Reef was a blackhole in that era not because of shooting stats, but because of how long and often he had to hold the ball to get those shooting stats. If you have to hold the ball for 10 secs, throw it out, catch again and then finally make a move to get your points, you can be an efficient shooter while still using up a disproportionate amount of your team's offensive opportunities.
Obviously, you did not watch much Shareef in that era did you? You act like you've sat down and watched every game ever and attempt to pass your opinion off as a person who has watched a lot on a particular topic. Shareef didn't "hold the ball" in those days. In fact, that didn't really become part of his arsenal until his last year in Vancouver.
It was a set play to take advantage of the double teams. When SAR attacked, doubles immediately came and SAR was not especially good at passing out of them because he spun baseline and would become cut off.
So the coach had him face the basket more and wait for doubles before passing.
In his early years, SAR was much more prone to attack the instant he touched the ball rather than the touchy-feely stuff he does now.
This is how even an efficient scorer can end up with inflated numbers on a bad team -- they have nobody else so they allow that scorer to dominate the touches and ball far more than a team with other options would.
Again, you're blowing hot air. Nothing you said is remotely true.
Shareef led his team in shots, but never by a wide margin.
His shots (Other leading shooters)
- YR 1: 15 (14,14)
- Total Shots By Team - 6453
- Total Shots By Utah - 6217
- Total Shots By Lakers - 6642
- Total Shots By Detroit - 6095
- LG AVG: 6505 (-52)
- YR 2: 16 (13, 3*10)
- Total Shots By Team - 6567
- Total Shots By Lakers - 6536
- Total Shots By Bulls - 6801
- Total Shots By Atlanta - 6352
- LG AVG: 6524 (+43) / LG MEDIAN: 6455 (+112)
- YR 3: 17.9 (12, 11)
- Total Shots By Team - 3838
- Total Shots By Atlanta - 3760
- Total Shots By Indiana - 3866
- Total Shots By Heat - 3565
- LG AVG: 3912 (-74) / LG MEDIAN: 3937 (-99)
- YR 4: 15.6 (15, 12, 10)
- Total Shots By Team - 6440
- Total Shots By Indiana - 6640
- Total Shots By NYK - 6372
- Total Shots By Utah - 6380
- LG AVG: 6742 (-302) / LG MEDIAN: 6773 (-333)
- REMOVE TOP 3/BOTTOM 3: 6508 (-68)
- YR 5: 15.8 (15, 14)
- Total Shots By Team - 6539
- Total Shots By Phili - 6487
- Total Shots By Kings - 6989
- Total Shots By Spurs - 6262
- Total Shots By Atlanta - 6668
- LG AVG: 6611 (-72) / LG MEDIAN: 6541 (-2)
- REMOVE TOP 3/BOTTOM 3: 6604 (-65)
- YR 6: 16.8 (16, 9)
- Total Shots By Team - 6610
- Total Shots By Dallas - 6930
- Total Shots By Kings - 7003
- Total Shots By Nets - 6816
- Total Shots By Memphis - 6535
- LG AVG: 6666 (-56) / LG MEDIAN: 6666 (-56)
- YR 7: 14.6 (18, 14)
- Total Shots By Team - 6434
- Total Shots By Kings - 6990
- Total Shots By Nets - 6585
- Total Shots By Phili - 6436
- LG AVG: 6636 (-202) / LG MEDIAN: 6652 (-218)
After that, his playing time becomes erratic.
What you say is that "when SAR touches the ball more, the offense stagnates more". The fact is the opposite trend has held true. The more offensive touches SAR has (shots) the more the team shoots compared to the league and compared year to year.
Granted, I will admit the caveat here is that shots equate to how many "touches" a player gets.
Thus I compared the numbers each year to some of the random "top teams" of that year in total number of shots. In no year was there a large differential, except for the strike year and the year after, unless compared to the elite "offensive" teams of the day. In no uncertain terms were the Hawks or Grizz of that caliber talentwise as those types of teams, so the comparison is unfair. Comparing them to the league was far more fair. So, that number is at the bottom of each year.
If you look at the number of shots SAR has to the number of shots the team had you'll notice that the more he shoots the more touches the whole team had. Further, when you compare that number to the league average in that year, you'll see that more touches to SAR meant more touches for the team.
The lower the number of shots, the higher the differential against the league.
Throw in the fact he rarely passed even when doubled (mayhap a good idea given those teammates) and you potentially have a guy maxing out his own game, but not necessarily his teams'.
Yeah, that's not remotely true either. You can see this in the above stats as well.
From that era though I would classify Reef's performances as more of those of a false star, than a guy getting stats pummped up. He dominated the ball too much, did not pass much, but still had a lot of talent. Teh issue with him is that he added exactly 0 wins to his teams' totals. Completely ineffective as a #1 player, whatever the stats.
Did you look at those rosters? I don't care who you have on those teams, they don't win.
Let's compare that to Chris Bosh, who isn't playing for an "expansion team". His stats are irrelevant, I guess? I mean, his team has done little to nothing with his numbers.
Kevin Garnett the past two years?
Mike Bibby last year?
I don't think anyone would claim that SAR is a "next level" player, but it's not his offense that's lacking. There are only a select few players that can truly rise the level of play by everyone around them.
All of SAR's teams needed a solid coach for more than 1 year and a solid core. They were minus that Artest-type player to kick them over the top. They were defensive jokes and they needed that player to help out.
Their core was a bunch of youngsters given direction by a first year coach. That wasn't going to hack it, don't care who was on the team. If you removed SAR and replaced him with almost any player in the league, those teams are still lotto teams.
He had talent worthy of those stats, but never made anybody better or lifted his team with them.
How many of those players exist or have ever existed?
In the league right now, I'd say 5? Duncan, Shaq, Nash, Kidd, ??
So, because SAR isn't a top 5-10 player in the league you find reason to bash him? I just don't get it.