts against unlv (laettner had 28, davis had 15 and hurley had 12)

10pts, 8rbs and 3 assts against kansas (laettner had 18, mccaffrey had 16 and hurley had 12)

do they beat unlv and kansas without him? i have no idea and neither do you. it's not like he was the best player (that was laettner) or the 2nd best player (that was hurley). there was a big drop-off from there with davis, mccaffrey, t hill and g hill all in the ballpark. however, take hurley off that team and there's no nc.

Perhaps someone else (DBR??) can find it, but I seem to recall a story, maybe by featherston, discussing how at some point in the 90-91 season christain and bobby went to coach k and said that Grant WAS the best player on the team, and certainly the key to getting them over the hump. I think its hard to argue that they would have won w/o grant in 91 especially considering they got SMOKED by UNLV the previous season and then upset them with grant. (of course there are other factors, but grant was probably the largest of them all)

[CMS2478]

Perhaps someone else (DBR??) can find it, but I seem to recall a story, maybe by featherston, discussing how at some point in the 90-91 season christain and bobby went to coach k and said that Grant WAS the best player on the team, and certainly the key to getting them over the hump. I think its hard to argue that they would have won w/o grant in 91 especially considering they got SMOKED by UNLV the previous season and then upset them with grant. (of course there are other factors, but grant was probably the largest of them all)

If we are debating a list of the greatest of all time, one could argue that Michael Jordan would have not won all his without Pippen doing the dirty work, yet I would contend he is still one of the greatest of all time. Just a thought.

[VaDukie]

I don't think you're getting the Laettner/Hurley - Hill story right. From what I remember, K took the two of them aside in the preseason and said they had to push Hill to be great, because he had the most pure talent but was too shy to assert himself on the team. After seeing Hill play early on, they both realized his talent and agreed with K that he had to be made an integral part of the team.

K also did call Hill the greatest player he's ever coached.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...cals/hill1.htm

[SilkyJ]

If we are debating a list of the greatest of all time, one could argue that Michael Jordan would have not won all his without Pippen doing the dirty work, yet I would contend he is still one of the greatest of all time. Just a thought.

Perhaps I was not clear, but I was not commenting on who was the greatest of all time. In fact the word greatest doesn't even appear in my post. Dukie8 said that G hill was not the best player on the team and I was saying that I think there is an article that quotes a story (I think by coach k) where Laettner and Hurley cam to coach k and told them that they believed grant WAS the best player on the team. I remember reading that and just being blown away because laettner was so great, and hurley was obvsiously really good too. Not to mention I was surprised laettner's well documented ego would allow him to concede that...

[CMS2478]

Perhaps I was not clear, but I was not commenting on who was the greatest of all time. In fact the word greatest doesn't even appear in my post. Dukie8 said that G hill was not the best player on the team and I was saying that I think there is an article that quotes a story (I think by coach k) where Laettner and Hurley cam to coach k and told them that they believed grant WAS the best player on the team. I remember reading that and just being blown away because laettner was so great, and hurley was obvsiously really good too. Not to mention I was surprised laettner's well documented ego would allow him to concede that...

Sorry then if I misinterpreted your post.

[DukeDevilDeb]

And so many Duke students and other college students and business people and on and on... Christian, as noted above, was truly a great college player. The Timberwolves absolutely sucked when he arrived, and he was frustrated by the fact that he didn't have the pieces around him to make it a winning team.

But it is clear that, while not a superstar, Christian was a great, long-term journeyman in the NBA. The differences in his leg sizes ought to say loud and clear what ended his career.

As to Grant, he made a comment on the Duke Reigns video (produced after the 1992 championship) about the SHOT... "I was just glad I had the big guy on my side." Laettner was far from charming and warm. He told it as he saw it, without concern for the impact of his words... but at least he did that consistently.

In a conversation I had with Coach K about 5-6 years ago, he said that the one player he would really love to coach again was Christian. That ought to send a message loud and clear!

[DukeDevilDeb]

And don't forget the fact that in the two games against LSU, Laettner outplayed Shaq both times.

[jimsumner]

"And don't forget the fact that in the two games against LSU, Laettner outplayed Shaq both times."

Well, not exactly. In 1992 Shaq had 25 points, 12 rebounds, and 7 blocks. Laetter had 22 points, 10 rebounds, shot 8-21 from the field and committed 5 turnovers. CL made some big shots down the stretch and Duke won but it's hard to make a compelling case that Laettner outplayed Shaq.

[Tom B.]

Laettner did not just start on four straight Final Four teams -- he was primary the reason Duke played in Four straight Final Fours. Duke doesn't make the Final Four in 1989 if he doesn't demolish Alonzo Mourning (a pretty good player, BTW) head to head in the East title game. Duke doesn't make the Final Four in 1990 if he doesn't hit a miraculous shot at the buzzer to beat UConn in overtime. Duke doesn't go to the Final Four in 1992 if he doesn't both play one of the great games in NCAA history (31 points on 10 of 10 shooting from the floor, 1-1 on 3s, and 10 of 10 from the foul line) AND hit the most famous buzzer-beater in NCAA history.

Not really taking a position in the debate here, but this seemed a good time to bring up one of my favorite Laettner stats -- his shooting percentages in NCAA Regional Finals.

In the four NCAA Regional Finals in which Duke played during Laettner's career (all of which Duke won), he shot an astonishing 91.2% (31-for-34) from the floor. That means he missed an average of less than one shot per game.

1989 East Regional Final vs. Georgetown -- 9-for-10

1990 East Regional Final vs. UConn -- 7-for-8

1991 Midwest Regional Final vs. St. John's -- 5-for-6

1992 East Regional Final vs. Kentucky -- 10-for-10 (1-for-1 on three-pointers)


Incidentally, his free throw percentage in those game was even better -- 34-for-37, or 91.9%.

1989 East Regional Final vs. Georgetown -- 6-for-7

1990 East Regional Final vs. UConn -- 9-for-11

1991 Midwest Regional Final vs. St. John's -- 9-for-9

1992 East Regional Final vs. Kentucky -- 10-for-10


Much can be said and debated about Laettner's career as a whole, but nobody showed up bigger and more consistently when a trip to the Final Four was on the line.

[oso diablo]

I guess its only natural that, on this site, a question about Laettner's pro resume would evolve into debate his college career, but getting back to the NBA...

Some questions of interest here:
1. How would one assess the quality of an NBA career?
2. How would one translate that to whether a player was a "bust" or not?

I've been looking at this for a few years, and while i don't pretend to have definitive answers, i would posit as such:
1a. For a layman like me, though one with a fondness with stats, i will gravitate toward single-metric statistics, something than attempts to encapsulate all contributions of a player into a single number.
1b. When i first started my analysis, i used Minutes Played as a proxy for value, understanding how crude that was. I don't have the stat skills nor the time to combine multiple stats (such as points, rebounds, etc) into a unifying metric, but fortunately, others do. There are stats available such as Win Shares, Player Wins, and Approximate Value -- all much better than any one common metric. I've tracked a numbers of such stats.
2. So #1 gives us our numerator, but what do we compare that player value to? One method would be to compare values by draft pick position. That makes for a decent denominator, so you can now compare a given player's career value to other players picked at the same position in the draft. It's not perfect, but its more perfect than any other reasonably available method.

So what do you get with Christian Laettner?

Laettner played in 868 games in his NBA career, logging 29.7 minutes/game. He racked up 176 Win Shares, 67 Player Wins, a 58.5% Player Win%, a 15.9 Efficiency Rating, a 60.6 Approximate Value, and a Hall of Fame Monitor score of 85. (Most of those may sound way too esoteric to be of use, but they represent some of the best analytical thinking out there, in terms of measuring player value.)

Are those numbers any good?

Next, we compare Laettner to the set of players picked #2 or #3 between 1980 and 1993 (end points were pre-selected, with 1980 a round figure to limit how far back, and how many players, i had to research, and 1993 to reasonably eliminate active players, whose careers are unfinished). In this set, we have 28 players including Laettner, a decent sample size. It includes HOFers like Gary Payton, Isiah Thomas, and some guy named Michael Jordan. On the other end, it includes Len Bias, Chris Washburn, and Sam Bowie.

Table of Comparisons (sorry, i stink at tables)

Metric / Avg of 28 / Laettner / Laettner's Std Dev
Minutes Played Per Year / 1902 / 2315 / +0.4
Win Shares / 176 / 176 / +0
Player Wins / 64 / 67 / +0.1
Player Win % / 50.3% / 58.5% / +0.3
AV / 54.9 / 60.6 / +0.3
HOF Monitor / 91.5 / 85 / -0.1
Efficiency / 15.9 / 15.9 / +0

Conclusion
In all but one measure, Laettner is at or above the average of other players picked at a similar draft position. And the one where he is slightly below average is the one (HOF Monitor) that is the least about a player's statistical contribution, but also brings in team success and post-season honors.

I suspect that Laettner's detractors are skewed by (a) their misperception of his NBA career, (b) an invalid and irrelevant comparison to his college success, and (c) other biases, such as anti-Duke sentiment.

[cspan37421]

very interesting numbers - but I don't quite get how you use draft position. I wouldn't use that in the denominator b/c it will have a huge effect on the ratio since draft position is an ordinal number. So someone picked #4 is going to have a ratio 75% smaller than someone picked #1. Maybe you're not using it that way.

In any case, there are some neat metrics in baseball for HOF standards and stuff and maybe I should look at that. In another thread I noted how well Laettner compared to Bill Bradley, a HOF member whose only clear advantage over Laettner is 2 championship teams. Bradley's statistical contribution was very similar to Laettner's - slightly higher FT%, slightly lower FG%. Per minute played Laettner was more productive in terms of points, rebounds, assists. Yes there was the 3-pt shot but in the NBA that wasn't a big part of his game (kind of a weak spot, it appears).

However, Bradley may not compare very well to the rest of the HOF. Someone has to be the least qualified HOF-er, right?

[cspan37421]

If you're keeping the denom. constant by only comparing players at same draft position, OK, the ratio won't get skewed, but IMO even that is an odd comparison b/c success post-draft is such a crapshoot, there's gotta be a ton of variance in success even among top picks. I guess you're trying to figure out whether they're a bust. How about per dollar of salary earned over career? You could also group picks. 1-5, 5-10, etc. I agree it is tough.

[oso diablo]

very interesting numbers - but I don't quite get how you use draft position. I wouldn't use that in the denominator b/c it will have a huge effect on the ratio since draft position is an ordinal number. So someone picked #4 is going to have a ratio 75% smaller than someone picked #1. Maybe you're not using it that way.

thanks for asking. i was wondering if i had blown everyone's mind.

I use the term "denominator" loosely, not in a pure mathematical sense. You don't divide anything, that is. The comparison is between Player A's performance and the performance of the set of players picked at a similar draft position.

[oso diablo]

Here are the #3 picks in the NBA draft, from 1980 to 1999. Where would you rank Laettner's career among these folks?

80 McHale
81 Buck Williams
82 Nique
83 Rodney McCray
84 MJ
85 Benoit Benjamin
86 Chris Washburn
87 Dennis Hopson
88 Charles Smith
89 Sean Elliott
90 Chris Jackson
91 Billy Owens
92 Laettner
93 Penny Hardaway
94 Grant Hill
95 Jerry Stackhouse
96 Shareef Abdur-Rahim
97 Chauncey Billups
98 Raef LaFrentz
99 Baron Davis