RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #44 (Elgin Baylor)

[Doctor MJ]

Re: really going to blame Dwight for butting head with Kobe, Harden? ... Dude, you're trying to knock Green for butting heads with Jordan Poole. You're really going to hold Poole in higher esteem than those other guys?

I don't know of reporting on Poole as a person/professional.

I do think the phrasing here is pretty loaded, because it's ambiguous whether one is talking about "how easy is this person to get along with" or "how highly do you regard them as a basketball player". And those are very different things. And one can hold Bryant and Harden in very high regard as basketball players and regard them as difficult teammates ... and one also simultaneously to those things hold Howard in lower regard as a teammate and perhaps also as primarily at fault in those particular locations.

I'm not looking to conflate basketball goodness with moral goodness, but I think it's pretty clear that Poole didn't get traded by the Warriors simply for basketball reasons.

I'll also say that while not looking to say that franchise players can treat teammates however the hell they want, it's generally understood that when you arrive on a team and you're a role player, part of your job is to fit in. Howard failed at this repeatedly, and probably part of the reason for this is that he wasn't used to being a role player. With Poole the weird thing is that he wasn't his team's big star even in college and yet still talked so much trash that the Warrior core got sick of him. Not a situation where it was hard to know how to behave, but Poole was clueless.

To be clear: None of this makes it right Green hit him, but Green obviously didn't take a swing at a random guy. What Poole was saying clearly antagonized him.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1: Draymond Green



Induction Vote 2: Kevin McHale

Grabbing my pair of nomination votes from a few threads back:

Green: Much like Manu, I'm past the point with Draymond where I'm finding reasons to not take the impact indicators that seriously. Green's career is absolutely remarkable as the #2, and a strong #2 on the dynasty of the modern era. I see him as the best defender of the era, and I think his playmaking impact on offense is significant, as is his leadership capacity - though that's not always in the positive direction.

Last thing I'll say here is that I'm high on Steph, Dray, Kerr, and the Warriors in general. I think what they've accomplished is remarkable, and expect to champion them in debates like this...although as I say that, I'm not sure I have Klay in my Top 100. I think Klay's had a great career, but I think Steph & Dray have been the shoulders on this the rest of the Warriors ride on piggy-back.

McHale: Exceptionally scary opponent. Outstanding defense, and extremely effective as a volume scorer. Not to be dismissed.

[OhayoKD]

Vote
1. Westbrook

Honestly weird he hasn't gotten discussion yet(and now that I think about he probably should have already been inducted by now)

but whatever, let's get this going

-> All-time Creator with all-time playoff elevation and all-time playoff impact
-> Was the most valuable piece on a team that thumped a 67-win team and took a 73-win team to 7, probably the best playoff performer in 2014 on a team which pushed the tiki-taka spurs without their best defender
-> Track-record of elevating against better opponents
-> Excellent cultural figure/teammate by all accounts, something which he leveraged to help OKC sign Paul George to a long-term contract, something they are still benefitting from
-> Great RS floor-raiser, 45-wins(full-strength) without KD with OKC's shallowest cast in 2015, and 2017 was even better
-> Saw a +9 srs team in 2013 turn into something like a +3 one when he was hurt
-> Excellent clutch player
-> Underrated longetivity, has been an elite playoff creator as early as 2010(when he elevated vs the eventual champions as he tends to do), had a strong 2023

2. Alternate: Draymond Green


-> Superstar impact by every approach throughout prime
-> Playoff-Riser
-> Centerpiece of an arguably era-best defense
-> Cornerstone of an all-time dynasty
-> Best-in-league calibre defender
-> One of the few two-way floor-generals in history

[trex_8063]

I've got the count as:

Baylor - 3 (trex, AEnigma, Samurai)
Draymond - 2 (Doc and someone else, forget who)
Westbrook - 2 (Iggy, Ohayo)
Dwight - 1 (trelos)
Drexler - 1 (Clyde)

[iggymcfrack]

I've got the count as:

Baylor - 3 (trex, AEnigma, Samurai)
Draymond - 2 (Doc and someone else, forget who)
Westbrook - 2 (Iggy, Ohayo)
Dwight - 1 (trelos)
Drexler - 1 (Clyde)

Assuming this is right, with alternates we get:

Baylor 4
Westbrook 3

Come on, someone, vote for Russ quick!

[penbeast0]

VOTE: Elgin Baylor
Alternate: Kevin McHale
(Would nominate Paul Pierce and Dave Cowens)

Baylor is really the only choice for me here and seems like the prohibitive favourite regardless. He did drop off dramatically after 1963, but he had an impressive five-year prime run and was still by rights one of the league’s top forwards afterward. Next round I am less clear on how I will vote, but I will probably at least start with McHale. I am hoping Pierce makes it in with some of the Drexler votes switching over to him; I would have been voting for him outright for several rounds now, as I had him in the same tiering as Kidd and Gilmore.

Cowens will be my other nomination as a guy I see as essential to the “story” of the 1970s to a degree not true of Lanier (although I think Lanier was better), and therefore a relatively “necessary” top 50 inclusion. Right now it does not appear as though he will make the top 50, but I do want to push hard for him as the centrepiece of the most successful team of the mid-1970s and a sort of progenitor to what Draymond has been for the Warriors.

Why Cowens and not Unseld as the centerpiece of the most successful team of the entire decade of the 70s with the most playoff games won (55 to 48 for the Knicks, 47 for the Celtics), 3 finals appearances and a title? If it's about iconic rather than best player, I would say Wes is more iconic than Big Red (even that nickname frequently makes people think of Walton instead). You could go Elvin in theory but Unseld was always the face of the Bullets.

[penbeast0]

Vote: Kevin McHale: Scoring, defense, rings, consistency, a willingness to play roles that may not maximize his own value in order to help his team win.

Alt: Draymond Green Seems way too early but if I want to win a title, I take him over Baylor, Westbrook, or the other high volume scorers. Also considered Dwight Howard but (possibly like Green) it seems he needs such a specific combination of people around him to be great.


Nominate: Bobby Jones. More than a decade of straight 1st team All-Defense votes combined with high efficiency, though not high volume scoring, and good playmaking. Not a great rebounder for his position but could play 2-5 at either end. Probably the greatest glue guy in NBA history and in his time where he was the best player on his team (75 and 76 for example), his team was the best in the league both years though they came up short in the playoffs. Probably too early but haven't been convinced of anyone else here.

Alt: Jimmy Butler Convince me why Paul Pierce was better other than a pure longevity argument and I will, he was next on my list.

[trex_8063]

Well, we're past deadline by about 2 hrs 40 min, if I'm not mistaken. Time to move on, I think....

[AEnigma]

VOTE: Elgin Baylor
Alternate: Kevin McHale
(Would nominate Paul Pierce and Dave Cowens)

Baylor is really the only choice for me here and seems like the prohibitive favourite regardless. He did drop off dramatically after 1963, but he had an impressive five-year prime run and was still by rights one of the league’s top forwards afterward. Next round I am less clear on how I will vote, but I will probably at least start with McHale. I am hoping Pierce makes it in with some of the Drexler votes switching over to him; I would have been voting for him outright for several rounds now, as I had him in the same tiering as Kidd and Gilmore.

Cowens will be my other nomination as a guy I see as essential to the “story” of the 1970s to a degree not true of Lanier (although I think Lanier was better), and therefore a relatively “necessary” top 50 inclusion. Right now it does not appear as though he will make the top 50, but I do want to push hard for him as the centrepiece of the most successful team of the mid-1970s and a sort of progenitor to what Draymond has been for the Warriors.

Why Cowens and not Unseld as the centerpiece of the most successful team of the entire decade of the 70s with the most playoff games won (55 to 48 for the Knicks, 47 for the Celtics), 3 finals appearances and a title? If it's about iconic rather than best player, I would say Wes is more iconic than Big Red (even that nickname frequently makes people think of Walton instead). You could go Elvin in theory but Unseld was always the face of the Bullets.

Would you rather have two titles or one? Are you more impressed by a player whose team lived and died off his presence, or one whose teams only ever passively missed him when he was out of the lineup?

They both won 11 series in their careers; “total playoff wins” is not especially compelling, especially in circumstances where I would say the rest of the Bullets were on average better than the rest of the Celtics. On paper I see the Bullets being more successful with Cowens in place of Unseld and the Celtics notably worse with Unseld in place of Cowens, and while I am fine crediting Unseld for accommodating the notoriously ornery Hayes, in most scenarios I would prefer to just have the better player and talent.

[AEnigma]

Well, we're past deadline by about 2 hrs 40 min, if I'm not mistaken. Time to move on, I think....

I am a Baylor voter extremely disinclined to vote for Westbrook, but you know that has pretty much never been Doc’s rule.

[penbeast0]

The question wasn't who was better, I'd probably take Cowens too though his prime is only about 2/3 as long for those who value longevity. You said you would take Cowens over Lanier as more iconic. I would say Unseld is more iconic for the 70s than Cowens, if not better.

Of course, since I spent the 70s in Washington, I may have an inflated idea of Unseld's national fame.

I'd also question whether the rest of the Bullets (championship team was Tom Henderson, Kevin Grevey, Bob Dandridge, Elvin Hayes, Unseld) was better than the rest of the Celtics (Jo Jo White, Don Chaney, Havlicek, Silas, Cowens). I'd say the Celtics have the advantage at PG, SG, SF, and Hayes is clearly better than Silas though Silas was an underrated and very good player much more comparable to Unseld stylistically.

[AEnigma]

Well you quoted me. I care little about iconography (condolences to Iverson), but if we want to talk about perception, Cowens has more than double Unseld’s MVP shares and triple his all-NBA spots.

If we want to focus on championship teams specifically, I think the Celtics performed at a pretty clearly higher level, so even if we say they were better (probably agree for 1974 at least), it does little to change how I see Cowens relative to Unseld.

[trex_8063]

Well, we're past deadline by about 2 hrs 40 min, if I'm not mistaken. Time to move on, I think....

I am a Baylor voter extremely disinclined to vote for Westbrook, but you know that has pretty much never been Doc’s rule.

Not sure what you mean. I just mean we're past deadline (about 4 hours now); time to get the official count/ruling from the project chair.
Is it not Doc's rule to conduct the count near to the stated deadline? I have generally found him to be close(ish) on that, though I guess I've not always paid close attention to when exactly things happened.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1:

Baylor - 3 (AEnigma, trex, Samurai)
Howard - 1 (trelos)
Green - 2 (hcl, Doc)
Westbrook - 2 (iggy, Ohayo)
Drexler - 1 (Clyde)
beast - 1 (McHale)

No majority. Going to Vote 2 between Baylor, Green & Westbrook.

Baylor - 1 (Clyde)
Green - 1 (beast)
Westbrook - 1 (trelos)

Baylor 4, Green 3, Westbrook 3

With Green & Westbrook in a tie, no further eliminations, and so that settles it:

Elgin Baylor is Inducted at #44.

[Fundamentals21]

Elgin Baylor mysteriously keeps dropping, from 20's, to 30's, now to 40's.

[Doctor MJ]

Elgin Baylor mysteriously keeps dropping, from 20's, to 30's, now to 40's.

Not sure how mysterious it is. Modern analytics hasn't been kind to him.

[Owly]

Re: really going to blame Dwight for butting head with Kobe, Harden? ... Dude, you're trying to knock Green for butting heads with Jordan Poole. You're really going to hold Poole in higher esteem than those other guys?

I don't know of reporting on Poole as a person/professional.

I do think the phrasing here is pretty loaded, because it's ambiguous whether one is talking about "how easy is this person to get along with" or "how highly do you regard them as a basketball player". And those are very different things. And one can hold Bryant and Harden in very high regard as basketball players and regard them as difficult teammates ... and one also simultaneously to those things hold Howard in lower regard as a teammate and perhaps also as primarily at fault in those particular locations.

I'm not looking to conflate basketball goodness with moral goodness, but I think it's pretty clear that Poole didn't get traded by the Warriors simply for basketball reasons.

I'll also say that while not looking to say that franchise players can treat teammates however the hell they want, it's generally understood that when you arrive on a team and you're a role player, part of your job is to fit in. Howard failed at this repeatedly, and probably part of the reason for this is that he wasn't used to being a role player. With Poole the weird thing is that he wasn't his team's big star even in college and yet still talked so much trash that the Warrior core got sick of him. Not a situation where it was hard to know how to behave, but Poole was clueless.

To be clear: None of this makes it right Green hit him, but Green obviously didn't take a swing at a random guy. What Poole was saying clearly antagonized him.

As before not an expert on Poole or the Draymond-Poole incident ... hadn't seen it until today. I care about basketball and not about the circus around it. (fwiw, looking at it, it really sucks ... it's not a "fight" where both men are ready, it's an unprotected shot to the head, it's a bigger guy to a smaller guy and Draymond purposefully goes out of his way to instigate the physicality)

Going to be honest here... still struggling to parse this answer with regard to the original phrasing.

I'm not arguing for Howard as a teammate.

But the phrasing was ...

You're really going to hold Poole in higher esteem than those other guys?

That's either about them as colleagues or as basketball players (as I read it).

The basketball players question is easy and I don't think it was ever suggested by the other poster, without necessarily agreeing with them more broadly, that they thought Poole was Bryant or Harden tier player. That would pretty clearly be absurd.

But then whilst you take some shots as Poole as colleague (as above I wouldn't claim to know on this) there isn't a rock solid sense that you're saying Kobe or Harden is leagues better to work with to the point of incredulity ... which is probably for the best because whilst undeniably talented, and we never have the full story there are significant blemishes .

IDK, I don't see there as being a (sound) third road from that phrasing where the intent was "I'm not saying it's okay for superstars to hit lesser teammates but ...", (which could cover Bryant or Green and is itself ... I mean ... if one just wants to say realpolitik means great players get more leeway and being a jerk to lesser players gets you more leeway, sure ... arguably for the former it's a greater cost too if they're, let's say 'volatile', though ... though it perhaps feels a bit icky ... and then the conversation pivots in a manner that doesn't really seem to pertain to the quote and only tangentially to the Draymond versus Howard comp [which would presumably be predominantly about how they behaved as high impact players because that's the part of their career that gets them in this conversation] about Howard was as a roleplayer ... I guess maybe the idea is it's indicative).

I also ... don't think Draymond requires antagonizing. Was he antagonized when he told losing finalists they sucked, not in the heat of battle. Were opponents testicles antagonizing him. Without reference to this specific incident ... Draymond ... ,as I read it, has it in him.

Also without really following the situation at all ... my sense there are basketball reasons and non-basketball reasons not pertaining to being a jerk (or similarly negative) to move Poole. His defense, basketball IQ and his contract. None of this means he didn't provoke Green, or that Poole isn't (or wasn't being) a jerk. Again, I didn't really follow that situation.

IDK, it probably doesn't matter, the phrase jarred on both readings is all.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't know of reporting on Poole as a person/professional.

I do think the phrasing here is pretty loaded, because it's ambiguous whether one is talking about "how easy is this person to get along with" or "how highly do you regard them as a basketball player". And those are very different things. And one can hold Bryant and Harden in very high regard as basketball players and regard them as difficult teammates ... and one also simultaneously to those things hold Howard in lower regard as a teammate and perhaps also as primarily at fault in those particular locations.

I'm not looking to conflate basketball goodness with moral goodness, but I think it's pretty clear that Poole didn't get traded by the Warriors simply for basketball reasons.

I'll also say that while not looking to say that franchise players can treat teammates however the hell they want, it's generally understood that when you arrive on a team and you're a role player, part of your job is to fit in. Howard failed at this repeatedly, and probably part of the reason for this is that he wasn't used to being a role player. With Poole the weird thing is that he wasn't his team's big star even in college and yet still talked so much trash that the Warrior core got sick of him. Not a situation where it was hard to know how to behave, but Poole was clueless.

To be clear: None of this makes it right Green hit him, but Green obviously didn't take a swing at a random guy. What Poole was saying clearly antagonized him.

As before not an expert on Poole or the Draymond-Poole incident ... hadn't seen it until today. I care about basketball and not about the circus around it. (fwiw, looking at it, it really sucks ... it's not a "fight" where both men are ready, it's an unprotected shot to the head, it's a bigger guy to a smaller guy and Draymond purposefully goes out of his way to instigate the physicality)

Going to be honest here... still struggling to parse this answer with regard to the original phrasing.

I'm not arguing for Howard as a teammate.

But the phrasing was ...

You're really going to hold Poole in higher esteem than those other guys?

That's either about them as colleagues or as basketball players (as I read it).

The basketball players question is easy and I don't think it was ever suggested by the other poster, without necessarily agreeing with them more broadly, that they thought Poole was Bryant or Harden tier player. That would pretty clearly be absurd.

But then whilst you take some shots as Poole as colleague (as above I wouldn't claim to know on this) there isn't a rock solid sense that you're saying Kobe or Harden is leagues better to work with to the point of incredulity ... which is probably for the best because whilst undeniably talented, and we never have the full story there are significant blemishes .

IDK, I don't see there as being a (sound) third road from that phrasing where the intent was "I'm not saying it's okay for superstars to hit lesser teammates but ...", (which could cover Bryant or Green and is itself ... I mean ... if one just wants to say realpolitik means great players get more leeway and being a jerk to lesser players gets you more leeway, sure ... arguably for the former it's a greater cost too if they're, let's say 'volatile', though ... though it perhaps feels a bit icky ... and then the conversation pivots in a manner that doesn't really seem to pertain to the quote and only tangentially to the Draymond versus Howard comp [which would presumably be predominantly about how they behaved as high impact players because that's the part of their career that gets them in this conversation] about Howard was as a roleplayer ... I guess maybe the idea is it's indicative).

I also ... don't think Draymond requires antagonizing. Was he antagonized when he told losing finalists they sucked, not in the heat of battle. Were opponents testicles antagonizing him. Without reference to this specific incident ... Draymond ... ,as I read it, has it in him.

Also without really following the situation at all ... my sense there are basketball reasons and non-basketball reasons not pertaining to being a jerk (or similarly negative) to move Poole. His defense, basketball IQ and his contract. None of this means he didn't provoke Green, or that Poole isn't (or wasn't being) a jerk. Again, I didn't really follow that situation.

IDK, it probably doesn't matter, the phrase jarred on both readings is all.

So there's a lot here and I'm not sure what you're specifically looking for me to respond to. To try to hit the key points of the situation:

1. The guy I was debating with effectively said that issues involving Kobe & Harden were Kobe & Harden's fault but that issues involving Poole were not-Poole's fault while talking about Howard & Green respectively. I was objecting to that differing approach.

I personally am not trying to say that Green shouldn't be blamed for hitting Poole. I blame Green for his failures just as I blame Howard for his. I also blame Kobe, Harden & Poole for theirs, and hence object to statements pertaining to Poole that imply he's some innocent dove who got traded from Golden State because he was so unfortunate to have Green randomly hit him.

To be clear: I'm not interested in witch-hunting Poole, but if someone is going to try to argue for Howard over another on the basis Howard's myriad interpersonal issues were all the fault of everyone else, but the other guy's issues had nothing to do with anyone else, I'm going to push back.

2. Does Draymond require antagonizing? I'm not sure why you need to ask this. Do you have a list of guys Draymond has punched in the face that he wasn't interacting with before? I don't think so.

This is different from trash-talking or more run of the mill dirty plays which are morally questionable but done for competitive advantage. We're clearly talking about a guy who has a quick temper and overreacts in the moment.

3. Hammering in that last point remembering something someone else said:

For anyone who didn't realize that mental quickness is not the same thing as strong impulse control, and that often mental quickness can coincide with poor impulse control:

Mental quickness is not the same thing as strong impulse control, and often mental quickness can coincide with poor impulse control.

The idea that someone is "not a genius" because they do stupid things in the moment is just plain misguided.

The same holds true for all sorts of other mental attributes. Elon Musk is brilliant, and he's also foolish. Something I'm always saying to my gifted students:

Don't ever think you're too smart to be stupid. You're absolutely capable of being both.

[Owly]

I'm not looking to conflate basketball goodness with moral goodness, but I think it's pretty clear that Poole didn't get traded by the Warriors simply for basketball reasons.

I'll also say that while not looking to say that franchise players can treat teammates however the hell they want, it's generally understood that when you arrive on a team and you're a role player, part of your job is to fit in. Howard failed at this repeatedly, and probably part of the reason for this is that he wasn't used to being a role player. With Poole the weird thing is that he wasn't his team's big star even in college and yet still talked so much trash that the Warrior core got sick of him. Not a situation where it was hard to know how to behave, but Poole was clueless.

To be clear: None of this makes it right Green hit him, but Green obviously didn't take a swing at a random guy. What Poole was saying clearly antagonized him.

As before not an expert on Poole or the Draymond-Poole incident ... hadn't seen it until today. I care about basketball and not about the circus around it. (fwiw, looking at it, it really sucks ... it's not a "fight" where both men are ready, it's an unprotected shot to the head, it's a bigger guy to a smaller guy and Draymond purposefully goes out of his way to instigate the physicality)

Going to be honest here... still struggling to parse this answer with regard to the original phrasing.

I'm not arguing for Howard as a teammate.

But the phrasing was ...

You're really going to hold Poole in higher esteem than those other guys?

That's either about them as colleagues or as basketball players (as I read it).

The basketball players question is easy and I don't think it was ever suggested by the other poster, without necessarily agreeing with them more broadly, that they thought Poole was Bryant or Harden tier player. That would pretty clearly be absurd.

But then whilst you take some shots as Poole as colleague (as above I wouldn't claim to know on this) there isn't a rock solid sense that you're saying Kobe or Harden is leagues better to work with to the point of incredulity ... which is probably for the best because whilst undeniably talented, and we never have the full story there are significant blemishes .

IDK, I don't see there as being a (sound) third road from that phrasing where the intent was "I'm not saying it's okay for superstars to hit lesser teammates but ...", (which could cover Bryant or Green and is itself ... I mean ... if one just wants to say realpolitik means great players get more leeway and being a jerk to lesser players gets you more leeway, sure ... arguably for the former it's a greater cost too if they're, let's say 'volatile', though ... though it perhaps feels a bit icky ... and then the conversation pivots in a manner that doesn't really seem to pertain to the quote and only tangentially to the Draymond versus Howard comp [which would presumably be predominantly about how they behaved as high impact players because that's the part of their career that gets them in this conversation] about Howard was as a roleplayer ... I guess maybe the idea is it's indicative).

I also ... don't think Draymond requires antagonizing. Was he antagonized when he told losing finalists they sucked, not in the heat of battle. Were opponents testicles antagonizing him. Without reference to this specific incident ... Draymond ... ,as I read it, has it in him.

Also without really following the situation at all ... my sense there are basketball reasons and non-basketball reasons not pertaining to being a jerk (or similarly negative) to move Poole. His defense, basketball IQ and his contract. None of this means he didn't provoke Green, or that Poole isn't (or wasn't being) a jerk. Again, I didn't really follow that situation.

IDK, it probably doesn't matter, the phrase jarred on both readings is all.

So there's a lot here and I'm not sure what you're specifically looking for me to respond to. To try to hit the key points of the situation:

1. The guy I was debating with effectively said that issues involving Kobe & Harden were Kobe & Harden's fault but that issues involving Poole were not-Poole's fault while talking about Howard & Green respectively. I was objecting to that differing approach.

I personally am not trying to say that Green shouldn't be blamed for hitting Poole. I blame Green for his failures just as I blame Howard for his. I also blame Kobe, Harden & Poole for theirs, and hence object to statements pertaining to Poole that imply he's some innocent dove who got traded from Golden State because he was so unfortunate to have Green randomly hit him.

To be clear: I'm not interested in witch-hunting Poole, but if someone is going to try to argue for Howard over another on the basis Howard's myriad interpersonal issues were all the fault of everyone else, but the other guy's issues had nothing to do with anyone else, I'm going to push back.

2. Does Draymond require antagonizing? I'm not sure why you need to ask this. Do you have a list of guys Draymond has punched in the face that he wasn't interacting with before? I don't think so.

This is different from trash-talking or more run of the mill dirty plays which are morally questionable but done for competitive advantage. We're clearly talking about a guy who has a quick temper and overreacts in the moment.

3. Hammering in that last point remembering something someone else said:

For anyone who didn't realize that mental quickness is not the same thing as strong impulse control, and that often mental quickness can coincide with poor impulse control:

Mental quickness is not the same thing as strong impulse control, and often mental quickness can coincide with poor impulse control.

The idea that someone is "not a genius" because they do stupid things in the moment is just plain misguided.

The same holds true for all sorts of other mental attributes. Elon Musk is brilliant, and he's also foolish. Something I'm always saying to my gifted students:

Don't ever think you're too smart to be stupid. You're absolutely capable of being both.

Last go round on this ... because time and it doesn't really matter and I don't know if it's going anywhere. And maybe just repeating myself. This may make it more blunt than normal.

I'm not arguing for "other guy was right" ... I'm arguing the quoted passage is ... jarring and weird. Poole "in higher esteem" than Braynt and Harden? Basketball-wise I can't imagine it would be worth engaging with if they thought that. So it's as a person (or at least teammate if you want to put the rape stuff to one side) ... and for incredulity on that, you'd want something bigger than I've seen here.

On 2) - "require antagonizing" ... I don't know that [paraphrasing here] "we're not aware of him assaulting other teammates" means much. I don't know that there are many players with multiple such cases (only Jordan comes to mind). I don't know what Poole said, I don't care that much. I didn't say "Draymond consistently replicates his absolute worst behavior". But honestly, from what I can tell, he doesn't seem very remorseful and he's done a bunch of other stupid stuff. I'm sure Draymond felt he was provoked. I'm sure MJ thought he had good reason to attack Perdue and Kerr and has a reputation for invented slights. For some things a sample of one is all you're ever going to get. Unless the case is that Draymond had "reasonable cause" then I think the the point stands. He doesn't need anything remotely in proportion to do something stupid, aggressive, harmful to his team.

I don't think his testicle based attacks were done for a "competitive advantage". I don't think they're "run of the mill" (or "[basketball] plays") either. I haven't played to any level. But those seemed pretty weird to me.

Fwiw, point 3 seems reasonable. I wouldn't know to what extent they coincide. I would say that flaw makes the net value lower.

But this seems like you don't agree on the quote or my reading so per above this might be pointless so really out on it here.

[Cavsfansince84]

Elgin Baylor mysteriously keeps dropping, from 20's, to 30's, now to 40's.

Nearly every player who was top 20 20-30 years ago has dropped. New players keep making cases to take their place. Now with regard to top 100 projects you could mention that he dropped from like #34 3 years ago to #44 now. So that is a striking drop but also has to do with how small the voting pool is. Perhaps in the next one he comes in at 38.