RealGM Top 100 List #28

[Owly]

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

I'd suggest no. It depends on what we mean of course (time-machine or if he'd been brought up with the 3 point line)), but I'd guess, no either way.

The suggestion that he didn't have the range comes from sources like

Most Overrated
.....
Walt Frazier dominates the league in public relations. He also has a fine 15-foot jump shot, a terrific baseline drive and terrific rebounding ability for a guard ...

Best Pure Shooter
....
Walt Frazier Makes the top five, even though there is skepticism about his range.
[The top 5 goes 1) McAdoo, 2) Hudson, 3) West, 4) Frazier, 5) Petrie]

Given that he could score off the drive and created transition points off his D, his J, whilst apparently highly rated at the time, wouldn't have to be exceptional for him to post his strong fg%.

Then too his ft% (.786 RS, .751 playoffs, .782059381 combined) and whilst imperfect (both in terms of the correlation with three point shooting, and the arbitrary borderline I'm about to offer) I'd suggest 80% would be required for a "good" shooter * one might argue that's merely par for a guard, at least a noteworthy one). In combination with comments on his range being unexceptional and ft being in a range that should be right in his wheelhouse, this seems like a negative indicator.

So I wouldn't think Frazier would be a 3 point shooter, though I suppose in terms of the "If brought up with it ...", the fairest answer would be that we can't know.

[ceiling raiser]

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

I'd suggest no. It depends on what we mean of course (time-machine or if he'd been brought up with the 3 point line)), but I'd guess, no either way.

The suggestion that he didn't have the range comes from sources like

Most Overrated
.....
Walt Frazier dominates the league in public relations. He also has a fine 15-foot jump shot, a terrific baseline drive and terrific rebounding ability for a guard ...

Best Pure Shooter
....
Walt Frazier Makes the top five, even though there is skepticism about his range.
[The top 5 goes 1) McAdoo, 2) Hudson, 3) West, 4) Frazier, 5) Petrie]

Given that he could score off the drive and created transition points off his D, his J, whilst apparently highly rated at the time, wouldn't have to be exceptional for him to post his strong fg%.

Then too his ft% (.786 RS, .751 playoffs, .782059381 combined) and whilst imperfect (both in terms of the correlation with three point shooting, and the arbitrary borderline I'm about to offer) I'd suggest 80% would be required for a "good" shooter * one might argue that's merely par for a guard, at least a noteworthy one). In combination with comments on his range being unexceptional and ft being in a range that should be right in his wheelhouse, this seems like a negative indicator.

So I wouldn't think Frazier would be a 3 point shooter, though I suppose in terms of the "If brought up with it ...", the fairest answer would be that we can't know.

Thanks. Not every guard needs develop three-point range (MJ, Wade, and Parker to a lesser degree being notable examples), but it's good to have some documentation.

[tsherkin]

I will vote for Walt Frazier, for the reasons I'd posted before. I had him above Pippen on the basis of his offensive ability and playoff performance, while considering his disruptive defensive presence as well. I think he's a more valuable player than Isiah Thomas (though most undersell Isiah's offensive ability as a volume playmaker earlier on in his career) and more valuable overall than someone like Hondo or Baylor, etc.

[Owly]

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

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

Bob Ryan wrote:

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

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

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

My instinct is it isn't an indictment of Hondo (or Sanders).

There are multiple ways this could be true ...

1) Bailey Howell ended up fouling out. This may suggest that Embry being on was related to the fouls situation. That being the case it was natural that the more mobile Russell would guard one of the forwards whilst the stronger, less mobile Embry would guard Wilt in the pivot. It didn't have to be Walker of course, and we don't know when Howell got his fouls, but then we don't know for certain about how accurate Russell's recall is either.

2) Regarding the effectiveness of second half substitutions, Philly’s scoring by quarter 21-19-29-27. Maybe it was the pace that changed? Well Boston go 26-20-27-27. So perhaps partially. Still, Philly won the second half, scored more in the second half and scored the most (and won the period) immediately after half time, and scored more than either team did in any other period. We talk a lot about team level impact, if Boston were making adjustments based on strategy rather than necessity, were they working (or was it better with someone else on Walker).

3) Hal Greer was probably the toughest assignment that series (at least the toughest non-Chamberlain cover). He seems to have been the least injured, he was the highest volume (per minute scorer) still active (Cunningham had been higher in 3 games but had been injured in the New York series). Given Sam Jones fouled out Havlicek will have spent at least some of the time covering him.

Throw in that awkward individual matchups aren't in any case the be-all and end all and honestly I interpret this switch as a non-factor.

[Clyde Frazier]

-----

-----

I can't remember which one of you had screen shots of Clyde's Rockin Steady book, but would you mind posting some pages where he talks about his mindset as a player / anything else relevant? Thanks!

[penbeast0]

...My instinct is it isn't an indictment of Hondo (or Sanders).

There are multiple ways this could be true ...

Spoiler:

1) Bailey Howell ended up fouling out. This may suggest that Embry being on was related to the fouls situation. That being the case it was natural that the more mobile Russell would guard one of the forwards whilst the stronger, less mobile Embry would guard Wilt in the pivot. It didn't have to be Walker of course, and we don't know when Howell got his fouls, but then we don't know for certain about how accurate Russell's recall is either.

2) Regarding the effectiveness of second half substitutions, Philly’s scoring by quarter 21-19-29-27. Maybe it was the pace that changed? Well Boston go 26-20-27-27. So perhaps partially. Still, Philly won the second half, scored more in the second half and scored the most (and won the period) immediately after half time, and scored more than either team did in any other period. We talk a lot about team level impact, if Boston were making adjustments based on strategy rather than necessity, were they working (or was it better with someone else on Walker).

3) Hal Greer was probably the toughest assignment that series (at least the toughest non-Chamberlain cover). He seems to have been the least injured, he was the highest volume (per minute scorer) still active (Cunningham had been higher in 3 games but had been injured in the New York series). Given Sam Jones fouled out Havlicek will have spent at least some of the time covering him.

Throw in that awkward individual matchups aren't in any case the be-all and end all and honestly I interpret this switch as a non-factor.

Thanks, for some reason that one has bothered me since Dipper13 posted it.

[penbeast0]

Spoiler:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree he was the 2nd best SF of the 80s behind only Bird but those Kiki Vandeweghe teams are like the D'Antoni Suns. As you put it, Doug Moe used "cheat lineups," (or, if you prefer, took a grossly unbalanced team and tried to make it work) that inflated offensive efficiency and hurt defensive efficiency over and above the talents involved. That front line was truly unique. Issel was a weak defensive outside stretch 4 playing out of position at center, Kiki Vandeweghe was a weak defensive (and poor rebounding for a 3) outside shooting 3 playing out of position at PF, English was the primary defensive stopper and post-up option on that front line . . . AND, they were using Bill Hanslick (a guard) as their backup center because Moe thought he had strong enough thighs to hold position against opposing bigs. One of the craziest teams ever (though the one with point guard Fat Lever leading the team in rebounding while 5'11 shooting guard Michael Adams scored 26ppg comes close).

[Texas Chuck]

I'm going to bring up Alex English to test the waters. .

Spoiler:

--leading scorer of the 80's

-- first guy ever with 8 consecutive 2000 pt seasons

-- one of the best 2nd round picks ever

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #28 - Clyde Frazier

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... iwa01.html

- 6x all NBA (4 1st, 2 2nd)
- 7x all defensive 1st team
- 4x top 5 and 2x top 10 MVP finishes
- 2x NBA champion

PRIME

69-78 RS: ~20 PPG, 6 RPG, 6.4 APG, 2 SPG, 2 TOPG, 49% FG, 79% FT, 54.5% TS, .181 WS/48 min
69-75 PS: ~21 PPG, 7 RPG, 6.4 APG, 2 SPG, 51% FG, 75% FT, 56% TS, .198 WS/48 min

FRAZIER IN THE FINALS

70 (7 games): ~17.6 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 10 APG, 54% FG, 76% FT, 5.9 FTAs per game

(yes, i'm aware of the faulty assists in game 7... going to re-watch the game myself at some point)

72 (5 games): ~23 PPG, 8 RPG, 8 APG, 59% FG, 70% FT, 5.4 FTAs per game
73 (5 games): ~16.6 PPG, 7 RPG, 5 APG, 48% FG, 65% FT, 4 FTAs per game

While the knicks would lose in 5 games to the lakers in 72, this was without reed, so they didn't have much of a chance. That said, Clyde stepped up in his absence as evidenced by his impressive all around play. Overall, he was a great performer in the finals. He really had a solid case for finals MVP in 73, but the "big bias" of the time essentially put reed over the top. In addition, his historic game 7 in the 70 finals put the knicks over the top, some of which can be watched here:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYVjltXc5F8[/youtube]

It's also worth noting the knicks nearly went to 4 finals in a row if not for a 2 pt game 7 loss to the bullets in the 71 ECF. Frazier led some truly great teams during that stretch.

Frazier embodied just about all you could ask from a star player. He was a versatile playmaker with great decision making, rarely deterred by defensive pressure. On the other side of the ball, he's widely considered one of the best defensive guards of all time. He had the unique ability to lull a player into an "easy" drive to the basket, and then tapping the ball from behind for a steal and fast break bucket. He was also great in passing lanes, and had the size and speed to guard both the 1 and 2.

From a more intangible standpoint, clyde fit in seamlessly with one of the most balanced scoring teams in NBA history. Team chemistry was huge, and he valued the importance of his teammates highly. Per Page 2 interview via ESPN:

The story of that night is that Reed's presence really inspired your team and really rattled the Lakers …

Frazier: Oh, unequivocally. If Willis didn't come out, I would not have had that game.

Is that right?

Frazier: Absolutely. He gave us the confidence we needed. The crowd ... the crowd propelled us to that win, man. They never shut up. They had us doing things we never thought we could do.

The knicks routinely ran an "option-less" offense, where "hit the open man" was the basic game plan. Clyde would further his ability to adapt to playing with other star players when his conference rival Earl Monroe was traded to NY. 2 of the best guards in the game with only 1 ball to go around were expected to clash, but instead their styles of play complemented each other quite well.

Albert pointed out that Frazier, too, had to make accommodations. ''They both subjugated their game,'' he said. But, after playing so intensely against one another, Albert said: ''They both were so in tune with one another and what needed to be done. So it worked.''

- - - - -

But for basketball fans, Monroe's career was a tutorial in winning. ''By enthusiastically adopting the Knicks' philosophy,'' Bradley said, ''Earl helped to show that no one can accomplish alone as much as all of us can accomplish together.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/sport ... %3A9%22%7D

The 2 other players I've been considering in this range are baylor and havlicek:

http://bkref.com/tiny/lhmcF

Baylor's impact on the game as a blueprint for the likes of Dr. J and jordan make him a top 30 player in my eyes. His so so longevity and up and down playoff resume put him below Frazier to me, though.

As for havlicek, i'm really impressed with his longevity, versatility and overall contributions to those celtics championships. I think there may be something to the idea that the celtics game plan played a part in his low efficiency scoring. That said, I can't completely look past it, and I think clyde's role as the orchestrator on those championship teams and deep playoff runs gives him the slight edge.

[Basketballefan]

It will be shocking to me if Baylor or Hondo manage to fall out of the top 30.

[Clyde Frazier]

It will be shocking to me if Baylor or Hondo manage to fall out of the top 30.

The mikan addition is making spots 21-30 an even tighter race. Deciding on who to vote for has been pretty difficult in this range, but i've enjoyed the discussion that's come out of it.

[batmana]

My vote for the 28th spot is Walt Frazier.

I have him well ahead of the rest of the pack here because of his peak play and the way he elevated his game at the highest stage. He was a big-time performer and had a well-rounded game. He was a scorer and facilitator, a floor general, and a defensive pest. His Finals performances are a huge plus in my evaluation of him and give him an edge over Durant (so far), Baylor, Hondo and the others.

I just want to mention that I will also consider Bill Walton as soon as Frazier is voted. He obviously lacks longevity but his peak was fantastic and that makes him a unique player.

[trex_8063]

My vote for #28: Elgin Baylor.

4-5 really fantastic years (a top 21-25 peak imo; arguably top 20), followed by 7 years ranging between "good role player" and All-Star (if not All-NBA) quality.

A great scorer, very very good rebounder, and even a decent play-maker from the SF position.

Critics will call him a chucker and criticize his scoring efficiency (which was actually pretty good most years), and to a degree they have a good point (given his star teammate), one which likely should challenge the "status quo" (a status quo which historically does have a lot of basis in volume and accolades). However, I think we're already well outside the "status quo" position of Elgin Baylor. As evidence of that, I'd point out some of the recent rankings of him (no comment on the credibility of individual sources; merely citing as examples which collectively may represent an accurate "status quo" ranking):

2008 RealGM PC forum: #21
2011 RealGM PC forum: #26
2009 Slam Magazine top 50 rank: #11
2011 Slam Magazine top 500 rank: #12
Bill Simmon's The Book of Basketball (2010) rank: #15
2012/13 InsideHoops.com top 100 rank: #19
Current http://www.ranker.com all-time rank: #24


Criticisms sustained, I'm still reasonably comfortable casting my vote for him at this position.

EDIT (additions):
He's #23 all-time in MVP Award Shares.
#23 all-time in RealGM RPoY shares.
#24 all-time in career rs PER.
#24 all-time in career playoff PER.
#28 all-time in career rs points.
#15 all-time in career playoff points.

[Basketballefan]

What is Walt's argument over Baylor? I think Baylor had the higher peak and just as much longevity. Unless were ring counting i think his case is sort of weak.

[Jaivl]

What is Walt's argument over Baylor? I think Baylor had the higher peak and just as much longevity. Unless were ring counting i think his case is sort of weak.

Better and longer prime, impact on both ends I guess. Baylor had 3/4 top years (until his peak in '63 IIRC) and then kinda floundered.

[DQuinn1575]

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

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

Why Paul over durant?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[DQuinn1575]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good argument for English but what's your case for him over George gervin?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[G35]

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler:

And you must play the best kind of basketball possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I had one big edge going—the blocked shot.

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

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

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

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

To categorize it, look at defense on this basis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great post by regul8tr. I really like hearing about PG defense. I would have enjoyed watching Frazier in his heyday....

[john248]

Glad to see Pippen v Frazier in the last thread. Didn't participate due to being too close for me to really judge. Likely going with Frazier here.

So Rick Barry. 67 Finals against Wilt's Sixers, puts up 40.8/8.8/3.3 on 40% FG. That Sixers defense did a number on the Warriors. Went to the ABA and blew up though in a weaker league. Injures his knee in 71, then starts to be more perimeter orientated and more of a play maker as his 3pt and assist totals go up. In 75 Finals against the Bullets (6.54 SRS), puts up 29.5/4/5/3.5 on 44% FG. 74-76, GSW is 2nd in team ORTG. Looks like from 76 on though, Phil Smith take bigger role, and Gus Williams plays solid minutes. Gambles on defense. Doesn't appear to be a ball stopper offensively while being a good passer. Can anyone add? Personality seems well documented. Just now looking into him and no means advocating the guy just yet since I'm trying to figure out how he compares with Baylor, Drexler, Durant, and other perimeter guys.

[ronnymac2]

Spoiler:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good argument for English but what's your case for him over George gervin?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Good question. I'm not sure English can win a longevity argument, and Gervin's peak seems more impressive, too.