RealGM Top 100 list #33

[penbeast0]

Some great posts on Artis have left me a bit less skeptical of his NBA years, he was far less active and played closer to the basket on both ends which accounts for (a) his lesser defensive impact, (b) the rep of not having good hands which was not a problem in the ABA, and (c) the great increase in efficiency AFTER the move to the NBA. Haven't seen any analysis on other top centers like Zo or Deke yet. How do they compare to Artis (and Dwight)?


For now, I favor:

a. Artis Gilmore over other bigs left. Maybe McHale but I have questions about his rebounding.

b. George Gervin seems the most impactful wing left, but I like my stars to put in effort on defense. I love Alex English too, but Gervin seemed to draw more attention and have a greater impact. I still am not seeing Baylor directly compared to anyone; how does he compare to Gervin, English, and McHale

c. Gary Payton over other PGs left. More efficient scorer, competent though less assist prone playmaker, better defender than Isiah. Better defense AND better individual offense than Kidd plus better team results (with better talent around him though). Kidd's playmaking in the half court just never seemed enough to make up this gap when he couldn't shoot; when he could shoot from 3, his defensive impact had dropped. Kidd's end of career is a lot better than Payton's, but Payton's peak is higher.

Vote Gary Payton

[Owly]

As before I'm looking primarily at Gilmore, Durant, Baylor, but could be talked around. I'm struggling for time to work it out tbh. A quick glance at those (others) still available with strong career added value and theres (50s) Schayes; (70s) Lanier; (80s) Parish, Wilkins, Dantley; (90s) Payton, Miller; (2000s) Pierce, Kidd. That's based on a combination career WS and sort of quasi-Hollinger EWA with the creators' pro-modern bias and subjective defensive reviews, and their own high peak bonus alterations and playoff numbers included. Actually by the combination of the two measures Nance and Marion aren't that far off which I like as a fan of the all-round non-primary scorer, do it all, defend, don't hurt the team type guys, but obviously they aren't plausible here.

In terms of historical (published) rankings, Baylor is clearly the highest guy left. His average ranking is 11.47058824 with lowest rankings (highest number) of 15 (Book of Basketball paperback) and 16 (100 Greatest Basketball Players). Next is Cousy average 19.6875. Not saying we should follow this just putting something out there for discussion so I'm contributing something.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Jason Kidd

I'm just going to get in early this time. To be perfectly honest I think Kidd, Reggie, and Artis are all more than worthy candidates, but I doubt I'll see anything in this thread swaying me toward one in particular, and last time I didn't get in until the run off, so I'm just going to go with Kidd.

I argued pretty vehemently against Kidd before, but actually it was always based on something quite specific. Specific people tend to overrate Kidd in specific ways...just as some underrate him. I've got a ton of respect for him, and he did it for a long time. Even though I've been arguing against him, were it up to me alone he'd have been in a while ago.

[colts18]

Has anyone done a Pierce vs Kidd post? They came in the NBA a few years apart and peaked around the same time.

[john248]

Candidates for me now are ...

wings: Miller, Pierce

point: Payton. The Kidd discussion has been nice. Can't help but have a bit of a bias from watching summer Pro-Am with the 2 with Payton being better. But GP was like a 5 or 6 year vet by then and Kidd was maybe a rook.

[trex_8063]

My vote: Elgin Baylor.

In ‘59 and rookie Elgin Baylor had the 2nd-highest PER in the league, behind only a peak Bob Pettit.
In ‘60 he had the 2nd-highest PER in the league behind only Wilt Chamberlain.

Convo regarding the Laker offense in '60:

Spoiler:

Efficiency
By year TS%: Baylor vs League Avg (diff)
'59: 48.8/45.8 (+3.0)
'60: 48.9/46.3 (+2.6)
'61: 49.8/46.9 (+2.9)
'62: 49.2/47.9 (+1.3)
'63: 51.9/49.3 (+2.6)
'64: 48.7/48.5 (+0.2)
'65: 46.3/47.9 (-1.6)
'66: 45.6/48.7 (-2.0)
'67: 49.1/49.3 (-0.2)
'68: 50.5/49.8 (+0.7)
'69: 50.0/49.1 (+0.9)
'70: 53.7/51.1 (+2.6)
'71: 46.2/50.0 (-3.8) *2 game sample
'72: 48.7/50.4 (-1.7) *9 game sample

So what I see here is that he hit a given level of offensive efficiency and then didn't improve much as league average was rising, which sort of throws some doubt as to the value of his early positive deviations in my mind. I guess relative to his competition in-era, that's mostly impressive until you get into West, Wilt and Oscar. Not super-stunning next to Barry, either. Barry was as good or better than Baylor in terms of efficiency as a rookie and in his second season, then went to the ABA and exploded... and when he came back, his efficiency remained poor but similar to Baylor's upper-bound.

I like Baylor's passing, but I think he's one of the more overrated volume scorers in league history. He seemed to be a decent defender. His rebounding is minutes/era-related and not at all portable, but he'd be a strong rebounder in any era regardless, so one can call that a strength. Underrated passer/ball-handler.


Generally for me, I like to see some indication of self-consciousness in my stars; I'm not usually fond of humongous volume shooters unless they're really, really good. That said, and particularly true for this range in the project, those early deviations are comparable to Kobe Bryant's career. That sort of deviation from league average is generally where I like to see 30%+ USG guys hit at least before I stop wondering whether it might be smarter to redistribute those shots.

So let's look at LA's offense from 58-63 (e.g. pre-Baylor until just before his knees started to really go), then we can get a look at him while his efficiency was strong and then perhaps a bit of team impact stuff.

58: 88.0 ORTG, 6th of 8 (no Baylor)
59: 90.8, 4/8
60: 87.7 8/8 (Baylor plays 70 of 75 games)

Notable here is that Baylor stepped up from 21.2 FGA/g and 24.9 ppg to 25.4 FGA/g and 29.6 ppg. This offense was worse than the pre-Baylor 58 offense (marginally). Team factors are worth consideration,

Yes they are.
I went into detail about this particular drop from '59 to '60 in one of the prior threads. To recap some other changes (other than Baylor's shot-load increasing) that occurred:

*Vern Mikkelsen---who was 2nd on the team in FGA in '59, and was +1.0% over league avg in TS%---is no longer with the team.
*Aging veteran Larry Foust---who was 4th on the team in FGA in '59 and was +1.5% over league avg in TS%---has been marginalized (presumably do to age/fading effectiveness).
*Hot Rod Hundley goes from 5th on the team in FGA in '59 to 2nd in '60 (+3.9 FGA). This is bad because (as we both noted) his efficiency is horrific (was -4.0% compared to league avg in '59; is even worse in '60 at -5.3%).
*3rd on the team in FGA in '60 is rookie Rudy LaRusso. While I think LaRusso is an important player in NBA history, he wasn't yet an efficient scorer as a rookie (-0.7% TS compared to league); you might say LaRusso hadn't quite become LaRusso yet.
*Slick Leonard (not much of an offensive player anyway)---who had the 2nd-best offensive year of his career in '59---has his WORST offensive season in '60, shooting an abysmal -9.0% TS compared to the league.

So there were many factors there. As a consequence, they were 2.0% below league avg in TS% as a team. So not too surprising they had the worst rated offense with that. But you can't really lay that on Baylor's shoulders.
IN FACT: Baylor was the *basically the ONLY player on the entire roster who DID shoot above league avg TS% (by 2.6%). *Ed Flemming, who only played in 27 games, averaging just 5.2 FGA shot above league avg (actually 1% better than Baylor, even). But that's it: literally every single other player on the roster was below league average.

..
So there were many factors there. As a consequence, they were 2.0% below league avg in TS% as a team. So not too surprising they had the worst rated offense with that. But you can't really lay that on Baylor's shoulders.
IN FACT: Baylor was the *basically the ONLY player on the entire roster who DID shoot above league avg TS% (by 2.6%). *Ed Flemming, who only played in 27 games, averaging just 5.2 FGA shot above league avg (actually 1% better than Baylor, even). But that's it: literally every single other player on the roster was below league average.

Is that a positive for Baylor. If he is drawing defensive attention and a good passer out of the post, shouldn't his teammates shooting averages be somewhat improved?

Yes, perhaps they should, but probably aren't likely to if they're simply poor offensive players. Nor, to my knowledge, did he do too much work in the post, for that matter (unless I'm just way off). I had him as more of a perimeter slasher/driver.

I guess I went so far as to state that the low% can hardly be laid on Baylor's shoulders, but otherwise merely stated numerical facts. You're well out into the land of conjecture, and conjecture apparently aimed at justifying or fulfilling a pre-established negative opinion of Baylor.

Are you suggesting they somehow got WORSE looks as result of the defensive attention Baylor may have drawn? Hundley never shot well in his career, even after West (presumably a better play-maker who is also drawing even more attention away) arrives; Slick Leonard as well. LaRusso was a rookie and had some of the ineffiencies commonly seen in rookies (even West didn't shoot particularly as a rookie).

But sure, let's lay it all on Baylor. Even though he's +5.9% TS on the rest of the Laker team while doing a [bunch] of iso'ing. It's HIS fault his teammates couldn't step up just a tiny bit, even though none of them ever would in ANY circumstance in their respective careers, with the exception of LaRusso (who again: was a rookie).

You know better; don't evade the language filter.

In ‘61: he had the highest PER (even ahead of Wilt, not to mention Pettit and rookie Oscar Robertson).
‘62 and ‘63: 2nd-best PER in the league both years, behind only Wilt Chamberlain (even ahead of triple-double season Robertson, as well as Pettit and Walt Bellamy’s insane rookie season).

That’s a super-impressive 5-year span, imo. Yes, he drops off quite a bit after, but it’s not as though he faded into obscurity or ineffectiveness in subsequent years. He was a relevant player until ‘70.

Despite his career "lingering" until the early 70's, he's still 24th all-time in career rs PER (while averaging a whopping 40.0 mpg for his career).
24th all-time in career playoff PER.
Was FOUR times in the top 3 in MVP voting, SEVEN times in the top 5 (one other time in 6th place). Is 23rd all-time in MVP award shares.
Is 23rd all-time RealGM RPoY shares.

Efficiency
By year TS%: Baylor vs League Avg (diff)
'59: 48.8/45.8 (+3.0)
'60: 48.9/46.3 (+2.6)
'61: 49.8/46.9 (+2.9)
'62: 49.2/47.9 (+1.3)
'63: 51.9/49.3 (+2.6)
'64: 48.7/48.5 (+0.2)
'65: 46.3/47.9 (-1.6)
'66: 45.6/48.7 (-2.0)
'67: 49.1/49.3 (-0.2)
'68: 50.5/49.8 (+0.7)
'69: 50.0/49.1 (+0.9)
'70: 53.7/51.1 (+2.6)
'71: 46.2/50.0 (-3.8) *2 game sample
'72: 48.7/50.4 (-1.7) *9 game sample

5-Year Prime avg ('59-'63) vs league avg: 49.9/47.2 (+2.7)--->above league avg in all five of those years, by more than 2.5% over in 4 of the 5.
Career vs league over same years (not accounting for games played): 49.4/48.6 (+0.8)

Offensive and Defensive Impact
The Laker team offensive rating improved with rookie Baylor by 2.8 (by 1.4 even if measuring relative to league average) in ‘59. I won’t claim that Baylor always “helped the offense optimally” to the best of his abilities; but I do think he helped it. Obviously other metrics of offensive production/efficiency suggest Baylor was a “big deal”.

But what I’m beginning to wonder about is whether or not Baylor had a defensive impact that hasn't been properly appreciated.

Maybe his capability as a rebounder eliminated a lot of second-chance points for opponents????

idk, but something I noted is that the Laker team DRtg changed -1.4 (minus is a good thing for DRtg) in ‘59 with rookie Baylor. Relative to league average, DRtg improved by -2.8 (that’s a pretty big jump):
In ‘58, they were 8th of 8 defensively, DRtg +4.5 over league avg and +2.5 over the next worse team.
In ‘59, improved to only +1.7 over league avg (6th of 8).
They would continue to improve defensively over the next couple of seasons with acquisitions of Jerry West and aging Ray Felix. And then interestingly their defense appears to suffer slightly in ‘62 when Baylor misses significant games:
In ‘61, the Laker DRtg is -1.3 to league average (again: minus is good), 4th of 8.
In ‘62 Baylor misses 32 games and the Laker DRtg falls a little: just -0.3 vs league average (though still 4th of 9).
In ‘63: no more big Ray Felix playing significant minutes in the middle and Jerry West misses 25 games (things you’d expect to hurt the team defense); they otherwise obtain guard Dick Barnett (not sure that really helps the D significantly), and the only other change from the previous year is that Baylor is healthy (doesn’t miss a game)…….and the team DRtg improves to -1.2 vs league average (3rd of 9).
And then beginning in ‘64 (perhaps non-coincidentally just as Baylor begins to be significantly hampered by knee injuries, which causes his overall effectiveness to suffer, as seen by sudden drop in PER and other metrics), the Laker team DRtg takes a sudden dip (drops to significantly below average)……...And it would never recovery to a better than average team defense (even with big bodies like Darrall Imhoff and Mel Counts) until ‘69 when they obtained Wilt Chamberlain.

So I’m starting to wonder if Baylor had a bigger impact defensively than he’s previously been given credit for.

Overall impact......
The Lakers in ‘58 were 19-53 with an SRS of -5.78. And then they obtained rookie Elgin Baylor.
In ‘59--with Baylor being the only relevant player acquisition--they improved by 14 games to 33-39, SRS of -1.42 (+4.36 improvement); also made it to the finals (defeating the 2.89 SRS defending champion Hawks 4-2 along the way). That strikes me as indication of fairly significant impact.

EDIT (additional tidbits): Career team rs record: 643-474 (.576). Career team playoff record: 93-78 (.544)
*that's a better rs win% than the careers of Jason Kidd, Kevin Durant, Elvin Hayes, Artis Gilmore (to name a few getting mentioned; also better than Rick Barry)
**It's a better playoff win% than Kevin Durant, Artis Gilmore, Gary Payton, Elvin Hayes, Clyde Drexler, Jason Kidd (also Steve Nash, Patrick Ewing, Rick Barry, and Chris Paul)
***That's more playoff wins than any of the above mentioned, too.
****He's one of only 6 players with >20,000 pts, 10,000 reb, and 3,600 ast: with Wilt, Kareem, Barkley, and Karl Mailman, and Garnett (all of whom were top 20).


And here was a reply to Doc regarding his impact, era competition, etc.

Spoiler:

I don't think there are any other players out there since 1960, who were Top 3 players over a 3 year period,
I think Baylor, Cowens, Gervin come close, and I'm sure one or two others.

I really like Cowens, but longevity hurts him.
Baylor is 3-5th best in a less competitive league
I do like Gervin

Baylor was

#3 in 1959
#4 in 1960
#2 in 1961
#4 in 1962
#3 in 1963

This was in a league with Russell, Pettit, Wilt since 1960, Oscar and West since 1961.

Top-5 talent was more competitive in the early 1960s than the current NBA.

My first thought on this is that just listing out the competitors implies they were all at peak MVP competitiveness.

In the case of West for example, Baylor was literally in the way of West becoming the alpha superstar that was better than Baylor. So in the years you list Baylor beats West because West wasn't West yet, in part because of Baylor retarding that process. It's literally not an accomplishment.

Other guy? Pettit was older, Oscar was younger and not in the league the whole run, Wilt was erratic. It's not like this is the only era like this, but you can't just list the stuff out as if he was going into the teeth of the jungle the whole time.

Then there's things like Baylor finishing 4th in 1961-62 voting despite the fact he missed much of the season and the team offense exploded over the prior year despite having far less from Baylor. It's just obviously wrong. He wasn't in the Top 10 in Win Shares that year in a league with 10-ish teams. The equivalent today would be a guy around 45th in Win Shares in a WS-friendly role getting MVP attention. Just wouldn't happen.

You're pretty intent on lampooning any support Baylor gets, but I (again ) take issue with what seem like some misleading statements above (or at least some over-simplified linear logic)......

1) West wasn't West yet, and it's partially Baylor's fault.....
West was a young player in the years specified. You make it sound like he landed in the NBA a fully developed and mature ("peaked") player, and that it was simply Baylor's presence holding him back. Whereas I would suggest he simply needed a little time to mature (like nearly every other player in history).

In '62 Baylor misses 32 games and West's game appears to take a big jump forward. But let's not reach too hard for the "A happened, and B happened....therefore A caused B" type of linearity. How often do we see players get better in their 2nd year? Usually, as a matter of fact.

And if it was suddenly getting so much time away from Baylor that facilitated the surge in his game in '62.....why didn't he suffer a major setback in '63 when Baylor was back full-time?

And if Baylor and his ball-hogging is truly such a massive impediment to West's ability to fully impact the game......why is it that in '66---when Baylor a) misses 15 games, b) averages >10 minutes LESS per game than he EVER did previously, and c) is taking fewer shots when he is in the game---West's game does not take some giant surge forward? Baylor has to a large degree been moved aside, yet West's volume (relative to pace), efficiency, and general impact appear unchanged from the year before.
Or in '71 when Baylor is fairly literally gone completely, West's game is steady-state, too.

2) In '62 Baylor missed significant games and the Laker offense "exploded" under West......
It's true their offense did take a big leap forward that year. Again I just don't agree with "Baylor hurts their offense" angle you're trying to play here. For one, it's just a bit too much of the "A happened, and B happened, therefore....." kind of logic. West improved (and as I suggested above, I would contest more due to natural development that we USUALLY see from players in their 2nd year); also, Hot Rod Hundley (whose efficiency is beyond abominable, even for the era) had his role/minutes reduced by more than 30% that year. Jim Krebs, although just a low-volume role player, has by far his best offensive season. So there are multiple factors at play there, rather than just "Baylor missed games".

If it's Baylor holding back West and the offense---and it's this '62 season you want to cite as evidence of that----why is it that when in '63 and: a) Baylor doesn't miss a game, b) is taking a whopping 28.4 FGA/game, and c) West misses 25 games......that the Laker offense doesn't fall off from this "exploding" '62 offense under West? In fact, even relative to league averages---which as a whole the league avg ORtg went +2.3 from the year before---the Laker offense was +0.1 in '63 compared to '62.
Or how about in '66 (again: that's the year where Baylor misses 15 games, is playing barely over 30 mpg, and taking fewer shots per 100 possessions than he ever had in his career).....why didn't the Laker offense surge forward? In fact, relative to league average, if fell -0.4.

And I've cited before the Lakers offensive jump forward during Baylor's rookie season, too. Overall, I'll allow that Baylor's offensive impact perhaps sees it's maximum potential when he's the ONLY superstar on the team. Perhaps he doesn't co-exist next to another superstar as well as others. But that's not the same as saying Baylor hurt their offense (which appears to be your implication, and which several things I've cited above would imply is a highly questionable stance).

3) Pettit was old and therefore not terribly relevant competition......
Pettit was possibly at his absolute peak in '59, and '61 wasn't far behind imo. He was only 30 years old going into the last year cited (and still one of the hyper-elite players in the league that year).

4) Oscar was young, therefore not terribly relevant competition......
Oscar was that rare breed who was a superstar the second he stepped into the league. '62 was the remarkable triple-double year, and I think arguably his 2nd or 3rd-best overall year. '63 wasn't far behind.

5) Wilt was erratic, therefore not terribly relevant competition......
Perhaps a touch "erratic", though consistent enough to be posting numbers not seen before or since throughout the last four seasons cited.

And then there's Russell......

If you want to stick with the argument that Baylor got so rated in MVP voting because the same "status quo" thinking about Baylor that's been endemic to modern all-time rankings was effecting voters then, well.....that may be a valid argument.
But let's not slander or down-play the competition of the time: the top 5 were clearly pretty stellar in an all-time sense.

If you're skeptical about Baylor, I do think it worth an open-minded read. It's all there: elite numbers and statistical footprint, team success, indicators of impact (contribution to said team success). Seems like more than ample case for #33.

I could be happy lending my support to Kidd, too, if that's the way the wind blows; but for my initial vote I gotta go with my heart and stick with Baylor.

[Moonbeam]

Some simplified WOWY data for Elgin Baylor, including the effect of homecourt advantage as well as playoff games, but not controlling for other players missing games:

Code: Select all

Season Team G With G Without SRS With SRS Without SRS Diff
----------------------------------------------------------
1959   MPL     83       2     -1.09      -8.21      7.12
1960   MPL     79       5     -3.66      -3.64     -0.02
1961   LAL     85       6      0.75      -5.06      5.82
1962   LAL     61      32      4.28      -1.47      5.75
1964   LAL     83       2      0.59       4.70     -4.11
1965   LAL     75      16      2.22      -3.81      6.03
1966   LAL     79      15      2.02       3.79     -1.77
1967   LAL     73      11     -0.34       1.14     -1.48
1968   LAL     92       5      5.41      -4.76     10.17
1969   LAL     94       6      4.38       2.43      1.94
1970   LAL     72      28      2.86       1.87      0.99
1971   LAL      2      92      0.40       3.39     -2.99
1972   LAL      9      88      9.37      11.55     -2.17


[Basketballefan]

My vote Elgin Baylor

I don't see anyone that can be ranked over him at this point. He's probably the goat rebounder from the SF position, and had volume scoring to go with it. His efficiency wasn't that of a West for example but it was decent for his time nonetheless. In consecutive seasons in his prime he averaged 35 20 5, 38 19 5. He also has decent playoff success in his career even though no rings. His spot in this project is far overdue imo.

[Texas Chuck]

Vote: Jason Kidd

Usual reasoning

Teams get way better when he joins(20+wins on avg)
Teams get way worse when he leaves(9+losses on avg and not one still makes the playoffs)

Incredible longevity

Elite rebounding PG
Elite playmkaing PG
Great and versatile defender.

Incredible basketball IQ on both ends.

[Texas Chuck]

little Reggie Miller talk since his name has started popping up.

He has longevity which I value, but much like Paul Pierce this is a guy who was never a top 5 player and rarely even a top 10 player. But I noticed ElGee mentioned that he thought Miller had 14 all-star level seasons which for simplicity's sake I'll call top 30 seasons. And I was curious to see if I agreed with that notion.

Just from a quick glimpse, I can't find 14. 88 as rookie, he clearly isn't and it's hard for me to see that in 89 either. He's very efficient, but not enough productivity nor defense for me. Then if I skip to the end of his career, 02-05 don't appear to be that level either. So the most I can see would be 1990-2001 which is still impressive of course.

The question tho for me is what do I make of such a long run of offensive quality, but without any elite offensive seasons and without a level of defense to really bump him up. It seems like voting him in here is simply saying I think efficiency trumps most everything else, and I think this project has already started poking some holes in that notion.

Good player for a really long time and he does have some big playoff heroics many of which involve the Knicks plus the Spike Lee stuff which romantizes him, but I really just don't see a case for him this high.

[Quotatious]

Top 10 scorer of all-time. For those who like accolades, he's tied with Durant and Iverson for the third place in terms of the most seasons with the highest PPG average in the NBA, with 4. He's also a 5-time All-Pro 1st team, and 4-time 2nd team guy. 35th in career MVP shares (finished top 5 four times, actually a runner-up twice in 1978 and 1979, and third in 1980), top 30 in RealGM RPOY career shares.
Also an efficient scorer (56.4% career TS, over 50% FG and 84% FT, usually at least about 3-4% over the league average in terms of TS% in his prime), he was just as good in the playoffs as he was in the regular season. Good longevity, too (7 consecutive seasons with 25+ PPG, 12 straight with 20+ PPG).

Not much of an all-around player - bad defender, not much of a playmaker (barely higher AST% than TOV%), but a good rebounder for his position (for example, his career regular season TRB% is exactly the same as Kobe's, and his career playoff TRB% is the same as Jordan's), and a really good shotblocker for a SG - second all-time in career BLK%, after Wade (or third after Wade and T-Mac, if you count McGrady as a SG).
Well, as far as his poor defense, he's certainly not the first below average defender on the list...It didn't prevent Magic from being a top 10 player, or Nash and Barkley from being top 25 players. Gervin's efficient volume scoring certainly translated just fine to great team offenses. Here's how high the Spurs ranked offensively during his career:

1975 (ABA) - 1st of 10
1976 (ABA) - 3rd of 9
1977 - 3rd of 22
1978 - 2nd of 22
1979 - 3rd of 22
1980 - 3rd of 22
1981 - 4th of 23
1982 - 3rd of 23
1983 - 2nd of 23
1984 - 3rd of 23
1985 - 8th of 23

So, I think it's safe to say that Gervin was not only an all-time great scorer in the purely technical sense (high PPG and high efficiency), but also an all-time great offensive player, because even though he created very little for others, his scoring was so great that it still translated to a lot of team success offensively.

I'm not voting for him yet, but in the previous thread, I said that I would post some Iceman stuff, and here it is. He seems to be one of the last remaining players who were super-elite at anything (Gervin at scoring/offensive impact, Mutombo and Ben Wallace at defense/defensive impact, Rodman at rebounding/defense...then I would really have to start thinking a lot harder).

[Notanoob]

I really want to vote for Durant here, but I'm going to hold off until I can look into the other candidates some more. His disappointing playoff run is really hard to put out of my mind right now, but he has been truly incredible to watch on offense. Just a magnificent scorer.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #33 - Baylor

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... oel01.html

- 10x all NBA first team
- 4 top 3 and 3 top 5 MVP finishes
- Led league in playoff PPG for 4 straight seasons (2 of which were finals appearances)

A look at baylor's TS% relative to league avg per trex_8063:

Spoiler:

By year TS%: Baylor vs League Avg (diff)

'59: 48.8/45.8 (+3.0)
'60: 48.9/46.3 (+2.6)
'61: 49.8/46.9 (+2.9)
'62: 49.2/47.9 (+1.3)
'63: 51.9/49.3 (+2.6)
'64: 48.7/48.5 (+0.2)
'65: 46.3/47.9 (-1.6)
'66: 45.6/48.7 (-2.0)
'67: 49.1/49.3 (-0.2)
'68: 50.5/49.8 (+0.7)
'69: 50.0/49.1 (+0.9)
'70: 53.7/51.1 (+2.6)
'71: 46.2/50.0 (-3.8) *2 game sample
'72: 48.7/50.4 (-1.7) *9 game sample

5-Year Prime avg ('59-'63) vs league avg: 49.9/47.2 (+2.7)--->above league avg in all five of those years, by more than 2.5% over in 4 of the 5.

Career vs league over same years (not accounting for games played): 49.4/48.6 (+0.8)

Just for some more perspective, I looked at what I consider his 9 year prime (60-68), where he put up 28.5 PPG on 49.1% TS. League avg over that span was 48.2%. It's also worth noting that his production and efficiency went up in the playoffs, averaging 31.5 PPG on 50.8% TS. That's pretty encouraging.

Looking closer at his playoff resume, it's admittedly uneven, but he had some great finals performances over the years:

62 (7 games) - ~40.6 PPG, 18 RPG, 3.7 APG, 43% FG, 83% FT (14 FTAs per game)
Rough 2014 pace adjusted #s - 31 PPG, 13.6 RPG, 2.8 APG, 10.7 FTAs per game

63 (6 games) - ~33.8 PPG, 15 RPG, 4.3 APG, 47% FG, 84% FT (10 FTAs per game)
Rough 2014 pace adjusted #s - 27 PPG, 12 RPG, 3.4 APG, 8 FTAs per game

68 (6 games) - ~26 PPG, 12.5 RPG, 4.3 APG, 46.5% FG, 64% FT (6.5 FTAs per game) *33 yrs old
Rough 2014 pace adjusted #s - 20.8 PPG, 10 RPG, 3.4 APG, 5 FTAs per game

While Baylor doesn't have amazing longevity, he was still a very productive player into his 30s. The "lakers won a championship as soon as baylor retired" shot against him is really overstated. From 62-70, the lakers made the finals 7 times, facing the celtics in 6 of the 7. They could never get over the hump against a team that won 11 titles in 13 years, so any judgment can only be taken so far.

In game 7 of the 69 finals, Wilt was held out the final 6 min in a game decided by 2 points. There was controversy over whether he was injured or if the coach just made a bad decision keeping him out. In the 69-70 season, wilt only played in 12 regular season games, making it back for the playoffs and helping LA back to the finals against the knicks. With limited mobility due to injury, reed was a tough match up for wilt, and they would lose to what's considered one of the most balanced teams in NBA history. In LA's first season without baylor, they failed to return to the finals, losing to kareem's bucks. They finally caught a break in 72, meeting NY again in the finals without reed and winning the title.

If wilt plays the final 6 min in game 7 of 69, maybe the lakers win the title. Then it took reed going down in 72 for west to finally capture his first title. The "lakers won a championship as soon as baylor retired" statement is strongly driven by narrative as far as I'm concerned.

Then we get into baylor's impact on the progression of the game. He laid the foundation for the star athletic wing players that we see today. This isn't a matter of just "being there first", but rather his skill set combined with his high level performance throughout his career. Julius Erving directly credits baylor for the development of his game:

Elgin taking the rebound and dribbling through traffic is something that I begin doing in my feverish daydreams as I wait three months for that cast to be removed. I feel myself leaping – and taking the rebound and then dribbling downcourt and leaping – rising! I see the movement, reenact it in my mind, and I can’t explain it to anyone

http://www.thesportsfanjournal.com/spor ... in-baylor/

Looking at baylor's passing ability is pretty interesting

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsNZMuNl6ko&list=UUFfDF7oCw7sVL7PzEg57E4g[/youtube]

Since we don't have TO data, it's hard to figure how much of the flashy passing was a negative. I'm really impressed with his court vision, though.

Overall look at his career (excuse the hyperbolic title…)

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjNS_oYE92E&list=UUFfDF7oCw7sVL7PzEg57E4g[/youtube]

Looking at payton and kidd vs. baylor, it's a tough comparison because they played fairly different roles on their teams. Both have a longevity edge over baylor, which i've tended to side with throughout this project, but it's never as cut and dry as that. I think baylor has a slight edge as a playoff performer over both of them. We also have to take into consideration that he simply didn't play as many playoff games since there were less teams.

English' consistency as an efficient high volume scorer is no question impressive, but to be perfectly honest, I have to do more research on his career. I tend to think more highly of pure scorers than some others, so he'd certainly be in the running sooner rather than later. As for gervin, honestly I think it's almost a toss up. The main edge i'd give baylor is that i consider him a more complete player. Even in that regard, it may not be by much due to the nature of their situations.

Ultimately, I think baylor is more than deserving here. I'll try to add on to my comparisons with payton, kidd, english and gervin if I have time.

[Warspite]

I see the strategic voting and politics are in full swing so Ill change my vote here.

Vote: Elgin Baylor

The original wing scorer of the NBA. Played in the NBA Finals 8 times. Record of 13 consecutive Finals games of at least 30pts. Just playing in 13 Finals games is impressive but scoring more than 30 in each of them deserves a vote.


English: Are we forgetting that English played in Denver for Doug Moe? English wasnt even a starter in Milwaukee but once traded to Denver in the no defense western conference (to give it a modern name we would call it the D league) playing at the highest pace possible he begins to put up stats just like all his teammates but they never play defense and they never win anything. Looking at 86 The Nuggets win 47 games and reach the 2nd rd with a team that wouldnt make the playoffs in the east in either 86 or 2014. They are #1 in pace 106.7 that yr like most. Where are the stat geeks with those pace adjusted stats? I bet he looks pretty mediocre compared to Melo who is a better defender.

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

Led the Pistons to back to back titles in an era that was tough as nails. Had to deal with peak Bird and Magic in the process. Also won finals mvp, lost only 1 series in his career with HCA. Took a franchise from the bottom to the top as well in the process.

[john248]

little Reggie Miller talk since his name has started popping up.

He has longevity which I value, but much like Paul Pierce this is a guy who was never a top 5 player and rarely even a top 10 player. But I noticed ElGee mentioned that he thought Miller had 14 all-star level seasons which for simplicity's sake I'll call top 30 seasons. And I was curious to see if I agreed with that notion.

Just from a quick glimpse, I can't find 14. 88 as rookie, he clearly isn't and it's hard for me to see that in 89 either. He's very efficient, but not enough productivity nor defense for me. Then if I skip to the end of his career, 02-05 don't appear to be that level either. So the most I can see would be 1990-2001 which is still impressive of course.

The question tho for me is what do I make of such a long run of offensive quality, but without any elite offensive seasons and without a level of defense to really bump him up. It seems like voting him in here is simply saying I think efficiency trumps most everything else, and I think this project has already started poking some holes in that notion.

Good player for a really long time and he does have some big playoff heroics many of which involve the Knicks plus the Spike Lee stuff which romantizes him, but I really just don't see a case for him this high.

I'm considering both wings you mentioned: Miller and Pierce. Pierce is just someone I felt was underrated mainly due to not being particularly flashy and playing on losing teams for a while. Good scorer with range, solid not bad defense, can pass a bit. Like his game in the playoffs and in the half court. Things you already know. The drawback with Miller is he's 1 dimensional, but extremely good at that 1 thing. He can't create for himself or for others. El Gee said he was an outlier which is true...so much so, that I remember reading in Dean Oliver's book that he thought he made a mistake calculating Miller's 129 or 130 ORTG number as a 22-25% Usage player. Those Pacers teams did well in terms of team ORTG relative to league average where 1 of those teams may have been top 10 or 20 all-time. He's just applying pressure in a different way than an on-ball player would. Coming off screens and running around ... even putting the ball on the floor a few times. Offensively,,.the same reasons we like Durant prior to 14, just not as much volume.

[Basketballefan]

Spoiler:

My vote Elgin Baylor

I don't see anyone that can be ranked over him at this point. He's probably the goat rebounder from the SF position, and had volume scoring to go with it. His efficiency wasn't that of a West for example but it was decent for his time nonetheless. In consecutive seasons in his prime he averaged 35 20 5, 38 19 5. He also has decent playoff success in his career even though no rings. His spot in this project is far overdue imo.

Suspended and not eligible until return

I'f I'm able to post that means I'm not suspended lol.

Fair enough -- penbeast0

[Quotatious]

English: Are we forgetting that English played in Denver for Doug Moe? English wasnt even a starter in Milwaukee but once traded to Denver in the no defense western conference (to give it a modern name we would call it the D league) playing at the highest pace possible he begins to put up stats just like all his teammates but they never play defense and they never win anything.

They weren't always bad defensively in English's prime. They had three seasons when they were actually better defensively than offensively, despite still being the fastest team in the league, being coached by Doug Moe. In 1986, they ranked 12th on offense and 9th on defense, in 1988 they were 8th offensively and 6th defensively, and then 13th on O and 8th on D in 1989. They were actually a borderline elite team in 1988, going 54-28 on +3.32 SRS. They just lost to the Mavs in the Western conference semifinals, the Mavs team that was a lot more balanced (Donaldson/Perkins/Aguirre/Blackman/D. Harper is a pretty damn solid starting 5, plus obviously Roy Tarpley off the bench, in fact they took the Lakers to 7 games in the WCF that year).

I guess your memory doesn't serve you as well as you think, if you believe the Nuggets were always bad defensively in the 80s.

[Jim Naismith]

Vote: Elgin Baylor



Elite player for 4 years, great scorer, good rebounder. All-star player 7 other years.

Regular season
1960: 29.6 ppg / 16.4 rpg
1961: 34.8 ppg / 19.8 rpg
1962: 38.3 ppg / 18.6 rpg
1963: 34.0 ppg / 14.3 rpg

Postseason
1960: 33.4 ppg / 14.1 rpg
1961: 38.1 ppg / 15.3 rpg
1962: 38.6 ppg / 17.7 rpg
1963: 32.6 ppg / 13.6 rpg


Playoff seasons with at least 25 PER (min 6 games)
01 Michael Jordan...........9
02 Shaquille O'Neal..........9
03 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar....6
04 Tim Duncan...............6
05 Hakeem Olajuwon........6
06 Wilt Chamberlain.........5
07 LeBron James.............5
08 Charles Barkley...........4
09 Elgin Baylor..............4
10 Dirk Nowitzki.............4

Note that Jordan, LeBron, and Baylor are the only wing players on the above list.

Playoffs Games with 40+ points
Jordan........38
West..........20
Baylor........14
Wilt...........13
Kobe..........13
LeBron........12
Shaq..........12
Hakeem......11

[Texas Chuck]

I'm considering both wings you mentioned: Miller and Pierce. Pierce is just someone I felt was underrated mainly due to not being particularly flashy and playing on losing teams for a while. Good scorer with range, solid not bad defense, can pass a bit. Like his game in the playoffs and in the half court. Things you already know. The drawback with Miller is he's 1 dimensional, but extremely good at that 1 thing. He can't create for himself or for others. El Gee said he was an outlier which is true...so much so, that I remember reading in Dean Oliver's book that he thought he made a mistake calculating Miller's 129 or 130 ORTG number as a 22-25% Usage player. Those Pacers teams did well in terms of team ORTG relative to league average where 1 of those teams may have been top 10 or 20 all-time. He's just applying pressure in a different way than an on-ball player would. Coming off screens and running around ... even putting the ball on the floor a few times. Offensively,,.the same reasons we like Durant prior to 14, just not as much volume.

Hey I like both guys too and think they were really good players for a long time. And I appreciate the uniqueness of Miller's attack. But I want to be sure I don't confuse style with impact. He's clearly distorting defenses beyond his raw numbers. But I'm still struggling to see him providing more career value than several guys still on the list.

Would love to hear more from you(or ElGee or anyone) on Miller. Was always a fan of him and those Pacer teams with Smits and the Davises and Mark Jackson and Detlef.