RealGM Top 100 List #44

[trex_8063]

Schayes was listed at 6'7" (would probably be listed 6'8" today for his "in shoes" height). Was listed 195 lbs then; some modern weight-training on board, he's likely be anywhere from 205-220 lbs in a modern context. This is a frame similar to guys like Shane Battier, Trevor Ariza, or Rick Barry. So he'd be playing the SF position; which is perhaps not a bad role/option for him given some of the things he showed particular aptitude for.

I'd like to point out a few skill-set similarities Schayes portrayed (in his own time) to that latter character, Rick Barry:
Elite outside shooting: check.

For a PF? Yes.

For a contemporary SF?

No proof of that, since he never took a single three in his life and even Barry looked fairly mediocre once he was introduced to the shot later on in his career. This is definitely not a given for Schayes. It's possible, even likely, that he could develop into a 3pt shooter given his touch at the line and what-not, if he was in a Bonner-esque type role (or anyway, getting those kinds of shots from that range, I mean), but again, not a given.

Schayes’ longevity and consistency throughout his career can be attributed to great mental toughness and work ethic. This is timeless. Per Jeremiah Tax of Sports Illustrated:

This is Dolph Schayes talking—the 6-foot-8, 220-pound Syracuse National who has been chosen on more All-Star squads than any player in NBA history and whose all-round skill is attested by consistent near-the-top leadership in three areas: allover scoring, the precise art of free throws, and rebounding. To some his words will carry a ring of naivete, which in this instance is, sadly, the price of sincerity:

"The most important thing any athlete does is 'get up' mentally before the competition starts. It's the difference between the ordinary, average performance and the extra effort that wins the game, the race, or whatever he's going to do … A lot of players in our league aren't really trying. Don't get me wrong, they give everything they've got—physically. But they just haven't learned how to get that extra something that comes from being 'up' mentally. The ones I admire most are guys like [Bill] Sharman and [Neil] Johnston. It's the psychological edge they bring along that makes them great."

"Dolph was all adolescent arms and legs in college," says NYU Coach Howard Cann. " He was a good player—no more than that. But his mind was set on being great. He was in the gym practicing every spare minute. We had to chase him out." Today, after seven years as a pro, Schayes is still pushing himself; according to Coach Paul Seymour, they have to turn out the lights at the Syracuse gym where the Nationals practice before he quits for the day.

http://www.si.com/vault/1957/01/14/5998 ... n-the-mind

Some more insight on his playing style from a SLAM Magazine interview:

SLAM: You were a big man who played like a guard. How did you develop those skills?

SCHAYES: By playing in the New York City schoolyards, where the game was all about movement. I happened to be tall, but I learned the fundamentals well—the give and go, setting picks, passing, fast breaks and everything else we called “New York style.” I was a center in college but I was a high-post guy, feeding cutters and rebounding.

SLAM: Your range went out to 30 feet. How many more points would you have averaged with a three-point line?

SCHAYES: Quite a few, but I didn’t score out there as much as people think. My game was slashing to the basket, getting fouled and making three-point plays. But I hit enough deep shots to keep them honest and make them come out. The real secret to my success was I could shoot with either hand.

[tsherkin]

SLAM is not a viable source of anything, and that a player occasionally took a shot from a distance does not pre sage significant ability therefrom. In your own quoted passage, Schayes talks about not shooting out there as much as people think, and there's huge hyperbole from that era in any case.

[trex_8063]

SLAM is not a viable source of anything, and that a player occasionally took a shot from a distance does not pre sage significant ability therefrom. In your own quoted passage, Schayes talks about not shooting out there as much as people think.......

....Which, fwiw, would tend to discredit Doc's characterizing Schayes as someone "dependent" on a set shot.

And while I agree SLAM is not a very credible source for much information, this is technically not coming from SLAM....it's coming from Schayes himself. Could he be tooting his own horn? Sure, it's possible, though I've not known him as a character renowned for a lot of false bravado. I would also note that the interviewer (apparently unsolicited) mentioned that Schayes's range went out to 30 feet; and this in an era that was utterly non-encouraging of shooting range. I find that suggestive, and relevant to what we'd been discussing.

I'd also like to speak to your comments about his lower than average FG%. Just for a modern comparison: so does Chauncey Billups. Apparent casual fans (appearing in this forum) have tried to discredit Chauncey's scoring efficiency based on this, even going so far as to call him a "horrible shooter" .

But Billups's career FG% is indeed only 41.5%; his career 2pt% is well below average at just 43.5%. But quite clearly he is an efficient scoring, for reasons of the the 3pt line, and foul-draw (where he's an elite FT-shooter). So low FG% isn't necessarily a reliable indicator of efficiency.

But anyway, so Schayes shot a career 38.0% from the field.......
Bear in mind that this was:
1) primarily occurring in an era with insane pace (upwards of 130 at times), which encouraged a lot of quick/rushed shots (often low% shots), a lot of mid-range bombing (which today has been pretty well identified as the lowest efficiency shot-type available).
2) Shots in the paint area may have been more difficult due to it being an era where the paint area was quite congested (narrower lane, no spacing, etc), also dribbling rules didn't allow for some of the slashing moves that are legal today.
3) You can talk about the defensive competition, although I would at least mention some of the rim protectors he'd have been facing: overall for his career probably about 1 in 15 games he was facing Bill Russell protecting the rim, in about 1 of 22-25 games he would have had contended with Wilt, in about 1 of 25 would have been George Mikan. Not a lot, I guess, but that's about 15% of the time he'd have been facing an elite shot blocker. Also there were goons like Clyde Lovellette to be fearful of.
4) Presumably (based on on anecdotal evidence, suggestions from the aforementioned interview, etc) some of Schayes's shots actually were 3pters or near to it (except that the 3pt line didn't yet exist).

So there are several contextual factors involved.
In a modern era hypothetical, suppose that even 40% of his attempts came from downtown, and suppose he hit 38% from range (which is merely good by modern standards, far from elite, and fairly easy to believe someone like Schayes would be capable of that much.....38% is marginally below the career 3pt% for Shane Battier or Bruce Bowen, for example). And we'll assume his foul-draw rate is lower than it was in his own era by a good 15-20% (but we'll assume he's still an 85% ft-shooter)........even if he shot an abysmal 38% from 2pt range, his TS% would still be right on league average.
Again, that's with a) a lower foul-draw rate, b) with only a good---but not elite---3pt%, and c) with only 40% of his attempts coming from downtown (43.7% of Bruce Bowen's attempts came from 3pt range, 47.7% of Shane Battier's, 41.4% of Chauncey Billups, 56.5% of Kyle Korver's come from downtown).

So it's not hard to imagine that he might have adequate (if not GOOD) scoring efficiency even if we assume a terrible 2pt and total fg%.

[Owly]

SLAM is not a viable source of anything, and that a player occasionally took a shot from a distance does not pre sage significant ability therefrom. In your own quoted passage, Schayes talks about not shooting out there as much as people think, and there's huge hyperbole from that era in any case.

30 feet isn't some Slam thing though. You might ask whether or not he hit it at an acceptable rate for modern times, but there's little question he shot it from long distance

The shooting. This guy had legitimate 25-30 foot range. You could add five points to his career scoring is they had the three-point shot back then, because he never hesitated to take a 25-, even a 30-footer

Basketball's 50 Best Players in the last 50 years also mentions his set shot having 30 foot range though it notes that he "would really take his time to load up that shot". Then again from more conventional range the limited footage we have shows a skip (one knee forward) shot with a high release. This fits with the tendency to say that he had a number of shots depending on circumstances for instance ...

He was equally comfortable with the old-fashioned, two-handed set shot or with the running one-hander that was gaining popularity. He could score effectively from outside or driving to the basket.

Less specific stuff aluding to known long range abilities

As I started to work on my outside shot, I saw that I had a good touch. Then I wanted to increase my range so I kept shooting from farther and farther out

People remember Dolph's long set shots. His trademark was that after he made a basket, he'd throw his fist in the air and run down to the other end of the court. But what made him great was that he could shoot running one-handers -- and make them with either hand. His left was as good as his right.

The only big man who has the shooting range of Dolph Schayes is Larry Bird. Dolph's shot was higher, softer. But if you see Larry, then you get an idea of how Dolph was.

The Bird comparison is perfect. Both guys were self-made players. Both were great rebounders who couldn't jump. Both had tremendous range on their shots, yet also could shoot off the run with either hand. Dolph wasn't the passer like Larry, but that part of Dolph's game was better than most people thought. It's just a shame because everyone will always remember Larry Bird and more people should appreciate Dolph Schayes.

I don't want to get too much into this because it's time machine stuff and that matters relatively little to me. He's taken a hit for his era, which I agree with, but you there's substantial limitations on how much you can take guys - important guys in the evolution of basketball - and plonk them in the future with none of the advantages of modern times and say "Hmm, too small not too athletic, not a great shooting %" (this a slightly exagerated version of the argument here but not an entirely atypical argument to hear). FWIW the one area that has remained pretty stationary FT% (though even here for maybe the first half of Schayes' career the league was still making progress) Schayes demonstrates a purity of shooting touch that perhaps indicates that, given a fair chance to adapt, his shooting touch was more than adequate.

And this isn't to go overboard with the Larry comparison (though it comes up a lot when you read about Schayes), just saying we can go too far with the physical stuff, he was dominant within his era, for what it's worth shown some skills that tend to translate and are always useful (ft shooting, spacing, foul drawing, rebounding, motor/conditioning, durability) led his team to a title as the clear cut best player, raised his game in the playoffs etc.

Based on some of the above, noting within era dominance, peak and primarily career value (factoring in value of high peak years) I'm voting ...

Dolph Schayes

[Basketballefan]

Since McHale is finally starting to get some traction I feel it is time to mention.

***Pau Gasol***


Guy was a great player the moment he entered the league.

-Won ROY averaging : 18 / 9 / 3apg / 2bpg on 57%TS.
-After Rook year he has a 10 year stretch of : 19 / 9 / 3apg / 2bpg on 58%TS.
So that is 11 full years of solid All-Star level production and impact.

Then in 2013 he averaged 14 / 9 / 4apg in the reg-season and 14 / 12 / 7apg in the playoffs.
I feel like he was still potentially an All-Star level guy this year on the right team but he struggled because Dwight forced him out of position. An older Gasol really needed to operate in the low post and Dwight didn't allow this consistently enough. He was often turned into a perimeter shooter.
In 2014 with Dwight gone Gasol went back to averaging 17 / 10 / 3.4apg / 2bpg.
Not bad for his 13th year.

Anyway he has very good longevity for this stage of the project and he has great averages period.
I like to think of Gasol as a slightly lesser version of Mchale.
He wasn't quite the scorer McHale was (though he was still one of the best scorers ever at the PF position) and he probably wasn't quite as good defensively (though he was still a very good defender).
On the other hand Gasol was a much better passer which is very valuable in a team sense and definitely helps minimize whatever edge McHale has offensively.

I think he should probably get in sometime over the next few spots.

Edit ::::

Gasol also has better longevitiy then Mchale.
His 11 year strech of All-Star level production is superior to McHales much shorter 8 year stretch.

Are you sure that Gasol's impact on the Grizzlies was quite enough to warrant a spot this high?

I also don't think his past prime seasons 2011-2014 should have a lot of value, he seemed injury prone and his production decereased in the playoffs.

For me, i won't be considering Pau until we get into the 60-70 range. But you are entitled to your opinion nontheless.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Are you sure that Gasol's impact on the Grizzlies was quite enough to warrant a spot this high?

Pretty sure.
The fact that he led some of those horrid Grizz casts into the playoffs is proof enough of his impact to me.
Also the fact that he turned the 1st round Lakers into yearly Finalists is definitely proof enough for me.
I mean its not like they were losing in the Finals and Gasol put them over the top. They were first round fodder before his arrival.

I am also not gonna hold it against him that his Grizz teams got smashed by heavy hitters who were generally Finalists and were rocking HOF PF's (PHX being the only exception though young pre-injury Amare was a beast and a handful for any defender (ask Duncan who faced an older less explosive version)).

Put McHale on those crappy Grizz casts and I don't see him accomplishing more then Gasol did.
He might get them into the playoffs as Gasol did but there is zero chance he'd be leading them past the Duncan dynasty Spurs near their Peak or the 06 Mavs etc...

Put Gasol on those stacked Boston teams and I see him fully excelling and winning as McHale did.

I also don't think his past prime seasons 2011-2014 should have a lot of value, he seemed injury prone and his production decereased in the playoffs.

I explained my thoughts on those years.
How you wish to value them is your decision.
For the record Gasol early in the 2011 season was getting MVP talk.

For me, i won't be considering Pau until we get into the 60-70 range. But you are entitled to your opinion nontheless.

I strongly disagree with you unless you also think McHale shouldn't be talked about for awhile.
McHale really wasn't much better then Gasol as an individual player and considering Gasol has a pretty clear edge in longevity I can't say that I think their career value is very far apart.

Anyway there are many good candidate still for the next few spots but given that McHale has been talked about I felt it was reasonable to bring up Gasol.
I probably won't be voting for him yet though. Right around 50 or early 50's is when I think I will be considering him more strongly.

[Basketballefan]

Are you sure that Gasol's impact on the Grizzlies was quite enough to warrant a spot this high?

Pretty sure.
The fact that he led some of those horrid Grizz casts into the playoffs is proof enough of his impact to me.
Also the fact that he turned the 1st round Lakers into yearly Finalists is definitely proof enough for me.
I mean its not like they were losing in the Finals and Gasol put them over the top. They were first round fodder before his arrival.

I am also not gonna hold it against him that his Grizz teams got smashed by heavy hitters who were generally Finalists and were rocking HOF PF's (PHX being the only exception though young pre-injury Amare was a beast and a handful for any defender (ask Duncan who faced an older less explosive version)).

Put McHale on those crappy Grizz casts and I don't see him accomplishing more then Gasol did.
He might get them into the playoffs as Gasol did but there is zero chance he'd be leading them past the Duncan dynasty Spurs near their Peak or the 06 Mavs etc...

Put Gasol on those stacked Boston teams and I see him fully excelling and winning as McHale did.

I also don't think his past prime seasons 2011-2014 should have a lot of value, he seemed injury prone and his production decereased in the playoffs.

I explained my thoughts on those years.
How you wish to value them is your decision.
For the record Gasol early in the 2011 season was getting MVP talk.

For me, i won't be considering Pau until we get into the 60-70 range. But you are entitled to your opinion nontheless.

I strongly disagree with you unless you also think McHale shouldn't be talked about for awhile.
McHale really wasn't much better then Gasol as an individual player and considering Gasol has a pretty clear edge in longevity I can't say that I think their career value is very far apart.

Anyway there are many good candidate still for the next few spots but given that McHale has been talked about I felt it was reasonable to bring up Gasol.
I probably won't be voting for him yet though. Right around 50 or early 50's is when I think I will be considering him more strongly.

Mchale is clearly a better defender so that's mainly the diff maker for me. I would say a better scorer as well.

[penbeast0]

Dolph Schayes – trex_8063, Clyde Frazier, Owly
Vince Carter – tsherkin
Sam jones – DQuinn1575
Tracy McGrady – ronnymac2
Kevin McHAle -- john248, penbeast0


The project is starting to lag as all of us are focusing on the season opening. We may take a break after this vote; let me know what you think in the Metathinking thread. For now, Schayes is definitely in the runoff but not going to win without one, I truly don't know who to vote for for the next spot and no arguments have been very convincing yet. If you put a gun to my head, I take McHale.

McHale is a terrific low post scorer with outstanding efficiency. Defensively, he is an excellent man defender both in the post and (for a PF) out on the floor, frequently covering for Bird. His rebounding and passing are both average at best but he is a tough, hardworking player who was willing to be a reserve if that helped the team.

Relative to Jones and Carter, I like McHale's defensive impact a lot more and his offensive impact is similar. Relative to McGrady it comes down to healthy play (conditioning and practice habits helped McHale as TMac was notoriously lazy at times) plus, again, the greater defensive impact of a very good defensive big. I'm not sure McHale would have been my first choice, my sentimental favorite would be English or Unseld, but he's probably the best choice to get us into a runoff.

VOTE: KEVIN MCHALE[/quote]

[RayBan-Sematra]

Mchale is clearly a better defender so that's mainly the diff maker for me.

He probably was.
Haven't watched enough of him to confirm (or didn't pay enough attention to his d) but he seems to have been a slightly better rim protector and also a better m2m defender against quicker/smaller guys.
On the other side though Gasol may have been better against big guys like Dwight.
Still for now I do think McHale was better defensively but I don't think the gap was large.

I would say a better scorer as well.

Better scorer, probably. Eye test seems to support it also.
Though one should mention that McHale consistently had the benefit of playing on stacked teams with the unselfish Bird.
Gasol looked much closer to McHale as a scorer when he got to play with Kobe so imagine him with Bird in the 80's? Might be closer to McHale then we thought.
Still McHale was probably a tier above him as a scorer which is a clear & significant though not huge gap.

Then when we take into account passing ability the gap between them as overall offensive players shrinks and imo is pretty small even if it is still in McHales favor.

Overall I still don't see McHale as being way above Gasol as a player.
Better maybe but not by much.
Then when you factor in Gasol's extra longevity I think the career value is reasonably close so that they shouldn't be more then 2-3 spots apart or a handful at most.

Anyway I appreciate your views and we seem to agree for the most part.
I hope there will be added discussion about them by other posters soon enough.
I forgot but I think it was Doc who wrote a nice piece about Gasol's portability.

[tsherkin]

....Which, fwiw, would tend to discredit Doc's characterizing Schayes as someone "dependent" on a set shot.

Sure, but that's not a primary cause for my leeriness over Schayes, so I'm not too worried about it. He was shorter and lighter than the PFs of most NBA eras, but he had an FTR the likes of which we only really see from freak type players, mostly. Kevin Love would stand as an exception, so the posssiblity is there, but he's a lot more powerfully built than was Schayes, which makes me wonder a little.

*

And while I agree SLAM is not a very credible source for much information, this is technically not coming from SLAM....it's coming from Schayes himself. Could he be tooting his own horn? Sure, it's possible, though I've not known him as a character renowned for a lot of false bravado. I would also note that the interviewer (apparently unsolicited) mentioned that Schayes's range went out to 30 feet; and this in an era that was utterly non-encouraging of shooting range. I find that suggestive, and relevant to what we'd been discussing.

I find it to be hogwash. There aren't any players in league history who come to mind as consistently useful from 30 feet, even elite shooters like Durant, Curry, etc. They take them, and sometimes they make them, but the percentages are piss-poor even for the guys who do take them semi-frequently and Schayes was in an era where shooting ability was considerably worse from that range. I generally discredit anyone who says they "had 30-foot range," and I don't limit that to Schayes. Being willing to take the shot and miss it is not, in my view, the same thing as shooting legitimately from that range. It's also staggeringly unlikely that with his FTR and his shooting volume that he was taking shots from that distance with any serious frequency. The only time that shot makes sense is for an end-clock heave, and in an era where there was no 3pt line and the focus was all about getting to the basket, I don't really see it, even if he was relatively forward in his inside-out game (which, of course, seems to be the case).

I'd also like to speak to your comments about his lower than average FG%. Just for a modern comparison: so does Chauncey Billups. Apparent casual fans (appearing in this forum) have tried to discredit Chauncey's scoring efficiency based on this, even going so far as to call him a "horrible shooter" .

Should point out that I was also looking at his TS%. Schayes' TS% over his career was 48.8%. He had TWO seasons of 50%+ TS (50.2 and 50.8) and didn't seem to scale up during his career as the league progressed either. I did discuss this, I did not look solely at FG%.

My point was more that his scoring efficiency was so putrid by modern standards that he'd have to shoot far, far better from the field to bootstrap that efficiency, or become a strong 3pt shooter... and I don't find the second possibility that likely (I also find it to be too hypothetically different from the basic strengths of his core game to be a reliable assumption in this sort of projection).

But let's play the hypothetical game for a second, because it's useful point of reference:

Let's say Schayes DID become a 38% 3pt shooter on 3, 4 or 5 attempts per game (will show below), and somehow did so without depressing his FG%. Let's also use his career-high of 40.1% from the field as a standard throughout, because if he was shooting under that, he wouldn't generally be accepted as a volume option. Billups stands as an exception. I find this volume to be unlikely, but it's possible.

So let's say 6/15 from the field.

Let's also be HIGHLY generous and assume he maintains near to that .512 FTR he posted on his career, which I think is miserably unlikely. But that's 7.5 FTA/g, and let's say 85% because that's near his career average. That's 6.375 PPG from FTM.

6/15, 6.375 / 7.5

1.14/3: 53.3% TS
1.52/4: 54.4% TS
1.9/5: 55.4% TS

See what happens there?

His forward-projected efficiency is basically league average, which isn't a compelling reason to give him those shots except as a tertiary type player for his stretch value. It REALLY diminishes his overall picture as a player. At 5 attempts from 3 per game, with all of those other ifs and generosities added in, he becomes an efficient option scoring 20.3 ppg. Which STILL isn't really a first-option type of player.

Schayes' FG% is a huge barrier even if you credit him quite a lot. You can tweak the FT% up by 5% to get him to 90%, but FWIW, that's a difference of .378 points per game. His 3-attempt TS% still ends up rising by roughly 1% each tier, which isn't a huge deal compared to the fuss made about the way his game was compared to his in-era peers, know what I mean?

Billups managed his efficiency in Detroit by pulling 4 or 5 3s per game (4.6 on average) at 39.7% while drawing at .469 and shooting 89.2% from the line. That really isn't the picture of what you'd expect from a slashing forward, whom you'd generally want, you know, slashing a lot to maximize his efficacy. The problem then becomes... what happens to his FTR as his 3PA/g increase? Typically, it drops. There are outliers like Love, but they are as stated, not the general way things go. So you'd end up trading in style, but likely not seeing a huge efficiency difference.

This is my general issue with Schayes' candidacy here. You have to project a ton of changes while remaining highly generous just to get the picture of a modestly efficient 20 ppg scorer. That really isn't in-line with his in-era reputation.

As far as Owly's post, Owly, it was a nice post, but I touched upon a lot of what you were trying to say above, so I don't want to repeat myself.

As with trex's post, I respect your consideration of Schayes and appreciate the effort both of you took in crafting those posts. It is always nice to read the opposing view, especially to make sure my reasoning doesn't suck ass.

[trex_8063]

....Which, fwiw, would tend to discredit Doc's characterizing Schayes as someone "dependent" on a set shot.

Sure, but that's not a primary cause for my leeriness over Schayes, so I'm not too worried about it. He was shorter and lighter than the PFs of most NBA eras, but he had an FTR the likes of which we only really see from freak type players, mostly. Kevin Love would stand as an exception, so the posssiblity is there, but he's a lot more powerfully built than was Schayes, which makes me wonder a little.

*

And while I agree SLAM is not a very credible source for much information, this is technically not coming from SLAM....it's coming from Schayes himself. Could he be tooting his own horn? Sure, it's possible, though I've not known him as a character renowned for a lot of false bravado. I would also note that the interviewer (apparently unsolicited) mentioned that Schayes's range went out to 30 feet; and this in an era that was utterly non-encouraging of shooting range. I find that suggestive, and relevant to what we'd been discussing.

I find it to be hogwash. There aren't any players in league history who come to mind as consistently useful from 30 feet, even elite shooters like Durant, Curry, etc.

It probably is hogwash (the fish always gets bigger in the retelling). The "30 feet" is probably an exaggeration of the actual. So what do we assume the actual was? I doubt, for instance, that his range only went out to 18-19 feet, and that that was what got stretched to "30 feet" in the retelling (you can't get away with THAT MUCH embellishment). Probably he did have range out to 22-25 feet (i.e. basically current NBA 3-pt. territory; and fwiw I saw video of him hitting one or two from what appeared ~22 ft range), and that's what got stretched to "30 feet".

If you're generally dismissive of players from pre-merger, or maybe just pre-1965ish, please consider the points below....

Should point out that I was also looking at his TS%. Schayes' TS% over his career was 48.8%....

And league average over that span was 45.5%; so Schayes was +3.3% for his career. I don't know why you insist on comparing %'s from the 50's to modern era %'s like it's comparing apples to apples.

As a for instance, the best single-season TS% ANYONE shot in the entire 15 years Schayes was in the league was 59.01% (Kenny Sears in '59). You want to know how many players had a higher TS% (on significant volume only, too, fwiw) in the 2014 season ALONE: 39.

Such massive discrepancy begs some explanation, and seems (to me) would compel one to acknowledge that offensive dynamics, stylistics, and strategies as well as game rules were entirely different in that era (practically a different game); which (non-surprisingly) resulted in an entirely different level of efficiency.

I realize that some people are going to see video of the way basketball was played in the 1950's and think it rather infantile by comparison. And thus, when they see a discrepancy like the above, they're going to easily chalk it up to an explanation like, "players back then were just a lot worse at everything."

And it's not that there isn't a nugget of truth in that statement. But even if that's the horse one is going to back, it warrants exploring WHY.

Few criticisms I've heard in the past......

Players back then couldn't dribble except with that clumsy beginner look, sort of spanking the ball immediately in front of them.
Well, that's true, they couldn't.......like literally couldn't, because to do so (e.g. dribble the way we all do today), they'd get called for carrying and lose possession. The "killer cross-over"? The hurky-jerky change of direction Eurostep? The way Paul George dribbles while standing still or walking backwards between drill demos in this instructional video (about dribbling):
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmlJjskzjuo[/youtube]

No, no, and no. All are carries in the 1950's.

So of course no one could dribble like they do today. They would have zero reason to even try.

Players back then couldn't shoot from the outside like they can now.
No 3pt line. A 25-footer is worth the same number of a points as a 15-footer (or a lay-up, for that matter), so there was minimal motive to work toward max proficiency from distance. Which is why I still find it suggestive that Schayes managed to develop some degree of noteworthy accuracy from deep range during an era that offered basically NO motive for doing so.

Players today are better at Skill A, B, and C.... (going to stop the specificity and just talk in some generals at this point)
In instances where this is true, it's important to note that Schayes and his era-same peers were pioneering the skills that have been routinely drilled for junior high (if not elementary school) aged children for the last 2-3 decades. Of course modern pros look more proficient at skills A, B, and C: they've been practicing them since they were ~7 years old. The pros in Schayes's era were among the first to tentatively begin incorporating those skills into their game(s).
To me, it's hardly fair to assume players from that era wouldn't be better at those things too, if they'd been practicing them since age 7, not to mention having players who'd mastered the fully evolved version of skill A, B, or C to watch on TV and imitate from a young age.

He had TWO seasons of 50%+ TS (50.2 and 50.8) and didn't seem to scale up during his career as the league progressed either.

Schayes vs. the league in TS% by year
'50---> +7.0%
'51---> +4.0%
'52---> +3.0%
'53---> +5.0%
'54---> +5.6%
'55---> +3.5%
'56---> +3.9%
'57---> +5.3%
'58---> +5.9%
'59---> +3.0%
'60---> +3.3% (is 31 years old by this point; Russell, Wilt, Baylor, S.Jones all present by this season, too; and he's actually 0.3% AHEAD OF rookie Wilt in TS%)
'61---> +1.3%
'62---> -1.8% (33 years old going into season, and had some injuries)
'63---> -2.1%
'64---> -8.6% (just 24 games of small minutes for sample, fwiw)

idk, he totally appears to have held pretty steady relative to league until he was 32+ years old (when a lot of players begin to decline).

[penbeast0]

The question, though, isnt' whether Schayes was a top player in his era; every candidate is that. It's whether he was better than anyone else left . . . in this case, Kevin McHale.

Scoring -- Schayes is consistently better than his era, McHale (without doing the research) I would guess is consistently better than his era to a greater extent. He was a very efficient scorer and probably has the edge in scoring.

Defense -- Schayes was a tough defender, physical and didn't back down. But I've never heard the slightest mention of his being a good help defender or shot blocker, more a 3 and D type guy. Every defensive study I've seen gives emphasis on the importance of good interior defenders, particularly help defenders. McHale would seem to have a significant edge here.

Rebounding -- McHale's weakest area. Let's assume edge to Schayes despite the lower fg% since the pace was lower too. Again, if I had the time, I'd do the work but I don't right now.

Playmaking -- neither were outstanding. McHale isn't as bad as his rep but I assume the edge goes to Schayes again.

Longevity -- Here the edge for Schayes is large and clear.

Intangibles -- Never heard anything but positives about both of them.

So, the better offensive and defensive player or the guy with the longer career as a star. McHale's peak years were long enough for me to give the edge to the guy who was better when out on the court.

[DQuinn1575]

Vote for schayes

Mchale was only all-pro once and is one of the most overrated players all-time. Schayes was one of top players in league for many years.

Vote for schayes




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[tsherkin]

If you're generally dismissive of players from pre-merger, or maybe just pre-1965ish, please consider the points below....

Nope. I think reasonably well of Pettit; I obviously support Russell and Wilt. West and Big O started before the merger and I'm just fine with them. I like Sam Jones well enough, even if I'm not supporting the traction he's receiving at this phase. THere are plenty of pre-merger guys of whom I think well. Schayes is not a player who I consider at this point in the project, but that's not necessarily because I think he was crap who wouldn't project forward at all so much as I don't think he'd be the same level of player in any other era.

And league average over that span was 45.5%; so Schayes was +3.3% for his career. I don't know why you insist on comparing %'s from the 50's to modern era %'s like it's comparing apples to apples.

Not really. I addressed this by looking at projected TS% with elite 3pt shooting, to some extent, which you were projecting. I've also addressed this by commenting on the need for significant gains in his raw 2FG% otherwise. That's some pretty piss-poor shooting on some fairly low volume, so you have to do some real mental gymnastics to look at him and expect him to maintain his strengths and improve his weaknesses forward in time.

idk, he totally appears to have held pretty steady relative to league until he was 32+ years old (when a lot of players begin to decline).

The 50s were, as a general rule, a crap era for offensive efficiency and the major changes happened more deeper into the 60s, so this doesn't really dispel my concern.

In any case, you failed to address the point I made about his need for significant volume from 3 while maintaining what was his career-high FG% AND an FTR that is out of sorts with that increase in 3pt volume (and with his general array of tools as a player) in order to be a reasonably efficient player in today's game. It's hard to imagine him dominating the FG% category with his physical tools, either, even independent of that inverse FG%/3P volume relationship.

Anyway, like I said, I respect that you and Owly are arguing for him, I just don't agree with you. I think it requires too much work to think that he'd be as good in any other era and portability does matter to me, since his achievements are lesser compared to basically every other era of ball. Same issue I had with Mikan, really.

So I'm curious, for the people voting for Schayes. what makes him more valuable than someone like Dominique Wilkins? Or should I say, a better candidate for this spot? Or Vince Carter, or Ray Allen? Is it that you value in-era dominance more than portability? How do you account for the fact that Schayes had a Jordan-like deviation from the terrible league-average scoring efficiency, but would almost assuredly do nothing of the sort in any other era? Is it just the way you look at comparisons?

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Kevin McHale

Not really a lot to say here. As I say, I don't consider Schayes to be a likely all-star level talent in the modern NBA. And to be clear: This isn't so much a "Because the game has changed" thing. I don't allege that Schayes would struggle today because of some rule change, it's just a talent/ability thing. Way too many questions.

So it's mostly about Schayes here for me, because we have to go really far down on my list before I start considering potential non-all-stars, obviously.

I do think McHale though was quite something. The combination of him playing with Bird, and having a short career arc makes people want to think of him as a sidekick. It's important to remember though just how strong those Boston offenses were, and how much better they got with McHale's emergence. I don't really see any reason to doubt that McHale would have been one hell of a first option. And as a big with that and strong defense, that's really world class territory.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Kevin McHale

Pretty strong big-game player. Very good defensive player and a legit 20 PPG low post scorer.

The rebounding concerns me. A lot of times, people excuse his pedestrian rebounding numbers by citing Bird/Parish, but in 1989, McHale had a huge sample of games to disprove that theory, and he didn't. Schayes gets the edge there.

But McHale proved to be more efficient than Schayes on somewhat similar volume. McHale even had a bit of a mid-range shot.

Going with McHale. I see the argument for Schayes though.

[trex_8063]

If you're generally dismissive of players from pre-merger, or maybe just pre-1965ish, please consider the points below....

Nope.

fwiw, that wasn't aimed at you. That was aimed at anyone else reading who would have the tendency to, for instance, say "McHale in this runoff because Schayes played in the 50's.".

So I'm curious, for the people voting for Schayes. what makes him more valuable than someone like Dominique Wilkins? Or should I say, a better candidate for this spot? Or Vince Carter, or Ray Allen? Is it that you value in-era dominance more than portability?

Yes, absolutely. I've argued against having era portability being too heavy a factor in your criteria because it's---probably by far---the noisiest criterion available. It's not just purely subjective, it's also purely hypothetical. We're speculating on non-real hypothetical events, and basing our speculation on the eye-test (this doesn't sound like something that's gonna carry a ton of accuracy). I only switched gears and attempted to defend Schayes along this line of reasoning because others are using it as a significant chunk of their criteria. But I disagree with making such heavy use of it.

I DO think in-era dominance needs to be tempered with consideration of the strength of era. And I've (we've) certainly done that. If all eras were simply considered equal, Schayes would have had a top 20 case.

How do you account for the fact that Schayes had a Jordan-like deviation from the terrible league-average scoring efficiency, but would almost assuredly do nothing of the sort in any other era?

I'll simply have to agree to disagree with you on this point. Schayes was never a huge volume scorer, even in that rush-paced era. That being the case, I could easily see him having good efficiency (like +3-4% to league) on moderate (like slightly above average) scoring volume in a modern context.

I was trying to think of some more modern analogies for him........
6'8" on thin-medium frame, fair athleticism by NBA standards, slasher mentality on offense though with decent outside shot (to "keep 'em honest"), excellent FT-shooter, some flare for passing/playmaking, solid rebounder for size.........this seems like it could be something like a slightly less explosive, but better FT-shooting and better rebounding version of Chandler Parsons (hopefully marginally better on defense, too).
So, in that vein, I could very easily see Schayes as being a 15-18 ppg/6 rpg/4 apg @ ~56-58% TS% with decent defense for a good team type of player in the modern game. Which is to say, pretty good. A "rich man's Chandler Parsons" is a player most teams would be happy to have (would probably be an occasional All-Star, too). I'll allow he could be even better (my "diet Rick Barry" comp from earlier???), but he could also be worse. Highly unlikely he dominates the game to the degree he did in the 50's, but we'll never know. And again, this is all so vague and unsubstantiated that I don't use is as a big means of my ranking anyway (for me, it's mostly enough to know he was one of the best in the world in his own time).

[Clyde Frazier]

I get that everyone has different criteria for this project. I just can't get behind this matter of fact "era portability" argument when we have no idea how schayes would actually translate. It's merely speculation, and when you're looking at 2 eras so far apart, I personally don't think it should hold so much weight.

I haven't supported that many players from the 50s (mikan was growing on me, but I wasn't ready to vote for him in that range). Schayes year in and year out being a top tier player of his generation is significant to me. He also continued to produce into the 60s, and if he came into the league a few year later, i'm not convinced that would've stopped.

As for McHale, he'd likely be next on my all time PF list, so i'm very impressed with his skill set. That said, his best stretch of play only lasted 6 seasons (and yes, it was a great stretch), so for a career overall, I don't think he easily tops schayes. Obviously team success and his contribution to that help his case. However, "prime" mchale was really only seen in the 3rd championship run.

I'm sure he could've been a fine 1st option, but that goes both ways. He was fortunate enough to play on some of the most complete teams in NBA history. I don't know that we see the same hyper-efficient mchale if he was slumming it on the clippers or something.

[Moonbeam]

Vote: Dolph Schayes

I was quite impressed with his resume after looking into him in more detail. He was an elite player for a long time in the 50s and 60s, and the clear best player on his team. McHale is a great player in his own right, and he's on my shortlist, but I feel the advantage of playing with Bird helped to inflate his impact, great though it was.

[john248]

I'm not entirely certain I can get behind Schayes. Part of it is ignorance. But looking at that era and can only go by what little is shared, I'd likely side with Arizin here. He comes off as a better offensive player who still looks great in the playoffs with numbers comparable to Pettit. His NBA.com bio mentions that he was a good defender too, so he, at least, has the 2-way player in his favor. I don't see much in regards to Schayes defense other than his teams had 1 defensive guard and 1 defensive forward which I am only to assume that Schayes filled the offensive forward spot. This isn't to say that he sucked as a defender if some are calling him solid. But I haven't found anything that praises him in this regard; correct me if I'm wrong.

I have difficulty placing him on my list as of now. I see him as a quality player who seemingly used his set shot to set up the drive while being able to finish with both hands. But having a set shot and zero jumping ability (mentioned here and there) doesn't excite me much; there's also an era penalty at play here too. I just don't see him as better than McHale or some of the other guys coming up.