RealGM Top 100 List #30

[john248]

I have Hondo, CP3, Durant, and Pierce as my next candidates. If Mikan wasn't voted in already, I'd likely pull for him around here given his longevity concern and has a high peak. I posted my top 50 in another thread sometime in the last year. The player who most were critical of was Pierce who I rated as a 30-35 guy. Some of it probably had to do with rating him ahead of Baylor and Drexler. Made me think if maybe I was overrating him, but seeing some discussion about him here does bring some relief. Leaning Hondo right now given his longevity and contributions to many title teams which is really a debate on peak vs longevity. CP3 is the other guy as I think highly of him as a player. Not as much down on him in the playoffs since he generally is the guy who consistently plays well or better. Hondo hasn't gotten a lot of traction, and it seems Baylor isn't brought up as much now.

[FJS]

There's a significant difference in Pierce and Hondo in terms of success and recognition, though (particularly relevant when taken in context)

- 13 All Star appearances.
- Finals MVP
- 4 x All NBA 1st
- 7 x All NBA 2nd
- 5 x All Defensive 1st team
- 3 x All Defensive 2nd team
- 8 championship rings (and you can argue both 1969 and 1974 he was the best player on those winning teams)
- 8 years of 20/5/5 (from 66-74 he averaged 26-8-6 with above average efficiency)
- Peak of 29/9/7.5

Havlicek is, admittedly, a tough one to rank. He spanned two Celtics eras, the dominant Bill Russell era, before being part of the early Dave Cowens/Jo Jo White team that enjoyed success in the 70s.

He was rightly the Finals MVP in 1974, when the Celtics beat the Bucks (Kareem, Dandridge, old Oscar). Havlicek was 3rd in PPG that post-season, 4th in assists, 2nd in offensive win shares (behind Kareem), 3rd in defensive win shares (behind Kareem and Cowens).

He finished top 10 in MVP voting 5 times, peaking at 4th in 1972, generally only finishing behind players already featuring on this list. Much like Pippen in this list before him, due to his role on teams he was never likely to be an MVP winner - he was very much the all-rounder. As Bill Russell said in'74, he was the 'best all-round player'.

Grear Resume.

Hondo it's my next vote.

[ChiTown6rings]

So if I may ask, what are some thoughts and opinions on Elgin Baylor?

[Jim Naismith]

So if I may ask, what are some thoughts and opinions on Elgin Baylor?

Baylor's peak is similar to T-Mac's 2003 peak, except it lasted for 4 years, with much better rebounding.

Plus, Baylor made the Finals seven times and scored the most points (61) in a Finals game.

[Jim Naismith]

Vote: Elgin Baylor

Elite player for 4 years, great scorer, good rebounder. All-star player 7 other years.

Regular season
1960: 29.6 / 16.4
1961: 34.8 / 19.8
1962: 38.3 / 18.6
1963: 34.0 / 14.3

Postseason
1960: 33.4 / 14.1
1961: 38.1 / 15.3
1962: 38.6 / 17.7
1963: 32.6 / 13.6


Playoff seasons with at least 25 PER (min 6 games)
01 Michael Jordan...........9
02 Shaquille O'Neal..........9
03 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar....6
04 Tim Duncan...............6
05 Hakeem Olajuwon........6
06 Wilt Chamberlain.........5
07 LeBron James.............5
08 Charles Barkley...........4
09 Elgin Baylor..............4
10 Dirk Nowitzki.............4

Note that Jordan, LeBron, and Baylor are the only wing players on the above list.

Playoffs Games with 40+ points
Jordan 38
West 20
Baylor 14
Wilt 13
Kobe 13
LeBron 12
Shaq 12
Hakeem 11

[ronnymac2]

Comes down to Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul, and Kevin Durant for me, but there are about 10 other players who are super close, too.

I feel like the knocks against Paul and Durant have been made clear and are definitely reasonable: longevity. What's the legitimate knock on Thomas though? I know this will sound hilarious coming from a Knicks fan, but what's not to like about Isiah Thomas?

He had 4 straight years of 20/10 production for good (some very good) Detroit teams. He averaged 24/10 overall in the 33 playoff games he played across those 4 years, including some of the most epic playoff performances ever.

Then from 1988-1990, his raw stats decreased, but he remained the best player on a legitimate title contender, putting up more epic playoff performances when called upon to do so.

The whole "Detroit won with defense and rebounding" argument doesn't resonate with me as far as being a legitimate knock on IT. They did not win with defense and rebounding. The won by having more points than the other team because of the combined prowess of their offense and defense — just like every other champion.

1988 — 110.5 ORTG (+2.5, 6th)
1989 — 110.8 ORTG (+3, 7th)
1990 — 109.9 ORTG (+1.8, 11th)

Detroit had an effective offense, and Isiah was certainly the man driving that offense.

[Basketballefan]

Pierce being mentioned this early is laughable at best.

I don't think he has any case whatsoever over Hondo, Baylor, Drexler or Thomas. Then you got guys that are likely better but not definitive like Gervin, Kidd Iverson KD etc.

It's funny because if KG and Allen never came to Boston, Pierce would in no way be viewed as a top 50 player.

[The Infamous1]

Paul/Durant is interesting because their primes are happening right now at the same time. It's not like the Kobe/Bird or hakeem/Duncan or magic/lebron debates earlier in this list

[Owly]

Pierce being mentioned this early is laughable at best.

I don't think he has any case whatsoever over Hondo, Baylor, Drexler or Thomas. Then you got guys that are likely better but not definitive like Gervin, Kidd Iverson KD etc.

It's funny because if KG and Allen never came to Boston, Pierce would in no way be viewed as a top 50 player.

Why with the constant, "your opinions are laughable" posts. It's rude and you then don't offer any substance to back up your points.

If he didn't have the team success (that he did have), why are we to take it he'd be a considered a much lesser player. Did that team success hide his low statistical output (14 seasons of 17.9 PER or more the following have more season

Spoiler:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Karl Malone
Shaquille O'Neal
Kevin Garnett
John Stockton
Tim Duncan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Kobe Bryant
Moses Malone
Charles Barkley

Drexler's tied on 14
He's also 28th in career win shares, 62nd in WS/48 - where his longevity hurts him

Was he a lousy defender?

I mean I don't mind whether Pierce is here or not (there are legit cases against him but they would hardly be unique at this point) but make a nuanced, supported argument.

[Owly]

Comes down to Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul, and Kevin Durant for me, but there are about 10 other players who are super close, too.

I feel like the knocks against Paul and Durant have been made clear and are definitely reasonable: longevity. What's the legitimate knock on Thomas though? I know this will sound hilarious coming from a Knicks fan, but what's not to like about Isiah Thomas?

He had 4 straight years of 20/10 production for good (some very good) Detroit teams. He averaged 24/10 overall in the 33 playoff games he played across those 4 years, including some of the most epic playoff performances ever.

Then from 1988-1990, his raw stats decreased, but he remained the best player on a legitimate title contender, putting up more epic playoff performances when called upon to do so.

The whole "Detroit won with defense and rebounding" argument doesn't resonate with me as far as being a legitimate knock on IT. They did not win with defense and rebounding. The won by having more points than the other team because of the combined prowess of their offense and defense — just like every other champion.

1988 — 110.5 ORTG (+2.5, 6th)
1989 — 110.8 ORTG (+3, 7th)
1990 — 109.9 ORTG (+1.8, 11th)

Detroit had an effective offense, and Isiah was certainly the man driving that offense.

What do we (yourself or other Isiah advocates) mean by driving the offense? Was he the man their O lived and died with? The guy you'd want taking the most shots? The efficient scorer? Playoff performance beyond the capacities of other pgs? What was so special about Isiah in this span?

I don't want to go point for point yet (though I would argue them being good primarily in areas where he didn't excel means I'd want strong evidence before claiming he's in the ballpark of (normal/geniune) championship centerpieces and those raw numbers without pace or turnovers are a touch misleading).

[Owly]

Vote: Chris Paul

Some of the factors that explain why:
- Probably the best peak left on the board as supported by metrics
- Better career value added than many competitors at this position, and I think sufficiently higher peak to (perhaps) swing title odds more than those with greater value added (Pierce, Gilmore, not-by-the metrics but still probably Hondo).
- D, efficiency, low mistakes and range mean he can play well with other good players (possible argument that he likes the ball in his hands, fair enough; but then somewhat hard to argue with the results).

[Basketballefan]

Pierce being mentioned this early is laughable at best.

I don't think he has any case whatsoever over Hondo, Baylor, Drexler or Thomas. Then you got guys that are likely better but not definitive like Gervin, Kidd Iverson KD etc.

It's funny because if KG and Allen never came to Boston, Pierce would in no way be viewed as a top 50 player.

Why with the constant, "your opinions are laughable" posts. It's rude and you then don't offer any substance to back up your points.

If he didn't have the team success (that he did have), why are we to take it he'd be a considered a much lesser player. Did that team success hide his low statistical output (14 seasons of 17.9 PER or more the following have more season

Spoiler:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Karl Malone
Shaquille O'Neal
Kevin Garnett
John Stockton
Tim Duncan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Kobe Bryant
Moses Malone
Charles Barkley

Drexler's tied on 14
He's also 28th in career win shares, 62nd in WS/48 - where his longevity hurts him

Was he a lousy defender?

I mean I don't mind whether Pierce is here or not (there are legit cases against him but they would hardly be unique at this point) but make a nuanced, supported argument.

As mentioned from other posters Pierce was never a clear top 10 player and certainly not for any extended period. The same is not true with the guys i mentioned.

Pierce is simply not as good as Baylor Hondo Drexler or Thomas.

Baylor- much better prime/statistically.
Hondo- better peak, much better resume.
Drexler- better peak, more complete player.
Thomas- Better prime, better playoff performer, leader and best player of a team that nearly 3-peated.

Deal with it.

[penbeast0]

Pierce being mentioned this early is laughable at best.

I don't think he has any case whatsoever over Hondo, Baylor, Drexler or Thomas. Then you got guys that are likely better but not definitive like Gervin, Kidd Iverson KD etc.

It's funny because if KG and Allen never came to Boston, Pierce would in no way be viewed as a top 50 player.

Why with the constant, "your opinions are laughable" posts. It's rude and you then don't offer any substance to back up your points.

If he didn't have the team success (that he did have), why are we to take it he'd be a considered a much lesser player. Did that team success hide his low statistical output (14 seasons of 17.9 PER or more the following have more season

Spoiler:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Karl Malone
Shaquille O'Neal
Kevin Garnett
John Stockton
Tim Duncan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Kobe Bryant
Moses Malone
Charles Barkley

Drexler's tied on 14
He's also 28th in career win shares, 62nd in WS/48 - where his longevity hurts him

Was he a lousy defender?

I mean I don't mind whether Pierce is here or not (there are legit cases against him but they would hardly be unique at this point) but make a nuanced, supported argument.

Is your spoiler about Pierce? It says Drexler but the post seems to be about Pierce. Beastie is confused.

[penbeast0]

English v. Havlicek:

Both super durable players with long careers.

For English -- Efficient scoring. Alex English is one of the most efficient SFs on great scoring volume. For a decade he had excellent scoring numbers, outscoring any other player in the 80s including Bird and Magic. Havlicek was an inefficient scorer at least through 65, then average, finally becoming a decent go to guy in his peak in the 70s. Always shot a lot, didn't always make a lot.

For Havlicek -- Defense and team success. English was a willing defender, probably above average for his position in an era where scorers frequently didn't play great defense. Havlicek was a perennial all-defense selection. Havlicek was also blessed to play with 2 of the top 10 centers of all time in GOAT Bill Russell and Dave Cowens (between the two, his teams . . . well . . . sucked). English played with out of position PF Dan Issel (who wasn't a good defender at either spot), Danny Schayes, and Wayne Cooper plus a variety of mediocre to truly horrifically bad (hi Kiki) PFs. Those Denver teams still made a lot of playoffs by just outscoring people, like the Nash Suns, but few players approach Havlicek's career success.

Intangibles and rebounding -- pretty even once you take era and role differences into account. Both acknowledged as among the classiest guys to ever play. Both willingly accepted a variety of roles -- on ball scorer, off ball scorer, defensive stopper (who else would you use among English or Vandeweghe), even some point forward.

If you look at scoring as their main function/claim to fame, English wins this easily. Add in defense and intangibles and it's a lot closer but I don't see a slam dunk for Hondo unless you are strongly swayed by accolades (English was beaten out for a lot of All-Pro teams by flashier but less effective players like Dominique Wilkins, Mark Aquirre, etc. and played in the greatest era for SFs ever -- Bird, Worthy, NIque, Aquirre, Dantley, B. King, Marques Johnson, etc.).

You could make virtually the same argument about Drexler that I did about English only with stronger team support and more team success. I used English because people are less familiar with his greatness.

[tsherkin]

So if I may ask, what are some thoughts and opinions on Elgin Baylor?

Baylor's peak is similar to T-Mac's 2003 peak, except it lasted for 4 years, with much better rebounding.

Plus, Baylor made the Finals seven times and scored the most points (61) in a Finals game.

You mean aside from scoring efficiency and playmaking value , yes? 03 McGrady was considerably better than Baylor along several fronts.

[penbeast0]

McHale v. Havlicek

For McHale -- again, efficient scoring. McHale has one of the best set of post moves of all time and was an extremely efficient, high volume scorer for those great Celtic teams of the 80s. To be fair, he probably saw more single coverage than any other great scoring post man in history due to Bird (and Parish) drawing off so much defensive attention but he continued to score well even with Bird injured. Havlicek's inconsistent efficiency is detailed in the English v. Havlicek thread above.

For Havlicek -- versatility and playmaking. McHale offensively was a bit of a one trick pony. He was a post scorer whose teammates (Bird and Ainge basically) called him a black hole, though with his efficiency you want him shooting most of his chances. Havlicek was able to play a lot of roles offensively on ball scorer, off ball scorer, point forward.

Intangibles and defense -- reasonably even. Both accepted a 6th man role without complaint even after they had proven the ability to start and even star in the league. Both played on winning teams -- Havlicek, of course, has a strong advantage in this respect. Both played excellent defense; McHale covered SFs as well as bigs at times to cover for Larry Bird.

Again, it depends on how much you value efficiency in your scoring. I think McHale has a good case against Havlicek as well; people who look only at 70s peak Havlicek tend to overrate his scoring ability.

[ThaRegul8r]

Comes down to Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul, and Kevin Durant for me, but there are about 10 other players who are super close, too.

I feel like the knocks against Paul and Durant have been made clear and are definitely reasonable: longevity. What's the legitimate knock on Thomas though? I know this will sound hilarious coming from a Knicks fan, but what's not to like about Isiah Thomas?

He had 4 straight years of 20/10 production for good (some very good) Detroit teams. He averaged 24/10 overall in the 33 playoff games he played across those 4 years, including some of the most epic playoff performances ever.

Then from 1988-1990, his raw stats decreased, but he remained the best player on a legitimate title contender, putting up more epic playoff performances when called upon to do so.

The whole "Detroit won with defense and rebounding" argument doesn't resonate with me as far as being a legitimate knock on IT. They did not win with defense and rebounding. The won by having more points than the other team because of the combined prowess of their offense and defense — just like every other champion.

1988 — 110.5 ORTG (+2.5, 6th)
1989 — 110.8 ORTG (+3, 7th)
1990 — 109.9 ORTG (+1.8, 11th)

Detroit had an effective offense, and Isiah was certainly the man driving that offense.

I'm not at home right now, but when I recall back to what was actually said at the time during their title years, their strengths were said to be:

- defense
- depth (9 deep in '89, 8 deep in '90)
- a balanced offense with the best three-guard rotation in basketball (Isiah, Dumars, Microwave), Aguirre off the bench in '89, and they had Buddha Edwards

[Clyde Frazier]

I'm not going to deny that isiah's flair / passion / championship legacy may put him in a better light than how he performed on the court. At the opposite end of the spectrum, I have to keep telling myself that his ruining the knicks should have nothing to do with my evaluating him as a player.

All that said, taking a look at isiah again, the things going against him are average longevity and (at best) efficiency, but he doesn't really have any glaring playoff red flags, and played quite well in both finals wins:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#DET-LAL

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#DET-POR

Not to mention nearly 3-peating with his historic game 6 in the 88 finals. I'm not quite ready to start voting for him, but i'm curious where people who don't think that highly of him have him ranked.

[ronnymac2]

Comes down to Isiah Thomas, Chris Paul, and Kevin Durant for me, but there are about 10 other players who are super close, too.

I feel like the knocks against Paul and Durant have been made clear and are definitely reasonable: longevity. What's the legitimate knock on Thomas though? I know this will sound hilarious coming from a Knicks fan, but what's not to like about Isiah Thomas?

He had 4 straight years of 20/10 production for good (some very good) Detroit teams. He averaged 24/10 overall in the 33 playoff games he played across those 4 years, including some of the most epic playoff performances ever.

Then from 1988-1990, his raw stats decreased, but he remained the best player on a legitimate title contender, putting up more epic playoff performances when called upon to do so.

The whole "Detroit won with defense and rebounding" argument doesn't resonate with me as far as being a legitimate knock on IT. They did not win with defense and rebounding. The won by having more points than the other team because of the combined prowess of their offense and defense — just like every other champion.

1988 — 110.5 ORTG (+2.5, 6th)
1989 — 110.8 ORTG (+3, 7th)
1990 — 109.9 ORTG (+1.8, 11th)

Detroit had an effective offense, and Isiah was certainly the man driving that offense.

What do we (yourself or other Isiah advocates) mean by driving the offense? Was he the man their O lived and died with? The guy you'd want taking the most shots? The efficient scorer? Playoff performance beyond the capacities of other pgs? What was so special about Isiah in this span?

I don't want to go point for point yet (though I would argue them being good primarily in areas where he didn't excel means I'd want strong evidence before claiming he's in the ballpark of (normal/geniune) championship centerpieces and those raw numbers without pace or turnovers are a touch misleading).

I don't know if I'm voting for Isiah yet, so not sure if that was my argument for him, but that is my opinion of much of his career value.

When I say drove the offense, I mean:

1988 REG SEA: 2nd in PPG, 1st in APG, 1st in MPG, 2nd in USG% (To Vinnie Johnson, who played a thousand less minutes)
1988 PO: 1st in PPG, APG, MPG, USG%

1989 REG SEA: 1st in MPG, APG; 2nd in PPG (To Dantley, who played 42 games before the trade) and USG% (To Microwave again, who played roughly 900 less minutes)
1989 PO: 1st in PPG, APG, and MPG; 2nd in USG% to Vinnie, who played 15 MPG less in the playoffs)

1990 REG SEA: 1st in MPG, PPG, APG, and USG%
1990 PO: 1st in MPG, PPG, APG, and USG%

So statistically, he was the guy taking on the most offensive responsibility on these Detroit teams. From my eye test, he was also the best and most-used ball-handler on the team.

He also appeared to have the highest big-game potential, able to go into high-gear and spearhead the offense for a quarter or a game in a way none of his teammate could. This ability of course came with its share of letdowns where Thomas should have stopped shooting. Pros and cons of his style, no doubt.

[Doctor MJ]

So if I may ask, what are some thoughts and opinions on Elgin Baylor?

So I'm a bit of a broken records, but well, since you asked:

I tend to see his career as very much overrated.

Baylor had a 4-5 year run where he could truly be argued to a serious top tier level guy, then he fell off. And first and foremost, that's how he should be seen.

Most don't see him that way though. Most see him more along the lines of his All-NBA 1st team awards of which he won 5 more after falling off. The problem with this isn't just that he was overrated, but that the reason he was overrated is that people overrate volume scoring, and at that stage in his career he was volume shooting when he shouldn't have been. So it's actually worse than simply having a typical more graceful falloff, the stuff that fooled people into overrating him significantly was actually causing him to be even less effective than he should have been.

So I think if you start out by looking at Baylor as a guy with a short, impressive prime but weak longevity, you're off to a good start.

What you have to understand on top of that though is that Baylor 4 really big years of production can be grouped into 2 sets: The first two years where the Laker offense was a joke, and the next two years where Jerry West was a star on the team as well. The 3rd year of the 4 is the transition year, the one where West becomes a superstar and the offense gets good. It's also the year where Baylor missed almost half the season.

So while I think you can seriously argue for him as a top tier guy in those years, there are actually some big question marks.

I think that if West had come to the Lakers first and then Baylor joined him as the expected sidekick, it's entirely possible no one would be talking about him now...but that Baylor would have actually had a more successful career.