Peaks Project #33

[trex_8063]

RealGM Greatest Player Peaks of All-Time List
1. Michael Jordan ('91---unanimous)
2. Shaquille O'Neal ('00---unanimous)
3. Lebron James ('13---non-unanimous ('09, '12))
4. Wilt Chamberlain ('67---non-unanimous ('64))
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar ('77---non-unanimous ('71, '72))
6. Hakeem Olajuwon ('94---non-unanimous ('93))
7. Tim Duncan ('03---non-unanimous ('02))
8. Kevin Garnett ('04---unanimous)
9. Bill Russell ('65---non-unanimous ('62, '64))
10. Magic Johnson ('87---unanimous)
11. Larry Bird ('86---non-unanimous ('87, '88))
12. David Robinson ('95---non-unanimous ('94, '96))
13. Bill Walton ('77---unanimous)
14. Julius Erving ('76---unanimous)
15. Oscar Robertson ('64---non-unanimous ('63))
16. Dwyane Wade ('09---non-unanimous ('06, '10))
17. Stephen Curry ('15---unanimous)
18. Dirk Nowitzki ('11---non-unanimous ('06, '09))
19. Jerry West ('66---non-unanimous ('68, '69))
20. Kevin Durant ('14---unanimous)
21. Patrick Ewing ('90---unanimous)
22. Tracy McGrady ('03---unanimous)
23. Kobe Bryant ('08---non-unanimous ('06, '09))
24. Charles Barkley ('90---non-unanimous ('93))
25. Moses Malone ('83---unanimous)
26. Chris Paul ('08---non-unanimous ('15))
27. Karl Malone ('97---non-unanimous ('92/'95/'98))
28. Steve Nash ('07---non-unanimous ('05))
29. Anthony Davis ('15---unanimous)
30. Dwight Howard ('11---non-unanimous ('09))
31. Alonzo Mourning ('00---unanimous)
32. Walt Frazier (year to be determined)
33. ?????

Target stop time for this one will be Sunday morning.
Come back to me y'all....

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Clyde Frazier]

Happy to be moving on past frazier, even if it was with a weak voter turnout. I hope we still continue the project, though...

Will be going with Gilmore and Pettit for my next 2 ballots. Undecided on my third. Thoughts on Pettit's peak year? I went with 63, but not hanging on that by any means. My short writeup on him:

63 (?) Pettit

Always underrated when discussing the top 10 PFs of all time due to the era he played in. As we know, he revolutionized the position while dominating the league at the same time. Not too sure about his peak, but i'll go with 63 for now.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/STL/1963.html

Solid all around RS + PS along with well above average relative efficiency. Also showed that he wasn't just a star of the 50s by continuing to produce into the 60s. Will look closer at per 100 stats soon.

[trex_8063]

Will tentatively put out my top three ballots yet again (feeling like a broken record at this point)....

1st ballot: Elgin Baylor '61
To some degree the volume vs. efficiency considerations of Baylor (among others from this era) should be viewed with a bit of leniency, imo, as efficiency and "finding a good shot" just wasn't on anyone's radar in the early 1960's. Any way you slice it, though, Baylor was an excellent (if not quite elite) scorer, and underrated playmaker for the SF position, as well as a GOAT-level rebounder for his position, and likely a better defender than some other perimeter players on the table presently (e.g. Nash, Harden).

Baylor '61 rs per 100 possession estimates: 31.1 pts, 17.75 reb, 4.55 ast @ +2.91% rTS. 28.2 PER, .227 WS/48 in 42.9 mpg
Baylor '61 playoff per 100 possession estimates: 32.5 pts, 13.1 reb, 3.9 ast @ +6.89% rTS (53.83% TS, which would be a little above average even by today's standards). 28.0 PER, .248 WS/48 in 45.0 mpg

Some additional stuff about prime Baylor in general (copied from prior thread):

Spoiler:

Here's some more info regarding Baylor's impact, draw your own conclusions.....

In '58 (before Baylor), the Lakers were 19-53 (.264) with an SRS of -5.78.

In '59 they obtain rookie Elgin Baylor (and he's the only relevant transaction that occurred), and improve to 33-39 (.458) and -1.42 SRS (improvement of 14 wins and +4.36 SRS). They would also make it to the finals by first defeating a -1.36 SRS Detroit team 2-1, and then defeating the +2.89 SRS defending champ St. Louis Hawks 4-2.
wrt to how that improvement was managed......
Yeah, we always tend to think of Baylor as primarily an offensive player; but there's some to suggest he had a significant impact defensively, too. His reputation is mostly as a "decent" (but not great) defender, though I wonder if perhaps his prowess on the glass reduced a lot of easy second-chance opportunities for opponents (he was 3rd in the league in rebounds right off the bat in his rookie season).
Because in terms of rORTG, the Lakers in '58 (before Baylor) were -0.8 (ranked 6th of 8), and in rDRTG were +4.5 (8th of 8, and +2.5 to the 7th place team!). In '59, their rORTG improves to +0.6 (a jump of 1.4, up to 4th of 8); but rDRTG improves to +1.7 (a big jump of 2.8, from a distant last place to 6th of 8).
The team is 33-37 (.471) with him, 0-2 without him.


In '60, an aging Vern Mikkelsen has retired, aging Larry Foust misses some games and is playing a reduced role, too. Meanwhile the offensive primacy of the wildly inefficient (even for the era) Hot Rod Hundley increases, as well as a marginally increase in role for the even worse Slick Leonard (ridiculously bad 37.3% TS.....that's even -9% relative to league avg; similar to someone shooting 44% TS or so today; you'd have to be an elite defender to get ANY playing time at all today, and no way would you be getting 28+ mpg and be 6th on the team in FGA/g.....goes to show how efficiency just wasn't on the radar yet). And they also obtained rookie Rudy LaRusso (who would eventually become a pretty good player, but is a fairly inefficient scorer in his rookie season). They also obtained the somewhat inefficient Frank Selvy as well as an aging 6'11" Ray Felix in mid-season trades.
Anyway, their rORTG falls to -3.4 (8th of 8), though their defense continues to improve to +0.1 rDRTG (4th of 8), as they finish 25-50 (-4.14 SRS).
The team is 23-47 (.329) with him, 2-3 (.400) without him.


In '61, we have the arrival of rookie Jerry West. He's not yet the player he would become, but nonetheless is the clear 2nd-best behind Baylor. This affords them to reduce the role of Hundley and Leonard in the backcourt. rORTG improves to -1.3 (7th of 8), rDRTG continues to improve to -1.2 (4th of 8).
The team is 34-39 (.466) with him, 2-4 (.333) without him.


In '62, West is now a legit superstar, too. Slick Leonard is gone, and Hundley's role is further diminished; LaRusso continues to improve and get more efficient. Non-surprisingly, the team rORTG improves to +1.4 (3rd of 9). Critics might argue Baylor missing games contributed to this improvement in rORTG, but I'm more inclined to think it's the additive effects of a) the improvements in West and LaRusso, b) the loss of Leonard, and c) the reduced role of Hundley; especially in light of the following.......
Baylor misses 32 games, not due to injury, but rather to military service: he's only able to play if he can get a weekend pass to quickly travel to the game, play, and then come back. So he likely barely gets to practice, and yet still establishes himself among the league's elite---->Per 100 possession estimates: 33.6 pts, 16.3 reb, 4.1 ast @ +1.34% rTS in a whopping 44.4 mpg.
The team is 37-11 (.771) with him, 17-15 (.531) without him. Some of his missed games may have overlapped with West's missed games, but the thing is: West only missed 5 games total that year. And NO ONE else in their main rotation missed more than 2 games all year.
They make it to the finals and take the Russell Celtics to 7 games. Baylor averages 40.6 ppg, 17.9 rpg, and 3.7 apg in the series @ 51.0% TS (+3.1 rTS). In a close game 5 victory, Baylor logs [what I think is still an NBA finals record] 61 pts (and I believe 22 reb as well).

EDIT: I'd also add this quote from The Rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor....

.....Fans specifically came to see him [Baylor]. When he was on military duty and playing sporadically, they called the box office before games to ask if he would be appearing. The Lakers front office had run figures calculating Baylor’s ability to sell tickets, and they determined that in games when he did not play, the Lakers drew an average of 2,000 fewer fans. That amounted to approximately $6,000 per game, or $200,000 over the course of a season….

Going back to our agreement that impact = goodness + fit + utilization......I don't think Baylor was utilized ideally (something that I think is unfortunately true for MANY old era players). Yet there's still several indicators of substantial impact circa his peak, especially in '62.

Correctly utilized, I think Baylor would be the best SF not named Lebron or Kevin Durant today: a roughly Carmelo Anthony level of scorer but a better playmaker, a roughly neutral level defender, and possibly the GOAT rebounding SF outside of Shawn Marion (roughly equal to peak Lebron in this regard).


2nd ballot: James Harden '15
Harden's probably the best pure scorer in the league today except for a healthy Durant (better than Nash in this regard). His defense is improved to where I think we'd have to declare '15 Harden a "near-neutral" defender (which is to say: "not bad"). He's also a decent rebounder for his position, and a very good (elite???) level play-maker for his position.
One question mark I have for him: given his style of play, I don't think there's anyone who benefits more from the no hand-checking rule than James Harden. tbh, if not for that consideration, I think Harden probably should have been voted in a few places ago.


3rd ballot: Kevin McHale '87
I kinda went thru a big comparison between Howard/McHale, which I'll copy in the spoiler; it details my difficulty in deciding between the two:

Spoiler:

McHale vs. Dwight is an interesting comparison......
Offense
Peak Dwight is much more athletic and---related to that---is a superior finisher: pretty much devastating when he gets the ball <3 ft from the rim; is basically the GOAT finisher outside of prime Shaq and perhaps peak Robinson (finishing >75% from that range in '10 and '11, despite huge volume there--->like 50+% of his shot load, often going thru 2 or 3 defenders and getting And1's). Has developed a nice little short-range jump hook (with either hand), too. Draws tons of fouls (and was shooting nearly 60% from the FT-line at his peak; which is not good, but not godawful for a big either; getting a 60% ft-shooter to the line is still fairly efficient scoring).

Admittedly, that's where his offensive prowess ends. He has no jump-shot or range to speak of at all, limited repertoire of post-moves, not much of a passer, and a touch turnover prone.
Still, I don't mean to imply offensive mediocrity on his part (many of his critics attempt to do so, and it's absolutely untrue, imo). His hands, strength, explosiveness, etc, allow him to be in a GOAT-level tier when he gets the ball near the rim, and that cannot be trivialized. If taking a hack-a-Howard strategy, peak Howard's not as big a liability at the line as most versions of Shaq, Wilt, or Russell. Combined with even his limited post repertoire, this makes him a well-above average offensive player.


McHale, though, has a case for the GOAT where low-post game is concerned.
Great footwork, makes excellent use of his lower body to create space and effectively post up to receive the ball in a position to score. Has a myriad of effective moves; I especially like the quick fake followed by the up-and-under for the layup; or the fake shot low-side, fake shot high-side, then (when defend leaves the ground) he ducks back under for the easy layup. And he made these moves quickly, much quicker than you'd think he's capable of when you see him run up the court; he simply doesn't appear as though he could possibly move that fast. He has the short-range jump hooks, the fall-away jumper, was a pretty good finisher despite vastly inferior athleticism (relative to Howard); just very nice soft touch near the rim. Had range out to at least 12-14 ft. And >83% FT-shooter at his peak.
Guy was a scoring machine dropping 31.9 pts/100 possessions at 65.5% TS while playing damn near 40 mpg. Now certainly we can acknowledge that Bird's playmaking and the wealth of talent around him helped his efficiency. otoh, it also stole some primacy away from him. I could see peak McHale in other circumstances dropping 28-29 ppg (~36 per 100 poss) at maybe 61-62% TS in that time period.
And he's less turnover prone than Dwight, and a bit better passer (when he chose to do so, though he was mostly a black hole if you gave him the ball in the post......not saying that's a bad thing, fwiw, when you consider what the typical result of giving him the ball in the post was).

So offensively, I give McHale a solid edge.

Defense
McHale in ‘87 was an All-Defensive 1st Team forward, who often had to spend time guarding outside his position (on the opposing SF) to help hide Bird (though in Bird’s defense: Larry was a fantastic post defender). But that’s just one thing that helps illustrate McHale’s defensive versatility, because he was also an excellent low post defender, and he was also Boston’s primary rim protector, coming up with 2.7 blk/100 possessions.

So despite Dwight’s 3 DPOY awards (which I think marginally overstate his defensive value), I do think it’s close defensively. I probably give the small edge to Dwight, though, based him being sort of the sole anchor to his team’s defense, and the guy that they try to filter everything to.
Although in the past I’ve criticized Dwight for his lack of footwork and timing (where it relates to shot-blocking), noting for example that in ‘13 Howard was avg 3.5 blk/100 possessions with a BLK% of 4.9%; meanwhile a 36-yr-old Tim Duncan was avg 4.5 blk/100 possessions with a BLK% of 6.4%. Even though he’s (even after his back surgery) considerably more athletic than a 36-yr-old Duncan, he’s getting soundly trounced in his shot-blocking stats.
The primary reason, at least according to my observations, was that Duncan ascribed to (and executed) the fundamentals seen in shot-blockers like Russell and Dikembe, which involves keeping your arms up, moving your feet to stay close to the presumed shooter (so you’re in position to make the easier block), waiting for him to go up with the shot and then going up AFTER him to tip the ball just after it leaves his fingers…..a technique that requires attention to keeping your hands/arms up, footwork and timing; as opposed to relying on outstanding elevation.
Dwight has a habit of doing the latter: just sort of vaguely drifting in the direction of a potential shooter, then relying on his outstanding athleticism, gathering himself for a giant leap and batting at the air in region of the arcing shot (occasionally coming up with the amazing grand-standing type of block).

However, I will say something for this method: while strictly speaking it may not be as effective in actually coming up with blocks, it does allow him to CHANGE more shots (because as he’s more just playing a region, rather than a player, he can “get in on” more plays defensively). And I do see Howard change a lot of shots that he doesn’t actually get a paw on.

I’ve also previously criticized this technique of his because it potentially puts him out of position for the defensive rebound; but I think I simply need to retract this criticism, looking at Dwight defensive rebounding numbers (which are obviously hyper-elite).

So overall, I likely give Dwight the small edge defensively.

Rebounding
Here Dwight clearly has a sizable edge. Even relative to positional norms and expectations, it’s Dwight by a solid margin. I’ll point out one thing in McHale’s defense on this, however: part of what is depressing his rebounding numbers is what I’d mentioned above about him being forced to defend outside his natural position (guarding SF’s….that is: perimeter players)......this is at times putting him out of position for the defensive rebound.

Intangibles
This is sort of vague, and of lesser import. I’ll give McHale the edge here….he just seems like the better teammate, and the more professional and cerebral player.

Durability
This is the one that kinda hurts McHale. Based on all of the above, I’d give the small edge to McHale overall…...at least until faced with the reality that in his peak season, McHale’s body did break down and he played thru a serious injury (a friggin’ broken bone, iirc! Guy’s tough as nails) in the playoffs. While still good, even hobbled, he obviously wasn’t the McHale we’d seen throughout the rs.
Howard, otoh, was healthy thru both rs and playoffs at his peak. So that’s a consideration which brings the comparison roughly back to parity for me.

Honestly, I’ve gone back on forth on this comparison, and I’m still not sure who I’ll rank in front.

I did ultimately go with Howard based on health (and performance) in the playoffs, but it was really tight for me. With Howard out of the picture, I'm fairly comfortable going with McHale here.

[trex_8063]

Happy to be moving on past frazier, even if it was with a weak voter turnout. I hope we still continue the project, though...

Will be going with Gilmore and Pettit for my next 2 ballots. Undecided on my third. Thoughts on Pettit's peak year? I went with 63, but not hanging on that by any means. My short writeup on him:

63 (?) Pettit

Always underrated when discussing the top 10 PFs of all time due to the era he played in. As we know, he revolutionized the position while dominating the league at the same time. Not too sure about his peak, but i'll go with 63 for now.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/STL/1963.html

Solid all around RS + PS along with well above average relative efficiency. Also showed that he wasn't just a star of the 50s by continuing to produce into the 60s. Will look closer at per 100 stats soon.

I'd personally go with either '59 or '61 by a small margin. I know he had the better playoff run in '63; but although slight drop in playoffs for '59 and '61, he was still obv very good, and he had a BETTER rs than '63 in both years by virtually all measures.
However, as those measures are relative to league average, a solid counterpoint would be that the league average was better in '63 than it was in '59 or '61. Point taken. But jsia....

Also, though only one series, they had the same basic depth of playoff run in '59 as in '63 (division finals loss), and went FURTHER in the '61 playoffs (NBA finals loss). And where his playoff numbers in '61 are being compared to '63, note that in '61 about half his playoff games were facing Bill Russell.

So anyway, food for thought.....

As to your third ballot ( ), I'm going to suggest a ballot for Elgin Baylor. Honestly, I don't think you can be set on Pettit as your 2nd ballot without giving Baylor really serious consideration for #3.

If you're going with '63 Pettit, here are his Per 100 poss estimates:
30.1 pts, 16.0 reb, 3.3 ast @ +3.22% rTS in 39.1 mpg

Take a look at '61 Baylor's per 100 poss estimates:
31.1 pts, 17.75 reb, 4.55 ast @ +2.91 rTS in 42.9 mpg

I mean, he's marginally higher in pts/100, significantly higher in both reb and ast per 100 while playing nearly 4 minutes more per game; and was barely any worse in shooting efficiency. These things are further manifested in at least slightly higher PER and WS/48 (again, despite the larger mpg).
And then guess what: he also has a slightly higher playoff PER and WS/48 than '63 Pettit, and again while playing larger minutes (45.0 mpg vs. 42.1 for Pettit).

So unless your argument is a) that Pettit is a vastly superior defensive player (I'm not aware of data or anecdotes to substantiate this), or b) the NBA was VASTLY more talented in '63 than it was in '61**.......it's hard (for me) to not see peak Baylor as [at least] "roughly equal" to peak Pettit.

**EDIT: And if your argument is indeed that the league was much tougher, take a look at what Baylor was doing in '62---just one year prior to the peak year you're going with for Pettit---despite not being able to practice regularly and basically never practicing with the team (military service):

'62 Baylor Per 100 poss: 33.6 pts, 16.3 reb, 4.1 ast @ +1.34% rTS, with impact that looks staggeringly big in this season, and again tearing it up in the playoffs (going for 61 pts and 22 reb in a tight finals game 5 win over Russell's Celtics).

[trex_8063]

Undecided on my third.

So unless your argument is a) that Pettit is a vastly superior defensive player (I'm not aware of data or anecdotes to substantiate this), or b) the NBA was VASTLY more talented in '63 than it was in '61**.......it's hard (for me) to not see peak Baylor as [at least] "roughly equal" to peak Pettit.

Added this:
**EDIT: And if your argument is indeed that the league was much tougher, take a look at what Baylor was doing in '62---just one year prior to the peak year you're going with for Pettit---despite not being able to practice regularly and basically never practicing with the team (military service):

'62 Baylor Per 100 poss: 33.6 pts, 16.3 reb, 4.1 ast @ +1.34% rTS, with impact that looks staggeringly big in this season, and again tearing it up in the playoffs (going for 61 pts and 22 reb in a tight finals game 5 win over Russell's Celtics).

[Clyde Frazier]

Some thoughts on Connie Hawkins:

While I tend to think pretty highly of the ABA relative to the average fan, I’d say the league was at its weakest pre 1970. Below are the east and west all stars from 68 in the ABA and NBA (hawkins' peak season in question):

ABA



NBA



That season also featured rookies Walt Frazier and Earl Monroe in the NBA. Don't think there's much comparison with the NBA being fairly more competitive talent-wise. Hawkins #s from that year are no question eye popping, and it included a championship run, but I can't help but take them with a relatively large grain of salt.

While his 1970 season might not get consideration yet, I think it’s worth looking at as maybe a more legitimate candidate.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/1970.html

Great all around production, and continued into the playoffs albeit on lower efficiency. Still, the suns took the lakers to 7 games, which I find very impressive considering they would go on take the knicks to 7 games in the finals.

I've tried finding significant game footage of hawkins from that year, but it seems like a lost cause. Dipper was able to provide some highlights a while back, which is certainly better than nothing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8QJQpUH-to&t=6m11s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNw0c19DhIU&t=24m30s

[trex_8063]

The Hawk

As I said previously, I’ve been wanting to make a post about Connie Hawkins, someone I had on the fringes of my top 25 peaks going into this thing, and was persuaded to back him about about 10 places. I’m glad he’s gaining a tiny amount of traction (and again: I’m surprised someone else beat me to it) at any rate, so let’s take a closer look at him.


Physically, he’s listed as 6’8” (and from all photographic evidence I’ve seen, I think he’s a legit 6’8”.....not like a “generously 6’8” in his shoes” type of situation), and 210 lbs on bbref. He’s got a wirey strong build, a pretty long reach, and massive hands (which enable all the one-handed palm pass fakes, crazy sweeping scoop shots, etc):








And he’s got some grace, speed, and ups, as you can get a little sense of from in the videos below, as well as seeing some of the one-handed palming plays (and bear in mind when watching that almost all of that footage is him PAST his physical prime). Overall physically, he’s kinda reminiscent of Scottie Pippen, but with bigger hands.

He’s got some solid mid-range touch (again, see in videos below), and some good handles and passing for a biggish guy (was the original “point forward”, if I’m not mistaken).

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVPmeFq0Isk[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxp_N46XPUk[/youtube]


Now before we get into what he did in his peak season (‘68), let’s first take a quick look at what he was still capable of in his late 20’s AFTER knee surgery (which I’m sure you’re all aware of how well players were typically able to come back after knee surgery in that day and age).
Coming into the NBA as a 28-year-old rookie, one year after knee surgery, he went for a 10th-in-the-league 19.74 PER and .147 WS/48 in 40.9 mpg. His per 100 poss estimates: 24.8 pts, 10.5 reb, 4.85 ast @ +5.16% rTS. And fwiw, he was awarded All-NBA 1st Team honors alongside Billy Cunningham, and ahead of forwards Lou Hudson and Gus Johnson. Did nearly as well (on larger minutes) in the playoffs that year: somewhat inflated by pace, but he avg 25.4 ppg/13.9 rpg/5.9 apg in the ‘70 playoffs.

Again: this is what he was capable of past his physical prime. Statistically, he’s not far behind [an arguably peak] Walt Frazier, who we voted in at #32.

Anyway, I wanted to throw a little spotlight on what he was capable of in the NBA post-surgery because I want everyone cognizant of the very real possibility (if not the likelihood) that he was even better before his knee injury.
If you don’t think the knee injury affected him, consider his scoring averages (it’s all that’s available on game log data of the time) in ‘69 before the injury: he was averaging 33.4 ppg pre-injury. In the 11 rs games AFTER coming back from injury: 19.9 ppg, followed by a significantly sub-standard (poor, actually) playoffs. I realize I cannot precisely extrapolate what he was in ‘70 by citing his late-season (post-injury) stats from ‘69; but anyway take it for what it’s worth.

In the ‘69 ABA season (marginally stronger than the ‘68 ABA, imo) there was also a presumably near-peak Rick Barry around for 35 games to compare to…..
‘69 Barry per 100 poss estimates: 36.0 pts, 9.95 reb, 4.1 ast @ +11.35% rTS
PER 29.6, .301 WS/48 in 38.9 mpg

**‘69 Hawkins per 100 poss estimates: 33.6 pts, 12.6 reb, 4.35 ast @ +8.25% rTS.
PER 29.7, .293 WS/48 in 39.4 mpg.
**this includes the aforementioned 11 games (11 of 47 total) AFTER coming back from the injury, btw. Given the scoring drop I already outlined, it’s safe to assume his pre-injury numbers were significantly better than what a near-peak Barry was doing. Frankly, he was probably a better player (before the injury) in '69 than he was in '68.


Now on to his ‘68 peak season (perhaps only peak by default, because he was actually healthy from start to finish)…...
Yes, the ABA of the late 60’s was not overly loaded with talent, as Clyde Frazier pointed out. It wasn’t total bush-league, either. Mel Daniels was there, and there were several other legitimately “good” (if not truly “All-Star level”) players around: Donnie Freeman, Louie Dampier, Larry Jones, Roger Brown, Doug Moe, John Beasley, etc.
And at any rate, Hawkins didn’t just distinguish himself in this crowd…….he utterly crushed them. He led the league handily in PER and WS/48, for instance, despite playing a league-leading 44.9 mpg. He had nearly twice as many OWS as the 2nd-place guy. He dominated that league to a degree that we haven’t often seen.
Seriously: do a search for seasons with >28 PER (his was 28.8), >.270 WS/48 (his was .273), and >40 mpg (his was a whopping 44.9) in NBA and ABA history…...you come up with just 10 NBA seasons (3 of Kareem, 3 of Wilt, 2 of Jordan, 1 of Robinson, 1 of Shaq), and only 1 in ABA history (Connie Hawkins). If we change the requirement to 42 mpg, five of those NBA seasons disappear, btw.

Per 100 possession estimates for ‘68: 26.6 pts, 13.4 reb, 4.55 ast, just 2.8 tov @ +11.45% rTS.
His 59.7% TS would be elite even by today’s standards.

And then he got even better in the playoffs. PER 30.0 and .310 WS/48 in 44.0 mpg in the playoffs, as he led the Pipers to the title. His numbers in the playoffs are gross even with considerations of pace: 29.9 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.6 apg, 3.4 topg @ 65.1% TS (which is like +16.8 rTS!!).

So yeah: regardless of the strength of the ABA in ‘68, I look at all of the above and absolutely I believe he’s a valid candidate at this stage.

[70sFan]

1st ballot - Bob McAdoo 1975
2nd ballot - Elgin Baylor 1961
3rd ballot - Artis Gilmore 1975/1976


I've voted for Bob and Elgin for a few rounds, so I don't need to explain this choices again. About Gilmore - here is good thread about him:
http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1403558


Nice to hear Connie gets some love. Personaly, I have Barry over him but it's close. Here is nice video about him:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4Q1L3aDHs[/youtube]

[RSCD3_]

Finished Ballot



Harden 15
Westbrook 15
McHale 88



Explanations below

1. Harden 2015

The best offensive player from a goodness Impact level.

6.00/-0.50

In 2015 he finally quit being a huge liability on defense and became a slight negative for the year. Although admittedly he slipped up a bit into his habits during the postseason, nothing close to what he has before but it has to be mentioned.

His offense though was incredible from November to May. His basically held his playoff production which from starting where it did is a great feat in and of itself.

2015 RS 37.0 PP100 on 60.5 TS% ( +7.1RelTS% ) 7.7RP100, 9.4AP100 on 2.62 AST/TOV% Ratio, 0.265 WS/48, 118/103
2015 PS 34.3 PP100 on 62.0 TS% ( +8.6RelTS% ) 7.2RP100, 9.5AP100 on 2.01 AST/TOV% Ratio*, 0.202 WS/48, 117/109


* 2.32 AST/TOV% Ratio if I subtract the last game of the playoffs.

Anyone who is a better passer than him is a worse scorer and the opposite is true in this case, he has the highest offensive peak left on here due to a tricky style of play ala nash that allows him to shift into the lane against almost any kind of defender and have crafty finishes to draw fouls and score at the rim. He also has an excellent jumper which can be used as a release valve for the offense when a set breaks down.

Not to mention his playmaking is very elite for a SG and his impact in setting up his teammates is very valuable.

He's great at setting up the corner 3, in fact he lead the league in it last year by decent margin.

2. Westbrook
A tremendous offfensive [layer who is unappreciated by some because of his low TS% compared to others but man oh man idd he have a great 2015 RS, being the engine of a team that was seriously lacking firepower without durant. His playmaking was phenomel when you consider who he was passing to and the amopunt of attention paid to him. His rim runs led to offensive rebounding opportunities, and he was an average defender but one who could scale up his impact from time to time

2015 RS 41.1 PP100 on 53.6 TS% ( -0.9RelTS% ) 10.6RP100, 12.5AP100 on 3.28 AST/TOV% Ratio, 0.222 WS/48, 111/103

5.00/0.25

3. Mchale

I think it's time for the lengthy PF to make his appearance. He was long enough to play C in today's days and even though his build was slighter, he was wiry strong and could hold his own against most centers of today's era and a couple of those back in the day. Because they already had Parish and bird could defend quick 3's they were able toi use him to defend 3's a lot with his huge wingspan, this probably dialed his defense. He was a good rebounder for a PF and a decent one for a small ball center, an that's without taking into account the capability of bird and parrish as rebounders which led to a decrease in numbers most likely.

His RS was seriously incredible, his offense may have been a bit more like a finisher than would be optimal from an offensive anchor standpoint but he put up high volume and high efficiency and his passing wasnt that bad for his role. It wasnt as good as in 87 from a RS standpoint but his playoffs definitely make up for that, he was great in the playoffs, an underrated and probbaly forgotten fact thanks to the 88 pistons winning the ECF.

1988 Mchale

1988 RS 29.7 PP100 on 65.6 TS% ( +11.8 RelTS% ) 11.0 RP100, 3.5 AP100 on 0.93 AST/TOV% Ratio, 0.205 WS/48 126/110
1988 PS 34.3 PP100 on 67.0 TS% ( +13.2 RelTS% ) 9.9 RP100, 2.9 AP100 on 0.94 AST/TOV% Ratio, 0.220 WS/48. 129/110


3.25/2.00

[theonlyclutch]

For those who voted McHale (both in this threat and the last), if we are to believe McHale peaked this high,
- Given he's not the best player on the team (unless you would like to argue him > Bird in 87/88), then how does a top 15-20 peak, and a top 30-ish peak on the same team at the same time "only" lead to high-50s win total and a mid 6s SRS? The rest of the team has to be downright awful for that to occur...

[trex_8063]

For those who voted McHale (both in this threat and the last), if we are to believe McHale peaked this high,
- Given he's not the best player on the team (unless you would like to argue him > Bird in 87/88), then how does a top 15-20 peak, and a top 30-ish peak on the same team at the same time "only" lead to high-50s win total and a mid 6s SRS? The rest of the team has to be downright awful for that to occur...

Oh, I see what you did there.

Trouble is we've seen many many duos who "fill the talent cup" to a similar level (in some instances even more full) as 87/88 Bird/McHale who achieved similar (or in some instances lower) levels of team success; will also include a few who had [slightly] less talented duos and who enjoyed [slightly] less team success:

'92 Jazz (Malone/Stockton): 55-27 (+5.70 SRS)
'93 Jazz ("""): 47-35 (+1.74 SRS)
'93 Bulls (Jordan/Pippen): 57-25 (+6.19 SRS)
'94 Jazz (Malone/Stockton): 53-29 (+4.10 SRS)
'95 Rockets (Dream/Drexler): 18-18 in rs after obtaining Drexler (though Hakeem missed some games, they were only 14-12----pace for about 44 wins in 82-game season---in the 26 rs games they BOTH played in)
'95 Magic (Shaq/Penny): 57-25 (+6.44 SRS)
'96 Magic ("""): 60-22 (+5.40 SRS)
'96 Jazz (Malone/Stockton): 55-27 (+6.25 SRS)
'01 Lakers (Shaq/Kobe): 56-26 (+3.74 SRS)
'02 Lakers ("""): 58-24 (+7.15 SRS)
'02 Spurs (Duncan/Robinson): 58-24 (+6.28 SRS)
'03 Spurs (Duncan/Robinson): 60-22 (+5.63 SRS)
'04 Mavericks (Dirk/Nash): 52-30 (+4.86 SRS)
'11 Heat (Lebron/Wade): 58-24 (+6.76 SRS)
'12 Heat (""): on pace for 57-25 (+5.72 SRS)


There are more examples, but I'll stop there. What have we learned? Hopefully: a) that it's quite common, and b) that it isn't a terrifically accurate means of determining the players' goodness.

[Narigo]

1. 1974 Bob Lanier
Second best player after Kareem Abdul Jabbar in 74. Has a good hookshot in the lowpost and has a solid jumper. He was a really solid passer. He was a excellent defender that anchored a better defense team(with a terrible supporting cast) than the Boston Celtics that had Hondo and Prime Cowens and the Bullets who had Unseld and Hayes.

2. 1969 Willis Reed
Im taking Reed over centers over Gilmore and Howard because imo he is a more capable scorer than both. Reed can shoot from the mid range area and he can also pretty good in the low post area as well. Probably not as good as Howard on defense but hes still above average on that end.

3. 1975 Artis Gilmore
Over 2015 Harden and 1959 Bob Pettt because he was more impactful defender. I explain more later

[theonlyclutch]

For those who voted McHale (both in this threat and the last), if we are to believe McHale peaked this high,
- Given he's not the best player on the team (unless you would like to argue him > Bird in 87/88), then how does a top 15-20 peak, and a top 30-ish peak on the same team at the same time "only" lead to high-50s win total and a mid 6s SRS? The rest of the team has to be downright awful for that to occur...

Oh, I see what you did there.

Trouble is we've seen many many duos who "fill the talent cup" to a similar level (in some instances even more full) as 87/88 Bird/McHale who achieved similar (or in some instances lower) levels of team success; will also include a few who had [slightly] less talented duos and who enjoyed [slightly] less team success:

'92 Jazz (Malone/Stockton): 55-27 (+5.70 SRS)
'93 Jazz ("""): 47-35 (+1.74 SRS)
'93 Bulls (Jordan/Pippen): 57-25 (+6.19 SRS)
'94 Jazz (Malone/Stockton): 53-29 (+4.10 SRS)
'95 Rockets (Dream/Drexler): 18-18 in rs after obtaining Drexler (though Hakeem missed some games, they were only 14-12----pace for about 44 wins in 82-game season---in the 26 rs games they BOTH played in)
'95 Magic (Shaq/Penny): 57-25 (+6.44 SRS)
'96 Magic ("""): 60-22 (+5.40 SRS)
'96 Jazz (Malone/Stockton): 55-27 (+6.25 SRS)
'01 Lakers (Shaq/Kobe): 56-26 (+3.74 SRS)
'02 Lakers ("""): 58-24 (+7.15 SRS)
'02 Spurs (Duncan/Robinson): 58-24 (+6.28 SRS)
'03 Spurs (Duncan/Robinson): 60-22 (+5.63 SRS)
'04 Mavericks (Dirk/Nash): 52-30 (+4.86 SRS)
'11 Heat (Lebron/Wade): 58-24 (+6.76 SRS)
'12 Heat (""): on pace for 57-25 (+5.72 SRS)


There are more examples, but I'll stop there. What have we learned? Hopefully: a) that it's quite common, and b) that it isn't a terrifically accurate means of determining the players' goodness.

The only team scenarios where both player-seasons can be argued as top-30 peaks, in the scenario that such a season would translate as a top-30 peak season if it was the best season the player had, is 01 LAL, some UTA seasons, '96 ORL (maybe), and '11 MIA..

For '01 LAL, they somewhat justified their RS faults by killing it in the PS...
as for UTA, they're pretty much an outlier insofar as individual production translating into team results, besides, Stockton and Malone peaked at different times (early-90s Stock, late-90s Malone)
'96 ORL, it can be argued that either Shaq or Penny won't be in top 30 peaks for various reasons (Shaq b.c mins played/effectiveness, Penny b.c not consistent production)
'11 MIA, Really depends on how one views Wade in '11....

In '87-88 BOS, both Bird and McHale were very close to their peaks, unlike many of the scenarios above...

[SideshowBob]

Ballot

29. Westbrook 15 +5.50 (+5.25 O/+0.25 D) (80% health brings him down a bit)

30. Mourning 00 +5.00 (+1.00 O/+4.00 D)

31. Frazier 71 +5.00 (+2.50 O/+2.50 D)

32. Thurmond 67 +5.00 (+0.00 O/+5.00 D)

33. Barry 75 +5.00 (+4.50 O/+0.50 D)

Spoiler:

34. Pippen 1995 +4.75 (+2.25 O/+2.50 D)

35. Hardaway 96 +4.50 (+5.00 O/-0.50 D)

On Westbrook:

Spoiler:

See my opinions of 09 Wade/James. Between the three, I think Russ might be the most explosive off the dribble as well as most able to seam through defenses due to his size (Wade's not far behind, James is a bit below the other two), though he's obviosly the most reckless (he lacks the smarts but is so good at doing what he does it hardly matters). ITO finishing he's awesome but behind the other two; ITO shooting, he's not as good as Wade in the midrange and not as good as Lebron from outside but he's got a decent enough balance. I think the amount of pressure he puts directly on the rim is absurd for a PG - he's pretty much the best slasher from that position period. Couple the with the vision/instincts/physical passing ability and you have a monster offensive player - a Lebron/Wade-lite.

Defensively, he's active, aggressive, explosive and gobbles up rebounds. Again, I think he lacks the smarts to be really effective with rotations and lane coverage like some of the best defensive PGs, but he's good enough to be a positive on that end.

With regards to Harden, I think they're very similar offensively, I wouldn't put Russ more than like a quarter point ahead. But as I said earlier, I think Harden's still a net negative on the other end, and Russ being a small positive puts an ample overall gap between the two IMO.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Will tentatively put out my top three ballots yet again (feeling like a broken record at this point)....

1st ballot: Elgin Baylor '61
To some degree the volume vs. efficiency considerations of Baylor (among others from this era) should be viewed with a bit of leniency, imo, as efficiency and "finding a good shot" just wasn't on anyone's radar in the early 1960's. Any way you slice it, though, Baylor was an excellent (if not quite elite) scorer, and underrated playmaker for the SF position, as well as a GOAT-level rebounder for his position, and likely a better defender than some other perimeter players on the table presently (e.g. Nash, Harden).

Baylor '61 rs per 100 possession estimates: 31.1 pts, 17.75 reb, 4.55 ast @ +2.91% rTS. 28.2 PER, .227 WS/48 in 42.9 mpg
Baylor '61 playoff per 100 possession estimates: 32.5 pts, 13.1 reb, 3.9 ast @ +6.89% rTS (53.83% TS, which would be a little above average even by today's standards). 28.0 PER, .248 WS/48 in 45.0 mpg

Some additional stuff about prime Baylor in general (copied from prior thread):

Spoiler:

Here's some more info regarding Baylor's impact, draw your own conclusions.....

In '58 (before Baylor), the Lakers were 19-53 (.264) with an SRS of -5.78.

In '59 they obtain rookie Elgin Baylor (and he's the only relevant transaction that occurred), and improve to 33-39 (.458) and -1.42 SRS (improvement of 14 wins and +4.36 SRS). They would also make it to the finals by first defeating a -1.36 SRS Detroit team 2-1, and then defeating the +2.89 SRS defending champ St. Louis Hawks 4-2.
wrt to how that improvement was managed......
Yeah, we always tend to think of Baylor as primarily an offensive player; but there's some to suggest he had a significant impact defensively, too. His reputation is mostly as a "decent" (but not great) defender, though I wonder if perhaps his prowess on the glass reduced a lot of easy second-chance opportunities for opponents (he was 3rd in the league in rebounds right off the bat in his rookie season).
Because in terms of rORTG, the Lakers in '58 (before Baylor) were -0.8 (ranked 6th of 8), and in rDRTG were +4.5 (8th of 8, and +2.5 to the 7th place team!). In '59, their rORTG improves to +0.6 (a jump of 1.4, up to 4th of 8); but rDRTG improves to +1.7 (a big jump of 2.8, from a distant last place to 6th of 8).
The team is 33-37 (.471) with him, 0-2 without him.


In '60, an aging Vern Mikkelsen has retired, aging Larry Foust misses some games and is playing a reduced role, too. Meanwhile the offensive primacy of the wildly inefficient (even for the era) Hot Rod Hundley increases, as well as a marginally increase in role for the even worse Slick Leonard (ridiculously bad 37.3% TS.....that's even -9% relative to league avg; similar to someone shooting 44% TS or so today; you'd have to be an elite defender to get ANY playing time at all today, and no way would you be getting 28+ mpg and be 6th on the team in FGA/g.....goes to show how efficiency just wasn't on the radar yet). And they also obtained rookie Rudy LaRusso (who would eventually become a pretty good player, but is a fairly inefficient scorer in his rookie season). They also obtained the somewhat inefficient Frank Selvy as well as an aging 6'11" Ray Felix in mid-season trades.
Anyway, their rORTG falls to -3.4 (8th of 8), though their defense continues to improve to +0.1 rDRTG (4th of 8), as they finish 25-50 (-4.14 SRS).
The team is 23-47 (.329) with him, 2-3 (.400) without him.


In '61, we have the arrival of rookie Jerry West. He's not yet the player he would become, but nonetheless is the clear 2nd-best behind Baylor. This affords them to reduce the role of Hundley and Leonard in the backcourt. rORTG improves to -1.3 (7th of 8), rDRTG continues to improve to -1.2 (4th of 8).
The team is 34-39 (.466) with him, 2-4 (.333) without him.


In '62, West is now a legit superstar, too. Slick Leonard is gone, and Hundley's role is further diminished; LaRusso continues to improve and get more efficient. Non-surprisingly, the team rORTG improves to +1.4 (3rd of 9). Critics might argue Baylor missing games contributed to this improvement in rORTG, but I'm more inclined to think it's the additive effects of a) the improvements in West and LaRusso, b) the loss of Leonard, and c) the reduced role of Hundley; especially in light of the following.......
Baylor misses 32 games, not due to injury, but rather to military service: he's only able to play if he can get a weekend pass to quickly travel to the game, play, and then come back. So he likely barely gets to practice, and yet still establishes himself among the league's elite---->Per 100 possession estimates: 33.6 pts, 16.3 reb, 4.1 ast @ +1.34% rTS in a whopping 44.4 mpg.
The team is 37-11 (.771) with him, 17-15 (.531) without him. Some of his missed games may have overlapped with West's missed games, but the thing is: West only missed 5 games total that year. And NO ONE else in their main rotation missed more than 2 games all year.
They make it to the finals and take the Russell Celtics to 7 games. Baylor averages 40.6 ppg, 17.9 rpg, and 3.7 apg in the series @ 51.0% TS (+3.1 rTS). In a close game 5 victory, Baylor logs [what I think is still an NBA finals record] 61 pts (and I believe 22 reb as well).

EDIT: I'd also add this quote from The Rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor....

.....Fans specifically came to see him [Baylor]. When he was on military duty and playing sporadically, they called the box office before games to ask if he would be appearing. The Lakers front office had run figures calculating Baylor’s ability to sell tickets, and they determined that in games when he did not play, the Lakers drew an average of 2,000 fewer fans. That amounted to approximately $6,000 per game, or $200,000 over the course of a season….

Going back to our agreement that impact = goodness + fit + utilization......I don't think Baylor was utilized ideally (something that I think is unfortunately true for MANY old era players). Yet there's still several indicators of substantial impact circa his peak, especially in '62.

Correctly utilized, I think Baylor would be the best SF not named Lebron or Kevin Durant today: a roughly Carmelo Anthony level of scorer but a better playmaker, a roughly neutral level defender, and possibly the GOAT rebounding SF outside of Shawn Marion (roughly equal to peak Lebron in this regard).


2nd ballot: James Harden '15
Harden's probably the best pure scorer in the league today except for a healthy Durant (better than Nash in this regard). His defense is improved to where I think we'd have to declare '15 Harden a "near-neutral" defender (which is to say: "not bad"). He's also a decent rebounder for his position, and a very good (elite???) level play-maker for his position.
One question mark I have for him: given his style of play, I don't think there's anyone who benefits more from the no hand-checking rule than James Harden. tbh, if not for that consideration, I think Harden probably should have been voted in a few places ago.


3rd ballot: Kevin McHale '87
I kinda went thru a big comparison between Howard/McHale, which I'll copy in the spoiler; it details my difficulty in deciding between the two:

Spoiler:

McHale vs. Dwight is an interesting comparison......
Offense
Peak Dwight is much more athletic and---related to that---is a superior finisher: pretty much devastating when he gets the ball <3 ft from the rim; is basically the GOAT finisher outside of prime Shaq and perhaps peak Robinson (finishing >75% from that range in '10 and '11, despite huge volume there--->like 50+% of his shot load, often going thru 2 or 3 defenders and getting And1's). Has developed a nice little short-range jump hook (with either hand), too. Draws tons of fouls (and was shooting nearly 60% from the FT-line at his peak; which is not good, but not godawful for a big either; getting a 60% ft-shooter to the line is still fairly efficient scoring).

Admittedly, that's where his offensive prowess ends. He has no jump-shot or range to speak of at all, limited repertoire of post-moves, not much of a passer, and a touch turnover prone.
Still, I don't mean to imply offensive mediocrity on his part (many of his critics attempt to do so, and it's absolutely untrue, imo). His hands, strength, explosiveness, etc, allow him to be in a GOAT-level tier when he gets the ball near the rim, and that cannot be trivialized. If taking a hack-a-Howard strategy, peak Howard's not as big a liability at the line as most versions of Shaq, Wilt, or Russell. Combined with even his limited post repertoire, this makes him a well-above average offensive player.


McHale, though, has a case for the GOAT where low-post game is concerned.
Great footwork, makes excellent use of his lower body to create space and effectively post up to receive the ball in a position to score. Has a myriad of effective moves; I especially like the quick fake followed by the up-and-under for the layup; or the fake shot low-side, fake shot high-side, then (when defend leaves the ground) he ducks back under for the easy layup. And he made these moves quickly, much quicker than you'd think he's capable of when you see him run up the court; he simply doesn't appear as though he could possibly move that fast. He has the short-range jump hooks, the fall-away jumper, was a pretty good finisher despite vastly inferior athleticism (relative to Howard); just very nice soft touch near the rim. Had range out to at least 12-14 ft. And >83% FT-shooter at his peak.
Guy was a scoring machine dropping 31.9 pts/100 possessions at 65.5% TS while playing damn near 40 mpg. Now certainly we can acknowledge that Bird's playmaking and the wealth of talent around him helped his efficiency. otoh, it also stole some primacy away from him. I could see peak McHale in other circumstances dropping 28-29 ppg (~36 per 100 poss) at maybe 61-62% TS in that time period.
And he's less turnover prone than Dwight, and a bit better passer (when he chose to do so, though he was mostly a black hole if you gave him the ball in the post......not saying that's a bad thing, fwiw, when you consider what the typical result of giving him the ball in the post was).

So offensively, I give McHale a solid edge.

Defense
McHale in ‘87 was an All-Defensive 1st Team forward, who often had to spend time guarding outside his position (on the opposing SF) to help hide Bird (though in Bird’s defense: Larry was a fantastic post defender). But that’s just one thing that helps illustrate McHale’s defensive versatility, because he was also an excellent low post defender, and he was also Boston’s primary rim protector, coming up with 2.7 blk/100 possessions.

So despite Dwight’s 3 DPOY awards (which I think marginally overstate his defensive value), I do think it’s close defensively. I probably give the small edge to Dwight, though, based him being sort of the sole anchor to his team’s defense, and the guy that they try to filter everything to.
Although in the past I’ve criticized Dwight for his lack of footwork and timing (where it relates to shot-blocking), noting for example that in ‘13 Howard was avg 3.5 blk/100 possessions with a BLK% of 4.9%; meanwhile a 36-yr-old Tim Duncan was avg 4.5 blk/100 possessions with a BLK% of 6.4%. Even though he’s (even after his back surgery) considerably more athletic than a 36-yr-old Duncan, he’s getting soundly trounced in his shot-blocking stats.
The primary reason, at least according to my observations, was that Duncan ascribed to (and executed) the fundamentals seen in shot-blockers like Russell and Dikembe, which involves keeping your arms up, moving your feet to stay close to the presumed shooter (so you’re in position to make the easier block), waiting for him to go up with the shot and then going up AFTER him to tip the ball just after it leaves his fingers…..a technique that requires attention to keeping your hands/arms up, footwork and timing; as opposed to relying on outstanding elevation.
Dwight has a habit of doing the latter: just sort of vaguely drifting in the direction of a potential shooter, then relying on his outstanding athleticism, gathering himself for a giant leap and batting at the air in region of the arcing shot (occasionally coming up with the amazing grand-standing type of block).

However, I will say something for this method: while strictly speaking it may not be as effective in actually coming up with blocks, it does allow him to CHANGE more shots (because as he’s more just playing a region, rather than a player, he can “get in on” more plays defensively). And I do see Howard change a lot of shots that he doesn’t actually get a paw on.

I’ve also previously criticized this technique of his because it potentially puts him out of position for the defensive rebound; but I think I simply need to retract this criticism, looking at Dwight defensive rebounding numbers (which are obviously hyper-elite).

So overall, I likely give Dwight the small edge defensively.

Rebounding
Here Dwight clearly has a sizable edge. Even relative to positional norms and expectations, it’s Dwight by a solid margin. I’ll point out one thing in McHale’s defense on this, however: part of what is depressing his rebounding numbers is what I’d mentioned above about him being forced to defend outside his natural position (guarding SF’s….that is: perimeter players)......this is at times putting him out of position for the defensive rebound.

Intangibles
This is sort of vague, and of lesser import. I’ll give McHale the edge here….he just seems like the better teammate, and the more professional and cerebral player.

Durability
This is the one that kinda hurts McHale. Based on all of the above, I’d give the small edge to McHale overall…...at least until faced with the reality that in his peak season, McHale’s body did break down and he played thru a serious injury (a friggin’ broken bone, iirc! Guy’s tough as nails) in the playoffs. While still good, even hobbled, he obviously wasn’t the McHale we’d seen throughout the rs.
Howard, otoh, was healthy thru both rs and playoffs at his peak. So that’s a consideration which brings the comparison roughly back to parity for me.

Honestly, I’ve gone back on forth on this comparison, and I’m still not sure who I’ll rank in front.

I did ultimately go with Howard based on health (and performance) in the playoffs, but it was really tight for me. With Howard out of the picture, I'm fairly comfortable going with McHale here.

I have been busy as of late, so I cant really make any votes or think of anything yet. I definately cant make an arguement right now

My ballots are basically the same as yours though.

[trex_8063]

I have been busy as of late, so I cant really make any votes or think of anything yet. I definately cant make an arguement right now

My ballots are basically the same as yours though.

I'm pretty lenient at this point wrt allowing ballots with little or no arguments for them, especially for posters who have provided good content within this project (and you certainly qualify). So if you want to post your ballots without reasoning (and/or simple one-liners), I'll accept that. I trust that you've given your picks serious consideration, even if you don't have time to spell it out for us.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Ballot

29. Westbrook 15 +5.50 (+5.25 O/+0.25 D) (80% health brings him down a bit)

30. Mourning 00 +5.00 (+1.00 O/+4.00 D)

31. Frazier 71 +5.00 (+2.50 O/+2.50 D)

32. Thurmond 67 +5.00 (+0.00 O/+5.00 D)

33. Barry 75 +5.00 (+4.50 O/+0.50 D)

Spoiler:

34. Pippen 1995 +4.75 (+2.25 O/+2.50 D)

35. Hardaway 96 +4.50 (+5.00 O/-0.50 D)

On Westbrook:

Spoiler:

See my opinions of 09 Wade/James. Between the three, I think Russ might be the most explosive off the dribble as well as most able to seam through defenses due to his size (Wade's not far behind, James is a bit below the other two), though he's obviosly the most reckless (he lacks the smarts but is so good at doing what he does it hardly matters). ITO finishing he's awesome but behind the other two; ITO shooting, he's not as good as Wade in the midrange and not as good as Lebron from outside but he's got a decent enough balance. I think the amount of pressure he puts directly on the rim is absurd for a PG - he's pretty much the best slasher from that position period. Couple the with the vision/instincts/physical passing ability and you have a monster offensive player - a Lebron/Wade-lite.

Defensively, he's active, aggressive, explosive and gobbles up rebounds. Again, I think he lacks the smarts to be really effective with rotations and lane coverage like some of the best defensive PGs, but he's good enough to be a positive on that end.

With regards to Harden, I think they're very similar offensively, I wouldn't put Russ more than like a quarter point ahead. But as I said earlier, I think Harden's still a net negative on the other end, and Russ being a small positive puts an ample overall gap between the two IMO.

Westbrook wasnt the best on Defense last year. he has always been a very good on-ball defender, but his off-ball defense wasnt the best. his DRAPM was a net negative I think, though the source was questionable.

While I agree he is a great slasher, and that his stats at the rim dont do him justice, he shot 58% at the rim last year. obviously, volume has alot to do with it, but its still not the best percentage

Even though they have lane cloggers, lets look at Tyreke evans. Evans shot more shots at the rim than westbrook last year, per game wise, and shot 55.8%, 2.2% off of Westbrook. Honestly, looking at his turnovers a game, while alot can be explained because of his role, its still ridiculous. He shot 29.9% from outside, and 38% from 10<xfeet<3 point line. 31% from 3-10 feet, though he shot many shots from there.

he actually got less touches per game than Paul though, just something to note.

I dont think one could say he was good from 3, he had a few bad mechanics, and shot a hair less than 30% there as a whole.

in transition, he was good, but (synergy stats arent available anymore) he wasnt as ridiculously good as one might htink. I think he was in the 70s percentile wise, or below the 50th. I remember I was really suprised.

[trex_8063]

For those who voted McHale (both in this threat and the last), if we are to believe McHale peaked this high,
- Given he's not the best player on the team (unless you would like to argue him > Bird in 87/88), then how does a top 15-20 peak, and a top 30-ish peak on the same team at the same time "only" lead to high-50s win total and a mid 6s SRS? The rest of the team has to be downright awful for that to occur...

Oh, I see what you did there.

Trouble is we've seen many many duos who "fill the talent cup" to a similar level (in some instances even more full) as 87/88 Bird/McHale who achieved similar (or in some instances lower) levels of team success; will also include a few who had [slightly] less talented duos and who enjoyed [slightly] less team success:

'92 Jazz (Malone/Stockton): 55-27 (+5.70 SRS)
'93 Jazz ("""): 47-35 (+1.74 SRS)
'93 Bulls (Jordan/Pippen): 57-25 (+6.19 SRS)
'94 Jazz (Malone/Stockton): 53-29 (+4.10 SRS)
'95 Rockets (Dream/Drexler): 18-18 in rs after obtaining Drexler (though Hakeem missed some games, they were only 14-12----pace for about 44 wins in 82-game season---in the 26 rs games they BOTH played in)
'95 Magic (Shaq/Penny): 57-25 (+6.44 SRS)
'96 Magic ("""): 60-22 (+5.40 SRS)
'96 Jazz (Malone/Stockton): 55-27 (+6.25 SRS)
'01 Lakers (Shaq/Kobe): 56-26 (+3.74 SRS)
'02 Lakers ("""): 58-24 (+7.15 SRS)
'02 Spurs (Duncan/Robinson): 58-24 (+6.28 SRS)
'03 Spurs (Duncan/Robinson): 60-22 (+5.63 SRS)
'04 Mavericks (Dirk/Nash): 52-30 (+4.86 SRS)
'11 Heat (Lebron/Wade): 58-24 (+6.76 SRS)
'12 Heat (""): on pace for 57-25 (+5.72 SRS)


There are more examples, but I'll stop there. What have we learned? Hopefully: a) that it's quite common, and b) that it isn't a terrifically accurate means of determining the players' goodness.

The only team scenarios where both player-seasons can be argued as top-30 peaks, in the scenario that such a season would translate as a top-30 peak season if it was the best season the player had, is 01 LAL, some UTA seasons, '96 ORL (maybe), and '11 MIA..

To pick a nit, it's a touch of a stretch to suggest McHale might be a top-30 peak. I appear to be his biggest and earliest supporter in this project, and even I don't have him in the top 30. He didn't receive a single ballot in any of the first 30 threads (his first ballot came in the #31 thread); he's yet to receive more than 3 pts in any round, and here we are at #33 and he's yet to be anyone's first ballot choice.

So let's more accurately say top-35(ish).


And wrt this sort of arbitrary standard of having TWO top-30 peaks.....
By ruling some of my examples invalid for not qualifying your standard, you appear to be implying that having TWO top-30 peaks is always better than having only one......like no matter what, apparently. Like, for example, having the #29 peak and the #30 peak together would be better than having a duo that consisted of the #40 peak and the #1 peak. I disagree.

As I said, I was attempting to cite some duos from recent history who "fill the talent cup" to a similar degree as '87/88 Bird/McHale. Or short of that, show some others who fill it to a slightly lesser degree and who consequently engendered a lesser degree of team success. That is: they "underachieved" to a similar, if not greater, degree----I don't believe Bird/McHale (or most of the others) did underachieve, btw; that's your implication, not mine.

To qualify what I'm saying, let's establish what Bird/McHale were in the years specified. As indicated above, we can perhaps suggest that McHale is a top-35 peak.
Bird was voted in at #11, but with '86 being his consensus peak season. If we restricted to only considering '87 and/or '88 (or some amalgamation of the two) for Bird, I suspect he still would have been an approximately top-15 peak. So we have an ~#15 and ~#35 peaks.

If we were restricted to considering '93 for Pippen and Jordan, where would they be? Jordan would without a doubt still be a top-3 peak (maybe still #1 or #2); Pippen, somewhat of an off year, though would probably still be a top 50-60 when considering the caliber of player he was in years surrounding '93. And considering the gap between #35 and #60 is def no bigger than that between #15 and #2-3, I'd say the talent cup is full to roughly the same amount.

Both Heat teams were easily as "full", too (actually MORE full): '11 Lebron would still be a top 10-15 peak and '11 Wade would be top-25 (top-30ish at the worst). '12 Lebron would be a top-5 peak, while '12 Wade would again likely be top 30-35.

Some of those early 90's Jazz teams had an approximately top 30-35ish peak combined with a roughly top 50 peak. So that's a less talented duo, but they achieved lesser rs success (and generally much less playoff), so....


.....Unless we want to label all of these teams underachievers, this argument still just doesn't hold a ton of water for me.


And if the '87 and '88 Celtics did underachieve relative to the talent they had at the top, one thing I'll say in their defense: they had an amazing big three and a fantastic starting five.....but they had no depth.

In '87: when a 30-year-old Jerry Sichting is your 6th man, followed by Fred Roberts (who??---I only vaguely know of this guy because I used to collect basketball cards), Darren Dave (who???), and famed stiff Greg Kite.....you're not doing too well in bench support.
In '88 it wasn't any better: 31-year-old Jerry Sichting was again your 6th man (when not injured) until traded late in season for a slight upgrade in 30-year-old Jim Paxson. Otherwise the primary bench was Fred Roberts, Mark Acres, Brad Lohaus, and a coked-out Dirk Minniefield. Yeck.....

[trex_8063]

Clyde Frazier,
I've tentatively recorded your #1 ballot as Gilmore, and your #2 as Pettit (since that's what you implied); would you please confirm, and please cast a 3rd ballot.

MyUniBroDavis,
Ballots? You implied your ballots would be similar to mine, but didn't make anything official. Would you please do so? I've stated I'm super-lenient on the amount of justification required at this point. If the choice is between a) having very little of both ballots and discussion, or b) just having very little discussion.....I'll take "b".

And/or: please, somebody (or several somebodies) come back and be heard. It's pulling teeth to get any turn-out these days; frustrating, and I'm debating ending the project.
But one thing I refuse to do is to end the project on a friggin' 4-way run-off with turnout this low:

Thru post #18
Artis Gilmore - 5
Elgin Baylor - 5
James Harden - 5
Russell Westbrook - 5
Bob McAdoo - 3
Bob Lanier - 3
Kevin McHale - 2
Bob Pettit - 2
Willis Reed - 2
Nate Thurmond - 2
Rick Barry - 1

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Owly]

On the McHale thing, circa '87 (RS numbers - in clearly his best RS)

To be fair after Parish, (17.7 PER in 2995 minutes; he’d be better later)
It’s
DJ 2933m – 13.2 PER
Ainge 2499m – 15.2
Jerry Sichting 1566 – 9.4
Fred Roberts 1079 – 10.7
Greg Kite 745 – 6.0
Derren Day 724 – 9.6

The rest are small minutes but almost entirely single digit PERs (i.e. sub-replacement level which is circa 11-12).

Thats just one measure (I’ve used that one so others aren’t just dragged up by high team performance), DJ's a good defender (but old now -- All-D seemed honorary), but as a ballpark indicator I think it suffices.

It's fine to be sceptical on McHale at this spot (and look at criticisms like "how useful is a post scorer who's a poor passer?"). I'm just not convinced about the teammates argument, in part because it was overstated (implied McHale was top 30 and not absolutely clarified that the Bird being discussed wasn't peak Bird), in part because there was any real look at how good the bench etc was and in part because there wasn't really any systematic look at equivalent or near-equivalent talent duos.