PDA

View Full Version : Laettner....WHY?



EarlJam
04-27-2007, 11:35 AM
Was talking to a stranger from New York in a sports bar last night and the topic of our beloved Christian Laettner came up. The big question: With all that talent, fire and accolades he had in college, how did he not turn out to be a star in the NBA?

Sure, he had his moments, and was a solid player, but it just seems like he could have been a real star. Our general consenses was that he became incredibly unselfish in the league and for whatever reason, didn't seem to want to "be the man" on the teams he played for. This seems to be a complete reversal of his nature at Duke.

There are a lot of Duke Basketball experts on this board. If you were having the same conversation, what would be some of the insights you would have?

-EarlJam

jimsumner
04-27-2007, 11:49 AM
Laettner played for some really bad teams, so he tended to sit out the playoffs. He had career averages of around 18 points and 9 rebounds per game, with an all-star game appearance, when he suffered a major Achilles injury. He lost a good bit of mobility and lift and never got them back.

thrilainvanila
04-27-2007, 11:50 AM
i believe he did average about 18 and 8 over his first four years, and once he got traded to atlanta things kid of went downhill from there.

i remember him having some sort of major injury that he never really recovered from (ruptured achilles?), and i think that was responsible for much of the decline in his pro career.

but he was good, if not very good, before injuries got the better of him.

OZZIE4DUKE
04-27-2007, 11:56 AM
Was talking to a stranger from New York in a sports bar last night and the topic of our beloved Christian Laettner came up. The big question: With all that talent, fire and accolades he had in college, how did he not turn out to be a star in the NBA?

Sure, he had his moments, and was a solid player, but it just seems like he could have been a real star. Our general consenses was that he became incredibly unselfish in the league and for whatever reason, didn't seem to want to "be the man" on the teams he played for. This seems to be a complete reversal of his nature at Duke.

There are a lot of Duke Basketball experts on this board. If you were having the same conversation, what would be some of the insights you would have?

-EarlJam

If memory serves me correctly, as a top draft choice there was a distinct lack of surrounding talent on his early teams, and his gung ho attitude just wasn't appreciated by his teammates. By the time he had become an allstar, he tore his Achilles and lost some quickness on returning, relagating him to journeyman status. When he joined MJ on the Wizzards, I thought finally his leadership would come through and would be supported by Jordan, but that didn't happen either.

It is still fun to walk up to a Kentucky fan and whisper "Laettner" into his or her ear and watch them turn red in the face and see steam come out of their ears :D

wilson
04-27-2007, 12:00 PM
once he got traded to atlanta things kid of went downhill from there.

Not really true. Christian made his one and only All-Star game during the 1996-97 season, his first full campaign with the Hawks (and one of only about 2 1/2 seasons he spent in Atlanta). He was there during the Mutombo era, when the Hawks actually weren't that bad. He went to the playoffs with the Hawks in 1996, 1997, and 1998 (all three seasons he finished in Atlanta), and the team won first-round series in 1996 and 1997.

pamtar
04-27-2007, 12:27 PM
I believe Laettner's shortcomings in the league are similar to other Dukies with a stellar college career but not the pro career you would have expected. Alot of it has to do with K's coaching philosophies and style. He doest groom players for the NBA, he coaches them for college. If you look at most of the former Dukies that are doing well in the pros (Deng, Brand, Maggette, Dunleavy) you will find that they are early defections with a ton of atheletic ability and talent. While Hill is the exception, most players who stayed four years almost forgot how to be selfish - a trait necessary to put up big stats in the NBA. Simultaneously, I'll bet if you ask NBA coaches who coach Duke alum which of their players understands basketball better, works harder, and is an underrated and intergral part of their team they will answer Duhon, Laettner, Battier, Ferry, etc....

phaedrus
04-27-2007, 12:27 PM
well, EA sports thinks he was pretty damn good around 1997. if you ever get a chance to play NBA Live '98, make sure you have Christian on your team. he does not miss.

Olympic Fan
04-27-2007, 12:43 PM
Hmmm, "pamtar" as in tar heel?

the same old tripe "K doesn't prepare players for the nba" or when confronted with evidence that some of his players DO do well, we get "If you look at most of the former Dukies that are doing well in the pros (Deng, Brand, Maggette, Dunleavy) you will find that they are early defections with a ton of atheletic ability and talent."

How about Grant Hill -- a four year Duke player who was a five-time first or second-team All-NBA player before injuries shortened his career. You mention Dunleavy -- he "only" played three years at Duke -- so if K can't count him as a success, then UNC can't count Michael Jordan or James Worthy (three year players) or Jerry Stackhouse or Rasheed Wallace (two year players).

There's Carlos Boozer (a three-year guy) who just scored 41 on Ming in the playoffs. There's Battier, a four-year Duke guy, who's a key component (usually regarded as the third-best player) on the Hawks team that is going to beat the Jazz. There's Duhon, a four-year Duke guy, who is a key component on the Bulls.

Every school has its share of busts (how's Joe Forte doing these days?), but the last I saw, Duke had produced more NBA players than any other school and they were earning more money than any other school's alums.

And that's with some incredible bad luck as far as off-the-court injuries -- I have no doubt Jason Williams would be an all-star today without his motorcycle injury ... Hurley would have had a long productive career had he not been nearly killed by a drunk driver (19 games into his NBA career!).

Laettner was never a superstar, but he was a damn fine NBA player through his first six years (an 18 and 8 player), before a ruptured achilles tendon robbed him of his athleticsm. He was still good enough stick around for another 7-8 years as a spot player.

allenmurray
04-27-2007, 12:57 PM
This whole thread reminds me of conversations I have sometimes with my 12 year old son. Sometimes he will refer to an NBA player as "not being very good". When he does I remind him of a few things. There are 30 teams in the NBA with 15 players each. The NBA is still the pinnacle of professional basketball. Thus it isn't a great stretch to say that these are the 450 best basketball players in the world. Yet somwhow when someone is only one of the best 450 people in the world at what they do, instead of one of the best 200 in the world, we label them a dissapointment, or as not being successful. Wierd.

wilson
04-27-2007, 01:07 PM
This whole thread reminds me of conversations I have sometimes with my 12 year old son. Sometimes he will refer to an NBA player as "not being very good". When he does I remind him of a few things. There are 30 teams in the NBA with 15 players each. The NBA is still the pinnacle of professional basketball. Thus it isn't a great stretch to say that these are the 450 best basketball players in the world. Yet somwhow when someone is only one of the best 450 people in the world at what they do, instead of one of the best 200 in the world, we label them a dissapointment, or as not being successful. Wierd.

That's a very good point, and furthermore, I wouldn't count Laettner among the "worst" players in the NBA. He averaged something like 13 PPG, 7 RPG for a 13-season career. Not only are those respectable numbers, but that's also above-average longevity. Plenty of "can't-miss stars" haven't even sniffed 13 NBA seasons.

WeepingThomasHill
04-27-2007, 01:36 PM
But for his achilles injury, Laettner would have been under consideration for the Hall of Fame. He was that good. It's too bad his teammates and coaches during his first few years in Minnesota didn't want to win as badly as Christian - they tarnished his image and reputation around the league with their griping and selfishness.

NYC Duke Fan
04-27-2007, 02:40 PM
I am not counting performance as a pro, because obviously that would not be the case, but I think that aside from Bill Walton and Lou Alcinder, Laettner might be the third best college player of all time. Two others who would be considered...Bill Bradley, Jerry West, ( although neither of them ever won a championship, they were terrific college players).

As an aside, didn't Bradley commit to Duke and then later changed to Princeton because of his father's pressure.

Olympic Fan
04-27-2007, 03:53 PM
1. Bill Bradley did commit to Duke and only changed his mind in August, just before enrolling. He took the Bubas' last available scholarship ... if he'd just picked Princeton in the beginning, Bubas would have signed Fred Hetzel, who very much wanted to play at Duke. Instead, he went to Davidson and bcame a first-team consensus All-America.

2. Laettner's very near the top on any list of the greatest college players of all time ... although you left out my No.1 choice -- David Thompson of N.C. State. I agree that you can make a good case for Alcindor (three-time Final Four MVP) and for Walton (who won two titles, but lost as a senior to Thompson). And also don't forget Bill Russell, who won his last two years at San Francisco (he had KC Jones with him as a junior, but Jones was ineligible for the NCAAs as a senior). Laettner is somewhere in that group.

After that bunch, you get some great players who never won anything -- Pete Maravich (a lot of points on bad teams), Oscar Robertson (whose Cincinnati teams started winning titles AFTER he left), Bradley, West, Jerry Lucas (like Laettner, a much greater college player than a pro), Tom Gola and the like.

kramerbr
04-27-2007, 03:54 PM
How many Duke players are playing in the playoffs???

And of those players I would say all of them except JJ have a significant role on that playoff team.


I'm guessing there are more Duke players playing in the playoffs right now then any other College team.

Duke = Winners

Zeb
04-27-2007, 05:45 PM
I had a chance to see Laettner play basketball last summer. One of his calves is visibly smaller than the other--it's not even close. I assume this is due to the achilles injury.

dukemsu
04-27-2007, 07:31 PM
Living in Detroit during Laettner's brief tenure there, it was brought up all the time that his Achilles injury drastically reduced his effectiveness and mobility. I also recall hearing several times that he and Grant (with the Pistons at the same time) weren't all that close-one time in particular someone asked Grant about his college "buddy", and Grant said: "Who said he was my buddy?". That wouldn't be all that unusual-not all teammates are all that close.

Laettner was a good pro-and who knows what he would have been in the proper situation without injury.

dukemsu

dukie8
04-27-2007, 09:07 PM
Was talking to a stranger from New York in a sports bar last night and the topic of our beloved Christian Laettner came up. The big question: With all that talent, fire and accolades he had in college, how did he not turn out to be a star in the NBA?

Sure, he had his moments, and was a solid player, but it just seems like he could have been a real star. Our general consenses was that he became incredibly unselfish in the league and for whatever reason, didn't seem to want to "be the man" on the teams he played for. This seems to be a complete reversal of his nature at Duke.

There are a lot of Duke Basketball experts on this board. If you were having the same conversation, what would be some of the insights you would have?

-EarlJam

he scored over 11,000 points in 13 seasons. i don't know too many bench-warmers who eclipse the 10,000-point mark in their careers.

zingit
04-27-2007, 09:47 PM
FYI, there was a great article in the latest issue of Towerview (which they don't seem to have put online yet) about former Dukies in the NBA and how they're proving the stereotype wrong. It also talks about how they're sort of like a fraternity. It has a funny anecdote of when Shav was a rookie with the 76ers and was playing the Clippers, and he wasn't even sure if Elton Brand knew who he was, but as he went to guard him, Elton slapped him on the butt and said, "What's up, Dukie?" :D

And about the Grant--Laettner thing, I can't remember where I saw this--maybe it was the "100 Years . . ." DVD?--but Grant was talking about Laettner and about how opposing fans hated him so much, and then he chuckled and said something like, "But you know, we hated Christian too." I assume he was kidding (or at least half-kidding).

EKU1969
04-27-2007, 09:48 PM
Laettner was used to winning everywhere he played...high school, college, Olympics, etc and then goes to the Minnesota Timberwolves. None of them seemed to relish the idea of winning as much as he did and I think it wore on him. When he got to a better situation, he did fine until the injury. All in all, a solid career tinged with frustration.

JBDuke
04-28-2007, 01:35 AM
I've often wondered if Laettner's marijuana use contributed to the decline of his NBA production.

Jarhead
04-28-2007, 11:21 AM
I've often wondered if Laettner's marijuana use contributed to the decline of his NBA production.

Was it really necessary to bring that up?

pfrduke
04-28-2007, 11:55 AM
I've often wondered if Laettner's marijuana use contributed to the decline of his NBA production.


Was it really necessary to bring that up?

I mean, it seems to be a legitimate question. The thread topic was why Christian Laettner wasn't a better pro than he maybe could have been. The previous poster was speculating that drug use may have had something to do with it. That seems like a fair question to ask.

wilson
04-28-2007, 12:05 PM
I will never understand why people think marijuana use is such a detriment to professional athletes' careers. I submit that alcohol abuse has a far greater potential to produce those kinds of negative results. I also suspect that those who ask these kinds of questions about athletes' marijuana habits would be shocked to learn just how prevalent it is, not just in the NBA, but in all sports leagues (and for that matter, in society in general).

Lord Ash
04-28-2007, 12:17 PM
If pot was really so bad for athletes, how do you explain the fact that SO many NBA players smoke pot?

Iverson would literally be unable to dribble I think.

:D

Orange&BlackSheep
04-28-2007, 01:07 PM
Dude, he would have had to have been a SERIOUS pothead (on the order of touring with the Dead) to have been that affected by weeding it up. That is like saying the occasional beers/drinks that athletes have prevented them from major success. Puh-lease. I think the young human body has proven if nothing else that it can withstand an incredible amount of abuse before you begin to see ill effects. My $.02

SilkyJ
04-28-2007, 05:05 PM
I agree that smoking had little to no impact on his career. In fairness to JB, all he said is that "he wonders" if it affected him. You never know, it can make people very lazy and unmotivated so its a legit question. The occassional doobie is not a big deal, but since we really don't know how much/often he was smoking, its a legit question.

Uncle Drew
04-28-2007, 08:38 PM
Laettner was drafted by a team of scrubs and was double and tripple teamed every time he touched the ball. And while Christian was a fairly physical player in college, you can get gang raped in the NBA and never get a foul called. I know very well every black player that faced him played as hard as possible so not to get shown up by the white boy. And his attitude didn't mesh well with team mates and opposing players. If he'd gone to a team where he was the supporting cast the first few years as opposed to the go to guy I think his carreer would have gone much better. You can fault injurries which I'm sure played a part. The thing that ticks me off is CL was named second best ACC player in history since his pro career was factored in. Sure he had attitude, but I've been waiting 15 years for another player with his tougness, attitude and will to win to don a Duke uniform.

Uncle Drew
04-28-2007, 08:41 PM
Guys, the players don't smoke pot and then go play, that would seriously affect their judgement. But I'd be willing to bet at least a quarter of your coworkers have smoked pot in the last week and it doesn't affect their performance. (Now watch some smart a**, write back they are a priest and no one they work with hits the bong.)

jkidd31
04-29-2007, 12:56 AM
Same can be said for Jimmy Jackson who was also in the same draft and went to a bad team. His and Christian's carrers mirrored each other in a lot of ways.

BobbyFan
04-29-2007, 09:22 AM
I am not counting performance as a pro, because obviously that would not be the case, but I think that aside from Bill Walton and Lou Alcinder, Laettner might be the third best college player of all time. Two others who would be considered...Bill Bradley, Jerry West, ( although neither of them ever won a championship, they were terrific college players).

Laettner was a great player, but he wasn't one of the top few greatest players of all-time. Walton, Alcindor, Robertson, Lucas, Russell, and Thompson were simply on another level. Bird, Hayes, and Maravich also belong ahead of Laettner. And you can make a strong case for West and Chamberlain (depending on how much you penalize him for playing only 2 years).

A reasonable list would have Laettner at around 10-15, which is not a slight at all considering that it would probably place him among players like Ewing and Sampson.

Olympic Fan
04-29-2007, 11:19 AM
It's baffling to me how anybody can put Oscar in the top 5 or even 10 among the greatest players.

He was a great player who put up some great numbers in college and played on some very good teams. But doesn't it bother you that his teams he played on got BETTER after he left? Is Oscar is so great, why don't Tom Thacker or Tony Yates rank higher -- they led Cincinnati's championship teams.

Then you get ridiculous -- Bird (one great college season)? Maravich (awesome scorer, but he shot 40 percent on a million shots for bad teams)? Hayes -- do you mean Elvin Hayes? are you kidding me?

Jerry Lucas is a pretty good comparison to Laettner. He was considered the star of stars on teams that played in three straight title games. And just as Laettner was eventually overshadowed in the NBA by Grant Hill, Lucas was later overshadowed by John Havlicek. Both had great point guards (Hurley and Mel Nowell).

If there was a difference between them, it was that Lucas was 1-2 in his three title games (losing to the post-Oscar Cincinnati teams) ... Laettner was 2-1. Plus, as a freshman Laettner played in another Final Four -- something Havlicek didn't have a chance to do.

Laettner is the only player in NCAA history to start on four straight Final Four teams. He scored more points in NCAA play than anybody in history. Obviously the rules helped him in both areas -- before 1973, freshmen couldn't play varsity and after 1985, teams played more games to win the title (which helped him set the scoring record, but also makes his four straight Final Fours more impressive -- he had to win 16 straight pre-Final Four games to do that ... Alcindor, for instance had to win just six pre-Final Four games to make his three straight Final Four starts).

More importantly, nobody in NCAA history hit as many crucial shots (the game-winning field goals against UConn in 1990, Kentucky in 1992 and the game-winning FTs vs Vegas) or played as many significant games (don't forget his head to head smackdown of Mourning in 1989, his dominance of the Vegas game in 1991 and the Kentucky game in 92). Even when he didn't play well -- as in the 1992 title game against Michigan -- he was still Duke's leading scorer in that win.

No, as I said before. I like David Thompson as the No. 1 player in college history. I can see the case for Alcindor/Jabber and for Russell and maybe for Walton. But Laettner was the single most significant NCAA Tournament performer in college basketball history. Period. That's got to place him pretty high up the all-time list of great players ...

bill brill
04-29-2007, 02:02 PM
every word of what olympicfan said is accurate. laettner's ncaa record was 21-2. he holds all scoring records. he was unstoppable against unlv in '91 and at the time they were considered among the greatest teams ever, with only one close game all year. even before the game, tark conceded they had no one to guard him. after missing the free throw in late february against arizona in his freshman year,after which Nixon consoled him, Laettner NEVER missed another critical shot. the kentucky fans always complain about the stomp, but CL was 10-for-10 from the floor and the foul line in that game, and had there been one miss anywhere, duke would have lost. statistically, in the post-season, you can't argue against him and I covered all of those games. he may not have been popular, but he was a pure winner.

Jarhead
04-29-2007, 03:35 PM
I agree that smoking had little to no impact on his career. In fairness to JB, all he said is that "he wonders" if it affected him. You never know, it can make people very lazy and unmotivated so its a legit question. The occassional doobie is not a big deal, but since we really don't know how much/often he was smoking, its a legit question.

No it isn't. It is rubbing his nose in it, and it is rushing to judgment. Do we need that?

JBDuke
04-29-2007, 04:18 PM
No it isn't. It is rubbing his nose in it, and it is rushing to judgment. Do we need that?

Could you please clarify? If you're referring to my original post, it was certainly not my intent to do either of the things you say. If you're referring to someone else's post, which one, and in what context?

I've never used marijuana, so I can't speak to its effects on me. The stereotype is that marijuana use can affect the user's motivation. I think the characteristic that made Laettner different from others with a similar skill set is that he had a "fire", a drive he had to be the best. His aggressive competitiveness is practically legendary, and often bit his teammates as well as the opponent. We also know that, as a pro, he was twice found with drugs in his system, and the scuttlebutt was that in both cases, it was marijuana.

And so, putting this together with the stereotypical effects of marijuana, I have often wondered if Laettner's marijuana use affected his inner drive, his competitive fire. Maybe there's no connection. Maybe he got to the NBA, and lots of folks just cared about picking up their big paychecks, and his intimidation of his teammates no longer worked, and so he got frustrated and lost it. Maybe he never lost it and the achilles injury affected his mobility and took it away. I don't know the answer. But no one had mentioned the marijuana use, and I thought it was a legit question.

dkbaseball
04-29-2007, 05:03 PM
Have to weigh in with an anecdote on Grant's relationship with Christian. I saw them shooting around together in a health club in No. Va. in the summer of '92, after Christian had graduated. They appeared to be good pals -- laughing and joking around. I assumed Christian was staying at Grant's parents' house nearby.

jimsumner
04-29-2007, 06:32 PM
Good post, Olympic fan. I agree with a good bit, disagree with a good bit, but that's to be expected.

My position has always been that Lew Alcindor was the best college player ever and by a fair margin. His cumulative NCAA Tournament stats fall short of Laettner's but that's apples and oranges. Alcindor/Jabbar played three seasons in an era when four games was all he could play, while Laettner played four seasons, when one could play six games. Alcindor 12 NCAA games, Laettner 23, so of course CL is going to have more total points.

Want to talk averages? Different discussion. This guy dominated good teams at a level scarely ever seen and his teams won. In fact, UCLA lost TWO games in three seasons with LA, one to Houston when he had a scratched cornea. They avenged that loss by edging Houston 103-68 in the FF. Houston was undefeated and ranked number one at the time. #1 teams don't often lose by 35 points in the FF.

Alcindor had some pretty good teammates, of course, but UCLA also started such notables as Mike Lynn, Lynn Shackelford, Kenny Heitz, and John Vallely on those teams. Alcindor was FF Most Outstanding Player three times. UCLA won its three title games by 15,23, and 20 points. Not too shabby.

Of course, he never hit a buzzer-beater. Never had to. :)

#2? Maybe Thompson (Best ACC player by far), maybe Walton. I rank Oscar pretty high. Cincy had zero basketball tradition when he showed up. No NCAA appearances ever and he led them to two FFs. Without Oscar, maybe Paul Hogue, Ron Bonham, Tom Thacker, et. al. play somewhere else.

Larry Bird had three great seasons, 32.8 ppg/13.3 rpg in 1977, 30.0/11.5 in 1978.

I agree that Maravich's individual stats have to be analyzed in the context of his apparent inability to make his teammates better. Top ten? Maybe. Top five? Not on my watch. But I'd sure pay to see him play.

If we're going to include Wilt (two years), we have to include Magic. Talk about making your teammates better. Their 1979 team obliterated the opposition with a lineup of Magic, Greg Kelser, Jay Vincent, Ron Charles, Mike Brkovich, and Terry Donnelly.

Jerry Lucas and Jerry West (My favorite player ever, FWIW) deserve to be in the discussion. Elgin Baylor took Seattle (!!) to the title game and averaged over 30 ppg in college.

People tend to forget that Sampson was national POY three times. But those votes were taken before the post-season and Sampson didn't produce at that level in March. Got to deduct for that. Of course, one could make the same point re JJ.

Then there's the most successful team sport athlete in American history. Bill Russell. I don't think a lot of folks in the early 1950s would have seen back-to-back NCAA titles in San Francisco's immediate future. Russell averaged a double, double-double for his NCAA career, i.e. 20 points and 20 rebounds per game and the Friars went 57-1 in their title seasons. Not too shabby, 2. I seem to recall that Mr. Russell also had some success in the NBA. :)

FWIW, I've never actually ranked my top ten or twenty or whatever. If I did so, I'd change my mind the next day. Except for number one. That will always be Lew Alcindor.

BobbyFan
04-29-2007, 10:28 PM
I'm not going to address your points about each player that was brought up, partly because jimsumner already covered some of what I would say and also because the general disagreement I have with you is your flawed method of analyzing an individual player.


Laettner is the only player in NCAA history to start on four straight Final Four teams. He scored more points in NCAA play than anybody in history. Obviously the rules helped him in both areas -- before 1973, freshmen couldn't play varsity and after 1985, teams played more games to win the title (which helped him set the scoring record, but also makes his four straight Final Fours more impressive -- he had to win 16 straight pre-Final Four games to do that ... Alcindor, for instance had to win just six pre-Final Four games to make his three straight Final Four starts).

...But Laettner was the single most significant NCAA Tournament performer in college basketball history. Period. That's got to place him pretty high up the all-time list of great players ...

The mistake you are making is your are significantly overlapping team accomplishments with individual ones. Laettner starting on four straight Final Four teams was hardly an individual accomplishment. Had Laettner gone to Maryland instead of Duke, and perhaps led them to a few NCAA appearances, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. To illustrate this point, consider the perception of Laettner being the ultimate winner who could not lose in college to being a cancer with the Timberwolves. Truth is, Laettner wasn't any more a "winner" in college than he was a "loser" in the NBA.

And Laettner's record for total points in NCAA tournament play isn't unlike Derek Jeter's record for most postseason hits in baseball history - each has been improperly used to elevate the player into a place where he doesn't belong. This isn't to say that Laettner and Jeter weren't clutch players who brought it at important moments.

Most of the players I mentioned made multiple 1st team All-American teams and were named national player of the year 2 or 3 times. In comparison, Laettner made only one 1st team All-American team and was named NPOY once.

Olympic Fan
04-30-2007, 05:08 PM
So Laettner was only NPOY once?

That's one more than Wilt or Jerry West (who never won a significant NPOY award) and same as Bird. Ralph Sampson was consensus NPOY three times ... one more than Alcindor.

What does that mean?

When we try to determine the greatest players of all time, what does factor in -- stats? But the game changes over time and the numbers don't mean the same. Laettner scored far more points in his career than Russell. Russell had more rebounds than anybody who plays today? Does that make him a better player? Awards tell us something, but they're corrupted by factors we don't remember (Elvin Hayes swept the 1968 NPOY after outplaying a one-eyed Alcindor in the Astrodome ... healthy, but after the voting was done, Alcindor destroyed him in the Final Four; some racist voting had a lot to do with John Roche twice beating out Charlie Scott as ACC POY). Should team success factor in?

Well, the purpose of basketball is to win after all, not to score a lot of points or generate a lot of sports center dunks. I'm not saying you can't be a great player on a bad team (as Maravich was) and I'm not saying you can't be a mediocre player on a great team (as, say, Greg Koubek was).

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?

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.

He didn't do anything miraculous to get Duke to the 1991 Final Four, but he did then play the key role in the semifinal victory over undefeated and No. 1 UNLV, setting the stage for the first title in Duke's history.

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.

We can always argue about the balance between stats/awards/championships in our formula for greatness. 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.

Sure, every athlete is to some degree dependent on his support structure. It varies in sport. It's hard for one slugging outfielder to turn a bad team into a good one. But at the same time, Ted Williams did have chances to make the Red Sox champions and time after time, when given the opportunity he came up short in the clutch. That doesn't diminish his stature as one of baseball's greats, but if you're going to call him the greatest of all time, shouldn't he have had one moment where he stepped up -- maybe the '46 world series, the '48 playoff or the final Yankee series in '49?

The greatest quarterback can't win without a line to protect him, receivers to catch his passes and a good defense, but when the chance is there, I want to see him seize it. That's why Joe Montanta is in the mix as one of the 2-3 greatest QBs of all time ... and I have a hard time putting Dan Marino at the top.

Basketball, I would argue is a sport where one great player can make more of a difference. Yes, he needs help, but before I proclaim a guy one of the greatest ever, I want to see him step up in tthe clutch and make a good team a great one or a great team into a champion. The guys who did that time after time -- Alcindor for sure, Thompson, Russell, Walton -- and Laettner -- are the ones that deserve to be at the top of the list.

The guys who never did that -- Oscar (who did play with great teammates), Maravich, etc., don't make the list. Wilt played two years of college basketball -- he never won NPOY and he never won a championship. He was a great taletn and a great pro, but how does he even figure in the top 5-10 college players of all time?

PS -- Jim ... I still say Bird had one great season as a college player. I know he scored a lot of points for Indiana State as a soph and junior, but that was at a midmajor team in a midmajor league that he couldn't even take his team to the NCAA Tournament. He didn't even make consensus second-team All-American as a soph or a junior. He only really stepped up and became a dominant player as a senior

Uncle Drew
04-30-2007, 08:04 PM
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.

jimsumner
04-30-2007, 08:10 PM
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.

dukie8
04-30-2007, 09:02 PM
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/basketball-m/games/boxscore.php?gameid=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
04-30-2007, 09:15 PM
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
04-30-2007, 09:41 PM
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
04-30-2007, 09:43 PM
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
04-30-2007, 10:56 PM
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
05-01-2007, 01:37 PM
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
05-01-2007, 01:53 PM
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
05-01-2007, 04:26 PM
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/sports/olympics/longterm/locals/hill1.htm

SilkyJ
05-01-2007, 04:41 PM
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
05-02-2007, 09:36 AM
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. :D

DukeDevilDeb
05-02-2007, 10:08 AM
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
05-02-2007, 10:10 AM
And don't forget the fact that in the two games against LSU, Laettner outplayed Shaq both times.

jimsumner
05-02-2007, 12:55 PM
"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.
05-02-2007, 02:31 PM
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
05-02-2007, 02:55 PM
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
05-04-2007, 02:20 PM
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
05-04-2007, 02:25 PM
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
05-07-2007, 02:23 PM
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
05-07-2007, 05:05 PM
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