RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #30

[rebirthoftheM]

Hmm, okay so 2 things:

1) You can't simply tell someone to make better decisions and you basically can't teach someone to see the world with deeper understanding unless they are looking to learn that from you. (I guess that's two things right there actually, but...)
2) It's a mistake to take the term "floor general" too literally. Because the person with the ball in his hands has decision making power, he is like a general in his ability impact the whole field of play simply by deciding a thing, but that doesn't necessarily mean others are actually looking to him to bark orders at them.

But in general it seems like you're basically looking to hold West accountable for anything about him that was less than perfect rather than hold Baylor accountable simply for his play, and I would suggest at this level on a GOAT list, if you have to make excuses like that, perhaps there are better candidates.

I absolutely would absolve Jerry West of all responsibility if for example, he actually tried to address these issues and he was ignored. But if he was oblivious, or actively remained silent, then this to me is damnation of his leadership, when we even have someone like Shaq, a known malcontent at certain points in his careers, addressing severe problems he perceived about some of his teams. I mean, it is seems entirely inconsistent for me to celebrate West for his amazing leadership and bball IQ, if he was incapable of addressing the issues that severely limited the ceiling of his teams. Basketball is a team sport after all of course, and it is about winning. Regarding West and your original post, if we assume he said nothing/oblivious, then I can't give him a +1 in the intangibles categories over and beyond other all-timers. Maybe Russell. But not West.

But I don't know man. If we assume nobody spoke to Baylor (unlike someone like Iverson, or hell even Wilt at certain junctures of his career), and knowing that the entire world of basketball celebrated him during his career and in the subsequent careers, I feel like he was a victim of circumstances. Take someone like MJ for example. When Phil Jackson presented to him the whole triangle thingy, MJ initially balked at it, mockingly referring to it as the "equal opportunity offense". He was not convinced of it at all. Pjax in an interview said he understood this, and went to lengths to let MJ know that the triangle wouldn't take shots away from him, but create easier opportunities for himself and his teammates. By the end of the 90s, Jordan had become a diehard Jacksonite and was a champion of the system.

IMO, outside of very rare personalities, if the entire world is telling you are one thing (i.e. you're great and playing great), it is very difficult to shift courses. I see Baylor as this, and I can't help by speculating, given his skill-set, what he would have achieved if he actually had people around who could point out things. Seems like even his coaches failed.

[Doctor MJ]

Hmm, okay so 2 things:

1) You can't simply tell someone to make better decisions and you basically can't teach someone to see the world with deeper understanding unless they are looking to learn that from you. (I guess that's two things right there actually, but...)
2) It's a mistake to take the term "floor general" too literally. Because the person with the ball in his hands has decision making power, he is like a general in his ability impact the whole field of play simply by deciding a thing, but that doesn't necessarily mean others are actually looking to him to bark orders at them.

But in general it seems like you're basically looking to hold West accountable for anything about him that was less than perfect rather than hold Baylor accountable simply for his play, and I would suggest at this level on a GOAT list, if you have to make excuses like that, perhaps there are better candidates.

I absolutely would absolve Jerry West of all responsibility if for example, he actually tried to address these issues and he was ignored. But if he was oblivious, or actively remained silent, then this to me is damnation of his leadership, when we even have someone like Shaq, a known malcontent at certain points in his careers, addressing severe problems he perceived about some of his teams. I mean, it is seems entirely inconsistent for me to celebrate West for his amazing leadership and bball IQ, if he was incapable of addressing the issues that severely limited the ceiling of his teams. Basketball is a team sport after all of course, and it is about winning. Regarding West and your original post, if we assume he said nothing/oblivious, then I can't give him a +1 in the intangibles categories over and beyond other all-timers. Maybe Russell. But not West.

But I don't know man. If we assume nobody spoke to Baylor (unlike someone like Iverson, or hell even Wilt at certain junctures of his career), and knowing that the entire world of basketball celebrated him during his career and in the subsequent careers, I feel like he was a victim of circumstances. Take someone like MJ for example. When Phil Jackson presented to him the whole triangle thingy, MJ initially balked at it, mockingly referring to it as the "equal opportunity offense". He was not convinced of it at all. Pjax in an interview said he understood this, and went to lengths to let MJ know that the triangle wouldn't take shots away from him, but create easier opportunities for himself and his teammates. By the end of the 90s, Jordan had become a diehard Jacksonite and was a champion of the system.

IMO, outside of very rare personalities, if the entire world is telling you are one thing (i.e. you're great and playing great), it is very difficult to shift courses. I see Baylor as this, and I can't help by speculating, given his skill-set, what he would have achieved if he actually had people around who could point out things. Seems like even his coaches failed.

Well I'll say this: I don't think it was in West's personality to simply tell everyone else what to do. He wasn't Oscar. He wasn't Magic. He shot better than them, he defended better than them, he passed at an elite level, but he didn't take control of situations like them and frankly that's part of why I have him behind them.

Re: victim of circumstances. Okay, let me just emphasize a point one more time:

Be sure you're aware and honest with yourself about what the foundation of your beliefs are.

I understand why it seems reasonable to brush off inefficient play from a player raved about in his day as an artifact of an uncertainty that doesn't much change understanding of what that player fundamentally was, but prior the need for that riposte (or one like it that you responded to in the past), when you first formed an opinion on Baylor...did you seriously arrive at two distinct assessments of Baylor's production and impact so far as how they related to his actual ability?

Because if when you began this was all in the same bucket, then there's not really a logical way to "adjust" for bad era coaching. Any adjustment will simply end up moving the assessment back to the bucket it started with.

I'll put it another way:

Consider Wilt in '61-62, and Wilt in '66-67.

Let X be how impressive Wilt '61-62 seemed based on his numbers, etc.
Let Y be how much impact Wilt '61-62 actually had.
Let Z be how much impact Wilt '66-67 actually had.

What I've seen over and over again from people when they finally concede that X>Y and Z>Y, is an assumption that X=Z or something very close to it. They have X lodged in their mind and basically look for a way to justify it, but there's no reason to think that X and Z are at all related. X is just a wrong thought that they made up, and should be treated with vigilant skepticism imho.

[rebirthoftheM]

Well I'll say this: I don't think it was in West's personality to simply tell everyone else what to do. He wasn't Oscar. He wasn't Magic. He shot better than them, he defended better than them, he passed at an elite level, but he didn't take control of situations like them and frankly that's part of why I have him behind them.

Re: victim of circumstances. Okay, let me just emphasize a point one more time:

Be sure you're aware and honest with yourself about what the foundation of your beliefs are.

I understand why it seems reasonable to brush off inefficient play from a player raved about in his day as an artifact of an uncertainty that doesn't much change understanding of what that player fundamentally was, but prior the need for that riposte (or one like it that you responded to in the past), when you first formed an opinion on Baylor...did you seriously arrive at two distinct assessments of Baylor's production and impact so far as how they related to his actual ability?

Because if when you began this was all in the same bucket, then there's not really a logical way to "adjust" for bad era coaching. Any adjustment will simply end up moving the assessment back to the bucket it started with.

I'll put it another way:

Consider Wilt in '61-62, and Wilt in '66-67.

Let X be how impressive Wilt '61-62 seemed based on his numbers, etc.
Let Y be how much impact Wilt '61-62 actually had.
Let Z be how much impact Wilt '66-67 actually had.

What I've seen over and over again from people when they finally concede that X>Y and Z>Y, is an assumption that X=Z or something very close to it. They have X lodged in their mind and basically look for a way to justify it, but there's no reason to think that X and Z are at all related. X is just a wrong thought that they made up, and should be treated with vigilant skepticism imho.

Well if you're conceding that a distinction between West and other all-timers exists, then fair enough. But on the flip side, recognizing, and then informing your teammates that parts of their game/play is not optimal was not some special quality only possessed by the greatest of the leaders/floor generals. IMO, if West knew and didn't say anything, this is an actual asterix against him. But my suspicion is, West actually didn't see Baylor's issues as a big deal, and personally played the way he did it because he instinctively (as opposed to consciously) knew it was the best way for him to play. From all accounts, it appears West's views on Baylor did not differ too significantly from what the NBA family at the time thought about Baylor.

And I am a little confused in what you said in the bold, so I'll go off what I think you're saying. My overarching perspective on Baylor has zero to do with his numbers and his individual exploits. I see and read stories of him, and I see a man with an elite skill-set for a forward, including the ability to be a play-maker from the forward position. I read a man who was not too destructive as a personality, and would seemingly take advice if it was delivered. From there, I conclude that in the right conditions, he would have been a very impactful player, numbers be damned. There is zero reason for me to think otherwise.

And unfortunately because he existed in a climate where everyone (as far as I know) praised him for his play, and wasn't one of those rare personalities who could defy everyone's common sense and tread along another path, we see that his play didn't translate to utter dominance. But if I'm going to give 90s MJ strong GOAT consideration for his play and team results that were intimately tied to listening to Tex Winter, then I can't ignore that Baylor never had a Tex Winter that could point out things to him.

IMO this position is entirely consistent with excluding ring counts when comparing X player to Y player, where X player had much better teammates around him. Certain dudes were most definitely victims of their circumstances. And someone like Baylor, who lived in a world where the entire NBA family, including it appears, his partner in crime, the HOF Jerry West, celebrated him, but yet in latter generations is dismissed because of sub-optimal impactful play, I cannot describe him as anything other than a victim of circumstances.

I cannot a blame for a man for continuing along a path that everyone who knew basketball at the time thought was good basketball.