RealGM Top 100 List #28

[penbeast0]

CENTERS
Artis Gilmore or Dwight Howard are the next greatest 2 way centers but Artis seemed to lose his competitive fire when he came to the NBA and Dwight has not been the same dominant player since Orlando. Alonzo Mourning and Mel Daniels are the other 2 candidates that came to mind, very similar players in many ways; plus probably Dikembe Mutombo is a candidate as the most impactful defender left (and not a complete disaster offensively). The numbers clearly say Artis, but I'm just not as high on him as I used to be.

FORWARDS
Baylor, McHale, Havlicek, Rodman, and even Kevin Durant. Interested to see who starts getting support. Baylor seemed to have efficiency issues even for his day, McHale is super efficient but worked against single teams in the post more than any great post scorer in history and was a mediocre defensive rebounder (though the presence of Larry Bird that gave him so many single teams also stole some rebounds from him). Havlicek seems to have nerves (and lungs) of steel but was even more inefficient through the mid 70s than Baylor. Rodman is the GOAT rebounder, but also a disruptive force and barely above the Ben Wallace level offensively. The more I think about it, the more I like Kevin Durant in this spot.

GUARDS
I see Walt Frazier pretty clearly over Payton, Kidd, or Isiah for his scoring efficiency and superior all around game. The main competition for me is Chris Paul who, like Artis, has spectacular numbers but I'm just not sure that his numbers don't overstate his impact.

So, Artis for peak and longevity, Durant for scoring and dominance, or Frazier for all around play. Based on his finals heroics, the way his teams in NY (of all places) ran like well oiled machines with almost no ego problems, superior durability, and the fact that as a fan, I feared facing him more than I did any of the others, I will cast my vote for:

WALT FRAZIER

[ceiling raiser]

Would be great if ShaqAttack3234 has a chance to stop by for this thread. pen mentioned Dwight in his OP, and I know SA has watched a ton of him.

[Basketballefan]

Would be great if ShaqAttack3234 has a chance to stop by for this thread. pen mentioned Dwight in his OP, and I know SA has watched a ton of him.

Dwight had an amazing peak, and a pretty good career but no way should he be a top 30 player imo.

[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.

[ElGee]

CENTERS
Artis Gilmore or Dwight Howard are the next greatest 2 way centers but Artis seemed to lose his competitive fire when he came to the NBA and Dwight has not been the same dominant player since Orlando. Alonzo Mourning and Mel Daniels are the other 2 candidates that came to mind, very similar players in many ways; plus probably Dikembe Mutombo is a candidate as the most impactful defender left (and not a complete disaster offensively). The numbers clearly say Artis, but I'm just not as high on him as I used to be.

FORWARDS
Baylor, McHale, Havlicek, Rodman, and even Kevin Durant. Interested to see who starts getting support. Baylor seemed to have efficiency issues even for his day, McHale is super efficient but worked against single teams in the post more than any great post scorer in history and was a mediocre defensive rebounder (though the presence of Larry Bird that gave him so many single teams also stole some rebounds from him). Havlicek seems to have nerves (and lungs) of steel but was even more inefficient through the mid 70s than Baylor. Rodman is the GOAT rebounder, but also a disruptive force and barely above the Ben Wallace level offensively. The more I think about it, the more I like Kevin Durant in this spot.

GUARDS
I see Walt Frazier pretty clearly over Payton, Kidd, or Isiah for his scoring efficiency and superior all around game. The main competition for me is Chris Paul who, like Artis, has spectacular numbers but I'm just not sure that his numbers don't overstate his impact.

So, Artis for peak and longevity, Durant for scoring and dominance, or Frazier for all around play. Based on his finals heroics, the way his teams in NY (of all places) ran like well oiled machines with almost no ego problems, superior durability, and the fact that as a fan, I feared facing him more than I did any of the others, I will cast my vote for:

WALT FRAZIER

Interesting to see the direction here. If I did the same thing, I'd have:

BIGS
1. McHale (27th, peak +5)
2. Gilmore (30th, peak +4.5)
3. Mourning (32nd, peak +4.5)

WINGS
1. Barry (25th, peak +5)
2. Miller (28th, peak +3.5)
3. Pierce (33rd, peak +4)

POINT
1. Paul (26th), peak +6)
2. Kidd (31st, peak +4)
3. Frazier (35th, peak +5)

I really like Rodman, but I have him the low 50's. Durant 35th behind McGrady in the wings. Ignorant on Mel Daniels.

I've posted extensively about McHale and Pierce in the past. Barry doesn't need me to post anything for him -- he's made the top-30 on every list I believe and I'm guessing he's close for most people. Kidd has a great advocate in drza and Chuck. That leaves me with Mourning, Miller, Frazier and Paul to briefly opine about. I don't have time for a Miller tome, other than to say:

(a) I STILL question if I underrate his peak (his longevity is astounding)
(b) If you like Dirk for spacing, warping, off-ball, etc. then you should be jazzed about Miller -- I suggest reading the article on Grantland about building an offense around Kyle Korver, and keep in mind Miller is light years ahead of Korver at that game. (And stuff like drawing fouls, and even defense. Actually...)
(c) Investigate Miller's defense -- it's underrated. I believe the last year I sampled, SG's performed more below their average against Miller than Jordan. He was long, annoying and feisty.

Mourning has impressed me more and more over the years. It wasn't enough for huge traction until the WOWY data was really kind to him, AND the RAPM stuff on him was wildly impressive. This gives Mourning a nice big peak, and it's hard to devalue his years in Charlotte looking at the entire body of work. On top of that, while I don't value his offense much, he had a decent mid-range game to space the floor (this wasn't exactly used in the Miami scheme.) I think he's fiercely portable because his defense would be devastating at either big slot alongside almost any big man on almost any team.

Frazier vs. Paul is the easiest comparison. First, ask yourself if you like Walt's peak more and if so why. I see those Knicks teams as extremely multipolar, and the 1969 DeBuscherre trade should drive home the synergy that made them more than the sum of their parts. (That said, as you can see, I like Walt's peak quite a bit.) With a weakened team, Frazier did lead NY to the Finals in 72...but they weren't exactly a strong team out of a strong conference. Then, of course, Frazier has massive longevity issues. Thus, up against Paul -- a notoriously feisty and strong defender himself, along with an offensive quarterback -- it's easy to see how Paul's longevity (08-09, 11-14 at MVP level) matches up with Frazier's 69-75 run. Thus, the crux of the comparison is their peaks -- if you value Frazier's peak, it makes sense to value him over Paul, otherwise...

And peak to peak -- I probably won't have time to return to that discussion. But I imagine people think Frazier is hugely better defender. I certainly do. But consider whether Paul bridges that gap and then some with his offensive game (I think he does). I do prefer Nash to Paul, but from the on-ball club, I think Nash, LeBron and Paul are the best we've seen in this generation at playing floor general. I actually think Paul is a player worth being undressed in this project -- he's been getting top-5 votes in the RPOY since 2008 (save 2010)...is there a reason he shouldn't be a strong MVP candidate every year? Said another way, does he have one of the best sustained primes ever without an MVP?

[lorak]

From previous thread:

I didn't count Owly as a vote or Frazier would have won since I had "SUDDEN DEATH" posted and was checking in every 20 minutes or so.

Why you didn't count Owly's vote? He voted for Walt, then Nerigo too, so Frazier should have won, especially considering that there was no call about sudden death and bout 3 hours difference between Nerigo's and PCProductions votes.

[penbeast0]

From previous thread:

I didn't count Owly as a vote or Frazier would have won since I had "SUDDEN DEATH" posted and was checking in every 20 minutes or so.

Why you didn't count Owly's vote? He voted for Walt, then Nerigo too, so Frazier should have won, especially considering that there was no call about sudden death and bout 3 hours difference between Nerigo's and PCProductions votes.

If he actually voted, I missed it. I saw a post where he said that if he had to choose between the two he would choose Frazier but he didn't feel comfortable making it a firm vote . . . and then a post on an unrelated topic. So, I didn't count it (and I have been a Frazier supporter so I would have loved to).

[Quotatious]

If he actually voted, I missed it. I saw a post where he said that if he had to choose between the two he would choose Frazier but he didn't feel comfortable making it a firm vote . . . and then a post on an unrelated topic. So, I didn't count it (and I have been a Frazier supporter so I would have loved to).

Lorak is right, both Narigo and Owly voted for Frazier, so it should've been tied at 15 (drza and PCProductions voted for Pippen, Owly and Narigo for Frazier, since my last vote count, when they were tied at 13).

Should we go back and handle the #27 thread like it should be?


Anyway, if you decide that Pippen still wins the #27 thread (it'd leave a bad taste in my mouth, a bit, not because I think he isn't deserving - he sure is, but because the way he won was unfair), I'm obviously voting for Frazier here.

[drza]

If he actually voted, I missed it. I saw a post where he said that if he had to choose between the two he would choose Frazier but he didn't feel comfortable making it a firm vote . . . and then a post on an unrelated topic. So, I didn't count it (and I have been a Frazier supporter so I would have loved to).

Lorak is right, both Narigo and Owly voted for Frazier, so it should've been tied at 15 (drza and PCProductions voted for Pippen, Owly and Narigo for Frazier, since my last vote count, when they were tied at 13).

Should we go back and handle the #27 thread like it should be?


Anyway, if you decide that Pippen still wins the #27 thread (it'd leave a bad taste in my mouth, a bit, not because I think he isn't deserving - he sure is, but because the way he won was unfair), I'm obviously voting for Frazier here.

Can you point out where Owly actually voted for Frazier? Because in post 107 you point out that Owly hasn't voted yet, then in post 113 Owly says that he's leaning Frazier but not confident enough to vote. Then, as far as I can tell, Owly never mentions a vote again. Did I miss his actual vote?

It just seems that if something Penbeast decided is going to leave a bad taste in your mouth, you should be able to point directly to what he did that was wrong. IMO, strong language like that about something where the commish obviously did his best to be fair (even ruling against his own interest) has the potential to derail what's otherwise been really good discussion.

[Quotatious]

Can you point out where Owly actually voted for Frazier? Because in post 107 you point out that Owly hasn't voted yet, then in post 113 Owly says that he's leaning Frazier but not confident enough to vote. Then, as far as I can tell, Owly never mentions a vote again. Did I miss his actual vote?

Well, honestly I'm not sure anymore - after your vote for Pippen (post #111), Owly says "But I'm not sure I'm confident enough to vote it. Plus the tie being broken I don't particularly want to re-tie it at this point. I'd go Frazier if it were still tied." (post #113), then Narigo votes for Frazier (#114), which makes it a tie again, at 14, and Jim Naismith points out that "That seems to be the case right now.", quoting Owly's post where Owly says that he would for Frazier if we were still tied, so technically, we were tied 14-14, at that point, and Owly's vote would make it 15-14 for Frazier, but Owly didn't officially confirm his vote (the question is - had he taken notice of your vote for Pippen, before he said that he would vote for Frazier to avoid a tie?). Then obviously PCProductions voted for Pippen, which made it a tie, again (if I understand it correctly...).

So, it's extremely complicated. I suppose that Owly doesn't mind Pippen winning it though, as the project is really more about discussion and learning more about the history of the game, more than just about the rankings.

It just seems that if something Penbeast decided is going to leave a bad taste in your mouth, you should be able to point directly to what he did that was wrong. IMO, strong language like that about something where the commish obviously did his best to be fair (even ruling against his own interest) has the potential to derail what's otherwise been really good discussion.

I'm sorry, I admit the language I used was too strong, and I'm obviously not trying to say that Penbeast did that intentionally, I know he's trying his best to run this thing as well as possible. I apologize.

[Doctor MJ]

Just in general, having been in beast's position before: He's asking for people to be really dang clear about when they are voting for a reason - because it's so easy to miss. If a person's vote is simply embedded in a sentence unbolded, and it gets missed, that's the price you pay.

And then of course, anything that's starts with a contingency "if...then i would vote for..." has already been rejected by beast. He's not cataloging such contingencies. If the said event that would lead to your vote has transpired, it's up to you to go back and edit it.

[FJS]

I'm going here with Frazier.
Elite defense, good offense, nice distributor.
Key part of champions knicks.
I had a few favs players i would choose but i have to be honest and vote clyde.

[ceiling raiser]

lorak & Q - I understand where you're coming from, but Owly didn't actually cast a vote (just left a conditional). As Doc noted, pen was just being consistent with how votes have been counted throughout the project. As you said of course, it's all about the conversation. Frazier-Pippen or Pippen-Frazier makes no difference IMO, and I'm happy we had some quality discussion about the two guys last thread (since I do think they're pretty comparable). Anyhow, I don't want to step on any toes (apologies if I'm coming off that way), just my take.

On topic...how strong a case does Kidd have here? There have been some good posts about him in the past couple of threads, maybe he'll pick up some momentum as a legitimate candidate this time around?

[Texas Chuck]

Leaning strongly to Hondo again.

Not much of a factor in the Finals as rookie in 63, but then in the Finals for his career:

18/4/4 in 28 mpg in 64
18/6/2 in 30 mpg in 65
Then finally starts getting full-time minutes
23/10/4 in 66
27/9/7 in 68
28/11/4 in 69
26/8/5 in 74 FMVP
16/6/5 in 76

Missed 33 games in 16 seasons

Career 20/6/5 guy upped to 22/7/5 over 172 playoff games

Peak years was a 28/8/8 guy while being one of the top defenders in the league

Has a high peak, has a long prime, has great longevity, has team success, is a complete player. Seems fitting imo to put him in next to Pippen.

[ceiling raiser]

BTW here's a great quote on Frazier's defense that ThaRegul8r shared with me (thanks again):

By the end of my second season I had a reputation not only as a good defensive player but as an accomplished thief in the NBA – a pickpocket gone straight, a guy who they said could snatch the hubcaps off a speeding automobile. My specialities, intercepting passes and poking away the ball from opponents as they dribbled, were turning games around. Nothing shatters a team’s morale faster than a steal, especially when that team is only a point behind and a basket could give it the lead. [p. 172] That hurts. Stealing a ball and making a pass that leads to a basket are the parts of basketball I love most.

[…]

Basically there are three situations where I can steal: (1) when the man I’m guarding is dribbling the ball between him and me; (2) when the other guard throws a pass to my man; and (3) when an opponent dribbles around a pick set by my man.

Anticipation and stance are two keys. I keep my weight evenly distributed on the balls of my feet (I don’t want to get caught standing flat-footed) similar to a boxer, a tennis player or a baseball batter. My knees are slightly bent so I can quickly cut in any direction. A defensive man shouldn’t cross his legs unless he has to turn and hightail it downcourt after a guy who has breezed past him. If my right leg is crossed in front of my left and Lennie Wilkens suddenly darts to my right, he’s going to have a nice free shot at the hoop while I’m still standing there twisted like a pretzel.

I study our opponents, watching to see if they make the long or the short pass, if they pass off the dribble or have to take the ball in both hands before passing, if they dribble the ball fast or slow (I want to learn the cadence so I can flick my hand in there at just the right [p. 173] time). I try to anticipate my opponent’s moves, wait for him to be careless, then make my move.

It’s bad to react too fast. It’s usually on a delayed motion that you intercept a guard-to-guard pass, like playing possum on a guy. You don’t look like you’re on him, but you really are. If I’m guarding, say, Walt Hazzard of Atlanta, and the other guard, Lou Hudson, has the ball, I’ll stand back a ways. I won’t be all over Walt or standing in the passing lane between him and Hudson. I’ll try to suck Hudson in. With my peripheral vision, I can look straight at Hazzard but also see what’s going on off to the side with Hudson. So when he passes, all I need is a step or two and I’m in the passing lane where I can grab the ball or deflect it.

Most of the time I can see it in a guy’s eyes, like maybe he’s cast a quick glance this way. Or he’ll dribble down and call a number for a play and maybe I’ve seen the play before. Anyway I have a feeling the ball is coming in my direction, so I’ll drop back, and at the very moment he lets it go I’ll step up. Another situation is when the Knicks are double-teaming somebody in a corner and there’s a free man not far from me. If the free man doesn’t go to meet the pass (which the pass receiver should always do), a lot of times I can get in there and nab the ball first.

When my opponent tries to dribble the ball without protecting it with his body, I can often knock it away, without fouling him, with a quick horizontal jab. Sometimes the dribbler will try a quick switch from one hand to the other right in front of you, a cross-dribble. It’s dangerous against a man with quick hands. The thing I try to remember is not to lunge for the ball. If I miss [p. 174] it I’ll be out of position. The idea is to slap it away, then go for it.

Sometimes I can knock the ball away by reaching around from behind. It’s another variation on the possum game. I let a guy go past and if he keeps dribbling with the same hand, it’s easy to jab it away. All I’m really letting him get is a slight angle. Sometimes I can use it when a guy beats me, but my chances of fouling are greater because I really have to lunge.

Most of my steals, though, happen when opponents come around picks or screens. Say my man, Hazzard, moves to the top of the key without the ball to set a pick for the dribbler, Hudson. Hudson brngs the Knicks’ other guard in to Hazzard (if he can), and if I don’t leave Hazzard and take him, maybe he’s clear for a shot. Well, sometimes I’m just lying in wait. I don’t dart straight out from behind Hazzard, I kind of belly around in a semicircle so Hudson and I don’t crash into each other, and I hope I can scoop the ball away just as he puts it down on the dribble, the instant it leaves his hand. He can’t take the ball back because he’s committed himself. He can’t turn, he can’t stop. If he does, it’s carrying the ball.

If it works, the dribbler is left there like a guy whose Yo-Yo string just broke. If it doesn’t work, the Knicks are left with four guys to guard five and I have to scramble back. Stealing is a calculated risk. You can look foolish.

Coaches and managers in professional sports are ingenious. When some guy realized that Ted Williams never hit to left field, he had his players go into the Williams Shift, with almost every defensive man on the [p. 175] right side of second base. It frustrated Williams, at least for a while. In the NBA last season they came up with the Frazier Shift.

Most of the teams got hip in that they split up their guards, keeping them wide apart, seldom or never crossing them. They tried to isolate me, keep me a safe distance from the ball. Like the guard I was on might take me all the way under the basket, to the corners, down the sides, up the aisle to the men’s room ― anywhere away from that ball. L.A. did it, and Atlanta and Milwaukee. Boston didn’t do it because I played John Havlicek and he handled the ball a lot. And teams used very few guard-to-guard passes. Chances of double-teaming were dim because the guard with the ball either dribbled my way (without coming over a pick) or passed into the forwards or the center.

The most extreme Frazier Shift was put on by Detroit — I guess it was the idea of the Pistons’ coach, Bill van Breda Kolff. My man was Howard Komives and he would go stand in a corner, completely out of their offense! And there was this stupid NBA rule that the defensive man had to be within six feet of the offensive man. (The officials should have been carrying tape measures in addition to whistles.) I couldn’t leave Komives because he was always yelling to the refs, “Who’s Frazier guarding?” He really made a mockery of things, running back and forth across the lane, making me trail him here and trail him there. Not too many guys would be willing to play that way, just staying out of the offense, but I guess since he was traded he figured he owed the Knicks something.

What could the Knicks do about it? For one thing, [p. 176] these tactics were taking away from the other team’s offense. Instead of penetrating, they were going around the perimeter. And Red more and more made sure that I picked up their tough man, so they couldn’t afford to isolate him. Like when we played Detroit I would play Jimmy Walker rather than Komives. If they wanted to isolate Walker, good, that was taking away from their offense. But basically teams still stayed spread out against New York more than against anybody else.

Eventually that six-foot-rule was thrown out. It was put in originally to keep anybody from using a zone defense, which would slow up the pro game. The way the zone-defense rule reads now, it’s only illegal if the center sets up housekeeping in the three-second lane. Lew Alcindor, for instance, has to guard somebody and can’t stand under the hoop batting away shots like King Kong swatting airplaces. The referees will give him a warning. The next time it’s a tech. I’d like to thinkit was the Komives business that forced the rule change, but it was more likely the Lakers’ clever use of Jerry West. L. A. Coach Joe Mullaney would have all his guys clear out one side, taking the defensive men with them, of course, and leaving West all alone, one-on-one with his defender. A lot of the other coaches started complaining and the league sent out a notice about the rule change. Red went over it with us.

Obviously, there is much more to defense than trying to swipe the ball. I try to make the man I’m guarding aware that I’m there, make him uncomfortable to the extent that he isn’t just thinking about making a basket. I don’t want him to come down and look at the basket all the time or casually look over the possibili- [p. 177] ties of where to pass. First of all he has got to think about protecting the ball from me. When he’s dribbling the ball in front of him, it’s easier for him to take the jumper, it’s easier for him to maneuver. I try to make him protect the dribble by turning his back and keeping his body between me and the ball. If he turns his back and is within good shooting range, then I’ll move up tight because he could leap, turn in the air and shoot, but other than that I’ll stay away from him.

Here is where my ideas differ. In the pros, players lean on each other, elbow more and play with one hand constantly pushing, pushing the other guys. The offensive man has to get used to shooting with an extra ten pounds on him. When I’m on offense the shoving doesn’t really bother me, but I think it takes a lot out of the defensive man. It’s what is called moving your hands rather than your feet. I try to keep the dribbler in suspense about where I am. I don’t crowd him and this way he was to keep feeling for me, looking to see where I’m lurking. If he knows where I am it’s easy for him to make a move one way or the other. If a guy has his back to the basket dribbling out the top of the key, why get all over him and wear yourself out? I’ll stay off him until he’s within shooting range and then I’ll tighten up.

Some players need contact when they’re moving with the ball. When I get caught in a switch and have to guard Elgn Baylor, I try to avoid making contact because he needs it, he wants it when he’s barreling across the key (almost always with his right hand — he doesn’t like to go left). I just stand off him and he never shoots. He’ll move in to me and I just keep back- [p. 178] ing off him. Chet Walker is the same way, and Billy Cunningham of the 76ers. Willis helps these guys out a lot when they come in on a drive. He’ll come out on them and jostle and that’s all they want. If he would just let them go, they would be suspended in the air waiting for the other shoe to drop, waiting to be whacked, not knowing what to do until they got hit and could react with the appropriate twist. My idea is to be there with my hand up, but don’t give them that shove they’re waiting for. It’s hard for defensive men to think that way.

The result of this phantom defense, if it’s done right, is that the offensive man seldom knows for sure where you are. It psychs him.

(Walt Frazier and Joe Jares, Clyde [New York: Rutledge Books, 1970], pp. 171-78)

Reminds me a lot of a quote by Russell from "Go Up For Glory":

Spoiler:

And you must play the best kind of basketball possible.

In my case that was defense. Auerbach told me at the start not to think about shooting. “Your game is to get me the ball. You get the ball and throw it up there for the shooters. We’ll count rebounds as baskets for you.”

So we started counting rebounds. We drew great crowds and we were rolling and everywhere we went the gauntlet was cast down and challenge was made. I was pushed. I pushed back. I was shoved. I shoved back. I started a little book on players, a mental thing. Who has to shoot right-handed? Who is only a shooter and a ball-hog and won’t pass? Can I psych them?

The Celtics never really have had any particularly different plays. We work off a basic pattern of about seven which, with options, can amount to about thirty. For codes we sometimes use fingers or just a stray word as we pass a man by. If we saw that Cousy was loose, I might say “New York” to him, or he might say it to me and we would know that this would be a play where he was to cut from his man and move to the left for an open shot from the flank.

We began to learn to work together and we began to learn more and more about defense.

Auerbach was an innovator. He would let the athletes run their own plays. As time went on other teams tried time and again to set up different patterns to break up the threat off the boards. They would almost always overplay on me, thus shaking someone else loose and we would exploit it time and again.

At that same time, there was the constant recurrent battling with the old pros. The league has changed a lot since. But in those days you either fought, or they ran you right out of the league. I was not exactly passive. I gave as good as I got.

I had one big edge going—the blocked shot.

To this moment, I could not teach anyone the practical application of the blocked shot. It must first be understood that according to the old school this is fundamentally poor defense. Auerbach recognized it for what it was. Properly applied it was as much psychological as actual.

You must learn just when a player is going to shoot; what type of shot he has, and where you have to be to block it. You have to know exactly where you are on the floor at all times. And you have to develop by repetition until it becomes almost second nature. I call it “canned thinking.” It is right there when I want it.

Let’s face it. You can only block a shot ten or twenty percent of the time. I don’t know at what given moment that percentage will come true. Neither does the shooter.

A sixth sense is developed for it and a quick move at the same time knowing just what the habits of the opponent are. Your man develops these habits over the years and so you have to learn to make them do what you want them to do; make them switch from their accustomed habit into something new where they are instinctively uncomfortable. If you can do that, then you have them halfway beaten. If the guy likes to go left, then make him go right. If he likes the foul line shot, then make him go two feet further back.

To categorize it, look at defense on this basis:

(1) Learn the other man’s habits. Then make him go exactly opposite to what he likes to do.

(2) When he gets to a position where he is away from his best shot, even if it’s only a foot, make him commit himself and shoot and count on the law of averages being on your side.

(3) If you’re successful, just smile at him as though you can do it every time.

I believe this is called “applied psychology”…or practical psychology.

Now, if there are three guys or two coming at you on a fast break, you must work on the same basic system.

The first thing, make them slow up and stop. The second is make them throw a bad, hurried pass. The third is make them commit on a bad shot. The fourth is—block the ball.

If you can ever find anyone who can do all that with regularity, quit work and start your own basketball team.

Seriously, let’s say that is happening and the middle man has the ball. Now, I want the right hand man to take the shot, because I know he’s a little out of position. So I move towards the player with the ball and give him enough fake motion to make him stop and look and at the same time I move towards the left so that he thinks the man on the right is free. Then as soon as he is committed I am already turning and moving to the man on the right to hurry his shot and am in position to block it. They are committed. If nothing worse, I get the rebound and I turn back again to throw the ball up court.

For years, the Celtics used the fast break, but to me the best team we ever had was in 1964-65, when we were so strong on defense. Let’s face it. We are all former All-Americans in the NBA. The emphasis has been on scoring throughout our careers. But, if I score twelve points and my man who normally averages, scores eighteen, then I am giving away six points and I am a failure. That is how I look at it and it’s also how the Celtics, under the coaching of Auerbach, have always looked at it.

Defense must be learned over many years. You can never play in the NBA unless you learn it. Many is the kid who came in and left after training camp because he just couldn’t comprehend how to do it.

Things like learning never to cross your legs when running—a very natural tendency—but instead to glide like a crab. Or taking abnormal steps and running backwards. And learning how to guard your man and keep him from the ball, or else so harried that he can’t do anything with it.

Rebounding is different. Here, in the snake pit, you must have position. Three-quarters of all rebounds are taken below the rim, so you have to learn the precise moment to go for the ball. After all, in a league of giants, anyone can go above the rim.

You have to learn how to give a second effort as well. Many rebounds are caught after six or seven tries. I have always practiced—fortunately, I don’t need it any more—jumping continually at the backboard until I could go up to the rim thirty-five times without stopping. If you build your timing and your lefts like that over the years you have an edge.

It takes strong legs and strong hands, because you have to fight over the ball. I still remember the time when one of our strongest men, Gene Conley, decided to fight Chamberlain for the ball. He grabbed it and hung on and chamberlain just lifted him and the ball right up towards the rim.

The superstars—the Baylors, Pettits, Robertsons, Wests—will conversely rep trying to make you do what they want. That is where the concentration comes in on defense. If they can get you into their position you are dead. They’ll kill you ever time. So, you must stay between the man and the ball and keep him from getting it. If he does get it, you must harass him and worry him so that he will get rid of it in a hurry and be out of position.

There are other elements. Sometimes, I will let a man get away with some thing in two or three games. Then, I’ll just move in on him.

There he is fat-catting, figuring that he has me beat. He figures he’s the guy that’s going to run Russell out of the league. Nobody runs me out, baby. I’ll leave when I get good and ready, and I just move in and give him a “Wilson-burger” which is the name we developed for stuffing a ball back down their throat.

Like Russ, Frazier seemed to have a tremendous ability to anticipate opponents' moves/understand their tendencies (something else they have in common...in an updated edition of Auerbach's book: http://www.amazon.com/Basketball-Player ... 0671801406 he added sections about how to block and alter shots like Russ, AND how to steal the ball and play pressure D like Frazier). Definitely seems like a game-changer on the defensive end, and I don't have much of a question that he'd still be extremely effective on that end in today's game (though if someone watching the tape sees something that doesn't translate, I'm definitely open to changing my mind).

I'm again voting for Frazier here. I think he was an impact defender (which is rare from your primary ball-handler), like Scottie, and had the ability to score in multiple ways (Samurai noted that he was capable of shooting, driving, or posting up).

One thing I'd like to hear more about is Frazier's range on his jumper. Apologies if it was discussed last thread, but do we have reason to believe he'd be able to hit the three today?

[ronnymac2]

I'll ask again since revealing more information about Havlicek may be relevant in this thread (Thanks to Owly for his response in the previous thread):

How was his defense against Dr. J in the 1977 Eastern Conference Finals?

Bob Ryan wrote:

"(Havlicek's) defensive job on a much younger and friskier Julius Erving in the 1977 Eastern Conference Finals against Philadelphia was nothing short of spellbinding."

Is that Ryan just advocating for a Celtic legend, or did older Hondo slow down a Julius Erving one year removed from arguably the GOAT playoff performance in professional basketball history?

[Owly]

To clarify, had the tie still been in place I was of a mind to vote Frazier. But at the time of my posting it wasn't. I put that I would have voted Frazier if it were tied but didn't want to deadlock it. It was sufficiently close in my head that I didn't make a clear cut vote when I had a brief window to do so, because I wasn't happy I'd give reasoning that I (or others) would be fully happy with, I didn't. To a degree that was a time based thing (not because of the sudden-death nature just because I'd want have, and have shown, it was fully thought through, had just been doing a semi-long post and I was time limited anyway at home) but also that it was close enough to give me pause (metrics weren't decisive, Pippen's additional defensive versatility is worth something, plus the extra role-player years). I would have been fine with my "I'd break a tie" thing being counted, but I'm fine with it not (I certainly understand why you wouldn't want a precedent of counting incomplete or qualitifed votes). As many have said it's more about the conversation than the rankings. And given we know PCProductions favours Pippen, even if we thought of it as a Frazier vote being uncounted (don't), we know that it would only tie it up in terms board preferences. Within era the ranking makes sense too as I wouldn't want Ewing miles ahead of Pippen. Sorry for any confusion.

My present leaning is Paul, but I'll listen to the discussion.

[penbeast0]

I'll ask again since revealing more information about Havlicek may be relevant in this thread (Thanks to Owly for his response in the previous thread):

How was his defense against Dr. J in the 1977 Eastern Conference Finals?

Bob Ryan wrote:

"(Havlicek's) defensive job on a much younger and friskier Julius Erving in the 1977 Eastern Conference Finals against Philadelphia was nothing short of spellbinding."

Is that Ryan just advocating for a Celtic legend, or did older Hondo slow down a Julius Erving one year removed from arguably the GOAT playoff performance in professional basketball history?

About Havlicek too; there is a famous incident in which Coach Bill Russell put Wayne Embry into the game to cover Wilt because he said that Boston had no one that could handle Chet Walker so he switched himself onto Chet. Dipper13 posted that and I've wondered ever since whether that was something of an indictment of Havlicek as a defensive stopper or just an isolated day when Walker got red-hot and Russell wanted to give him a more unique defensive look than Havlicek or Sanders, both of whom had strong defensive reps.

[ronnymac2]

I'm going to bring up Alex English to test the waters. English is the leading scorer of the 1980s, so his longevity and career value seem to be pretty high in his own era.

English and the 1982 Denver Nuggets were a record-breaking team: They were the first team — along with the Magic/KAJ-led Los Angeles Lakers of the same year — to break the 110 ORTG barrier in NBA history. They put up a 114.3 ORTG, +4.1 better than second-place Los Angeles, and +7.4 better than league average. They led the league in eFG%, FT/FGA, pace and foul draw rate. They were also woeful defensively, being last in the league.

English played over 3,000 minutes for the team and led Denver in scoring (25.4) and assists (5.3). The only starter with a comparable USG% was Dan Issel, who played 30.5 minutes per game to English's 36.8, and English had much greater playmaking responsibility. So it appears English was the central cog in an historic offense.

It's fair to temper your excitement about Denver's offensive efficiency considering it seems Doug Moe's strategy was to use cheat lineups and abandon the defensive glass (Denver was the worst defensive rebounding team in the NBA) in order to push the pace. But the raw number as well as the dominance relative to the league average, and even dominance relative to a Magic/KAJ-led offense, shouldn't be thrown away in my opinion.

In 1983, he won the scoring title at 28.3 points per game and played for the 3rd-best offense in the league.

In 1985, he could be argued as top-5 in the league. 27.9/5.7/4.2 and shot 51.5% from the field for the fifth-best offense in the league and 7th-best team by SRS (2.05). He upped his play in the postseason, averaging 30.2 points, 6.6 rebounds, 4.5 assists, 2.1 turnovers, 53.6%/89% shooting, 60.1%TS, and 26.8 USG% with a 125 individual ORTG. He outplayed George Gervin in the first round and Adrian Dantley in the second (should be noted that Utah was the best defensive team in the league in 1985, but Mark Eaton did not play in the series). He dropped 30/7/6 on over 63%TS shooting against Utah. Then they faced a GOAT team, the 1985 Lakers, and got pounded in 5 games, but English averaged 30/6/4 in 4 games (didn't play one game), and in Denver's lone victory, English dropped 40/10/6 with 1 turnover and (17/31 FG, 6/8 FT).

English obviously belongs beneath Julius Erving and Larry Bird, but after that, is there any SF of this golden era of SFs you'd take over English for their careers? He's not a ball-stopper like Adrian Dantley. He's got way more longevity than Bernard King. He's got an efficiency, playmaking, and defensive-rep advantage over Dominique Wilkins. He's got the efficiency and longevity over Mark Aguirre.

[Jim Naismith]

Vote: Elgin Baylor

Elite player for 4 years, great scorer, good rebounder.

All-star player 7 other years.

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.