RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #61

[penbeast0]

Russell came into the league in the 50s when a FG% over 40 was considered good. He was top 5 in the league in fg% 4 of his first 5 years. By the time Thurmond comes in, it's considered awful. It's not enough to just compare TS%.

Also, Russell's defensive impact was unique. Thurmond's was similar to many other great defensive bigs; he was a terrific defender but it's just a whole different level.

[trex_8063]

Thru post 21:

Vince Carter - 3 (Dr Positivity, LABird, Joao Saraiva)
Tracy McGrady - 2 (dhsilv2, iggymcfrack)
Elvin Hayes - 2 (Clyde Frazier, trex_8063)
James Harden - 1 (pandrade83)
Nate Thurmond - 1 (Outside)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)

Eliminating all those with one vote transfers one vote each to Hayes and McGrady:

Vince Carter - 3 (Dr Positivity, LABird, Joao Saraiva)
Tracy McGrady - 3 (pandrade83, dhsilv2, iggymcfrack)
Elvin Hayes - 3 (Clyde Frazier, trex_8063, Outside)


Have been lobbying Hayes to penbeast0 for two reasons: 1) because he's my candidate, duh; and 2) if he'd declared Hayes his alternate, we could go immediately to a 2-man runoff. As is, it looks like we'll have to first whittle it down from a 3-way runoff. If your name isn't shown above, please indicate your pick among these three with reasons why. I'd at least like to get this whittled down to 2 players in 24 OR LESS.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Doctor MJ]

Runoff Vote: Vince Carter

I outright don't think Hayes was a great basketball player.

I give McGrady the peak edge over Carter, but I don't think that edge is as big as people think. It's small enough that the way that Carter has maintained his career to and advanced age tips the scale to him here.

[Outside]

Russell came into the league in the 50s when a FG% over 40 was considered good. He was top 5 in the league in fg% 4 of his first 5 years. By the time Thurmond comes in, it's considered awful. It's not enough to just compare TS%.

Several points.

Why bring up FG% alone, only one component of TS%? Thurmond's FT% was significantly better than Russell's -- 66.7 compared to 56.1 -- and discussing FG% only leaves out Thurmond's equalizing advantage in FT%.

Taking the FG% bit further, it's not fair to cherry-pick by saying Russell "was top 5 in the league in fg% 4 of his first 5 years." it was his first four seasons, not just four out of the first five, and he averaged 45.1 FG%. In his other nine seasons, his FG% fell as the league's FG% rose.

So let's look at Russell's rTS% for each season.

Russell TS% - league TS% - Russell's rTS%
45.0 - 44.9 - +0.1
46.5 - 44.9 - +1.6
49.3 - 45.7 - +3.6
49.6 - 46.3 - +2.7
45.4 - 46.9 - -1.5
48.9 - 47.9 - +1.0
46.4 - 49.3 - -2.9
46.1 - 48.5 - -2.4
47.2 - 47.9 - -0.7
44.8 - 48.7 - -3.9
50.0 - 49.3 - +0.7
46.1 - 49.8 - -3.7
46.7 - 49.1 - -2.4

Seasons 2-4 are very good, but other than that, he spent a lot of time below average, sometimes significantly so, even during his prime. Thurmond also had numerous seasons below rTS%, but there's a significant difference in offensive role between the two -- Russell was always a secondary scoring option with multiple primary scoring options to carry the load, while Thurmond was often forced to be a primary scoring option. Wilt was the primary scorer in Nate's rookie season of 1963-64, Rick Barry, filled that role in 65-66 and 66-67, but then Barry jumped to the ABA and didn't play for the Warriors for the next five seasons, rejoining them in 1972-73. So for six seasons of Thurmond's prime, he was a primary scorer.

Here are Thurmond's rTS% for his prime, 1964-65 through 1972-73, with a little context added.

rTS ppg
-2.3 16.5
-3.3 16.3 Barry
-1.3 18.7 Barry
-3.2 20.5
-3.4 21.5
-2.8 21.9
+0.1 20.0
-1.2 21.4
+0.1 17.1 Barry

The five seasons without Barry are Thurmond's five highest scoring seasons, meaning that he was expected to carry a higher scoring load, even though that wasn't the strongest part of his game. His poor efficiency during those years, especially the first three after Barry left, while shooting a higher volume of shots, shouldn't be held against Thurmond. He did what he was asked to do.

Russell, on the other hand, never wanted for scorers on his roster. Cousy, Sharman, Ramsay, Heinsohn, Jones, Havlicek -- Russell usually had two or three teammates to shoulder the bulk of the scoring.

Also, Russell's defensive impact was unique. Thurmond's was similar to many other great defensive bigs; he was a terrific defender but it's just a whole different level.

Yes, Russell is the greatest defender to ever play, but not everyone thought the difference between him and Thurmond was as large as you portray.

From John Taylor's "The Rivalry," about Thurmond's second season, when Wilt missed the start of the season:

One problem was that with Wilt out for so much of the beginning of the season, the team had adjusted to playing with Nate Thurmond at center. The young Thurmond was promising; Hannum went around saying he wouldn't trade him for any other center in the league...

Thurmond was also an extremely talented and serious basketball player, popular with his teammates, versatile, agile, long-armed, better at defense than Chamberlain in the view of some sportswriters, and better at offense than Russell.

Describing the 1969 playoffs between Wilt's Lakers and the Warriors:

The Lakers had faced the Warriors in the first round. Chamberlain considered their center, his friend Nate Thurmond, more challenging than any center in the league, including Russell. Thurmond was as tall as Russell, but stronger, and more of a threat on offense.

I've seen quotes saying that the Celtics would've won just as much if you swapped Russell for Thurmond, but I couldn't find them to include here. I wouldn't agree with that statement myself -- I think Russell was perfectly suited to those Celtics -- but the difference is a lot less than most people think.

Watch on YouTube

[iggymcfrack]

Would like to say that the longevity difference between Carter and T-Mac isn't as big as it's made out to be. McGrady still played 15 seasons, over 30K minutes, and has a VORP almost equal to what Carter did in 43K minutes (50.6-54.4). I mean, I guess if you have their peaks close, it's a good tiebreaker, but otherwise I don't see how hanging on at close to a league average level for an extra few years should compare to the impact of T-Mac's historic 2003 where he had a 30.3 PER on .564 TS% and put up a 9.7 BPM.

[trex_8063]

Would like to say that the longevity difference between Carter and T-Mac isn't as big as it's made out to be. McGrady still played 15 seasons, over 30K minutes, and has a VORP almost equal to what Carter did in 43K minutes (50.6-54.4). I mean, I guess if you have their peaks close, it's a good tiebreaker, but otherwise I don't see how hanging on at close to a league average level for an extra few years should compare to the impact of T-Mac's historic 2003 where he had a 30.3 PER on .564 TS% and put up a 9.7 BPM.

TMac played 15 seasons, but only 7 of them (just over 19,000 rs minutes) appear to be during his prime. A couple of his other seasons are relatively "near-prime", and he was at least a "marginally useful bench/role player" ever other year of his career (though missed HUGE chunks of the season in multiple of those years).

Carter (prior to current year) has played 19 seasons, approximately 9 of them (24,565 rs minutes) in his prime. Likewise has two other seasons are relatively "near-prime", and likewise was at least "marginally useful" all 19 of these seasons (~12,600 more total minutes than McGrady).

So while it's not a huge longevity/durability margin, it's definitely not small either; and as is probably apparent by now, I value meaningful longevity as highly as anyone on this forum.
That said, I rank McGrady > Carter because [like you] I think McGrady was just a much better player at respective peaks/primes. I think McGrady's edge over Carter for peaks or primes is roughly similar to that of Kobe Bryant's over someone like Paul Pierce or Ray Allen (mildly hyperbolic example at worst, imo). Even I don't think Carter's longevity edge is quite enough to overcome that.

I rank this runoff Hayes > McGrady > Carter (admittedly very small gap between each).

[mikejames23]

Runoff Vote: Elvin Hayes

I suspect with Hayes with his personality issues that 70s reporting judged him too harshly at the time. He appears to be an all star level player offensively while being a top tier defender for a relatively long period of time. It may not sound all that impressive, but someone of say Paul Milsap or LMA caliber offense with top 10 in league type defense is a guy I'd fear. Otherwise too Top 10 all time in points, rebounds, DWS, W/S per 48, etc. he accumulated impressive raw (and some advanced) numbers over time with strong consistency. Frankly too having a player that can lead the league in minutes as a big man also is impressive, especially when it comes in comparison to a guy with durability issues (T-Mac). I will give a slight pass for scoring efficiency based on team design and era. I don't think it'd quite fly today were he to adjust his game.

Anyway, I happen to like him. Amongst all time PF's already voted in, might've picked him over Pau Gasol and certainly has a case vs McHale, who I think got by a somewhat inflated rep thanks to Bird.

[iggymcfrack]

Would like to say that the longevity difference between Carter and T-Mac isn't as big as it's made out to be. McGrady still played 15 seasons, over 30K minutes, and has a VORP almost equal to what Carter did in 43K minutes (50.6-54.4). I mean, I guess if you have their peaks close, it's a good tiebreaker, but otherwise I don't see how hanging on at close to a league average level for an extra few years should compare to the impact of T-Mac's historic 2003 where he had a 30.3 PER on .564 TS% and put up a 9.7 BPM.

TMac played 15 seasons, but only 7 of them (just over 19,000 rs minutes) appear to be during his prime. A couple of his other seasons are relatively "near-prime", and he was at least a "marginally useful bench/role player" ever other year of his career (though missed HUGE chunks of the season in multiple of those years).

Carter (prior to current year) has played 19 seasons, approximately 9 of them (24,565 rs minutes) in his prime. Likewise has two other seasons are relatively "near-prime", and likewise was at least "marginally useful" all 19 of these seasons (~12,600 more total minutes than McGrady).

So while it's not a huge longevity/durability margin, it's definitely not small either; and as is probably apparent by now, I value meaningful longevity as highly as anyone on this forum.
That said, I rank McGrady > Carter because [like you] I think McGrady was just a much better player at respective peaks/primes. I think McGrady's edge over Carter for peaks or primes is roughly similar to that of Kobe Bryant's over someone like Paul Pierce or Ray Allen (mildly hyperbolic example at worst, imo). Even I don't think Carter's longevity edge is quite enough to overcome that.

I rank this runoff Hayes > McGrady > Carter (admittedly very small gap between each).

Just wanted to say that T-Mac's 9th best PER was 20.0 which was the same as Carter's 8th best PER and that T-Mac's 9th best BPM was 3.2 which was better than Carter's 7th best BPM (3.0). Now, one of those seasons was T-Mac's second season where he was coming off the bench and there was a lockout so he didn't play a ton of minutes, but I still think you have to get into the 10th best season for Carter to have better numbers. Sounds like we're mostly agreeing and are on the same page overall though.

[trex_8063]

Thru post 28:

Vince Carter - 4 (Doctor MJ, Dr Positivity, LABird, Joao Saraiva)
Elvin Hayes - 4 (fundamentals21, Outside, Clyde Frazier, trex_8063)
Tracy McGrady - 3 (pandrade83, dhsilv2, iggymcfrack)


I'm about three hours early, but nothing has changed in the count in the last 14 hours, so am going to eliminate the last place here (McGrady) to narrow it to two candidates:

Vince Carter - 4 (Doctor MJ, Dr Positivity, LABird, Joao Saraiva)
Elvin Hayes - 4 (fundamentals21, Outside, Clyde Frazier, trex_8063)


If your name isn't shown here, please state your pick between Hayes and Carter and reasons why. Will look to conclude this one in ~24 hours.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[dhsilv2]

Vote Hayes.

I tend to think he was the better player between these two. He won a title so for any character issues, he was able to overcome it. More all nba's and 2 defensive teams make this one a lot easier than perhaps it should be for me.

[Doctor MJ]

Runoff Vote: Elvin Hayes

I suspect with Hayes with his personality issues that 70s reporting judged him too harshly at the time. He appears to be an all star level player offensively while being a top tier defender for a relatively long period of time. It may not sound all that impressive, but someone of say Paul Milsap or LMA caliber offense with top 10 in league type defense is a guy I'd fear. Otherwise too Top 10 all time in points, rebounds, DWS, W/S per 48, etc. he accumulated impressive raw (and some advanced) numbers over time with strong consistency. Frankly too having a player that can lead the league in minutes as a big man also is impressive, especially when it comes in comparison to a guy with durability issues (T-Mac). I will give a slight pass for scoring efficiency based on team design and era. I don't think it'd quite fly today were he to adjust his game.

Anyway, I happen to like him. Amongst all time PF's already voted in, might've picked him over Pau Gasol and certainly has a case vs McHale, who I think got by a somewhat inflated rep thanks to Bird.

I mean, look at Hayes efficiency. It's god awful. It's basically the case in point for how messed up strategy was back then when it was so common to plan to just let your big man volume score even if he couldn't do it effectively.

Hayes has basically gotten by forever on the idea of him being a true 2-way star, but if he were around today, I'd expect him to be scoring more like 10 PPG than 20, and he'd be a better player for it. That's assuming he'd deign to accept such a reduced role given that his attitude was pretty questionable.

[dhsilv2]

Runoff Vote: Elvin Hayes

I suspect with Hayes with his personality issues that 70s reporting judged him too harshly at the time. He appears to be an all star level player offensively while being a top tier defender for a relatively long period of time. It may not sound all that impressive, but someone of say Paul Milsap or LMA caliber offense with top 10 in league type defense is a guy I'd fear. Otherwise too Top 10 all time in points, rebounds, DWS, W/S per 48, etc. he accumulated impressive raw (and some advanced) numbers over time with strong consistency. Frankly too having a player that can lead the league in minutes as a big man also is impressive, especially when it comes in comparison to a guy with durability issues (T-Mac). I will give a slight pass for scoring efficiency based on team design and era. I don't think it'd quite fly today were he to adjust his game.

Anyway, I happen to like him. Amongst all time PF's already voted in, might've picked him over Pau Gasol and certainly has a case vs McHale, who I think got by a somewhat inflated rep thanks to Bird.

I mean, look at Hayes efficiency. It's god awful. It's basically the case in point for how messed up strategy was back then when it was so common to plan to just let your big man volume score even if he couldn't do it effectively.

Hayes has basically gotten by forever on the idea of him being a true 2-way star, but if he were around today, I'd expect him to be scoring more like 10 PPG than 20, and he'd be a better player for it. That's assuming he'd deign to accept such a reduced role given that his attitude was pretty questionable.

19.1 PER in a lower level PER era for his career in the playoffs. His title run looks pretty solid, 49.1% field goal percentage. WS numbers look solid as does his 5.1 BPM.

Honestly, the guy has major flaws I get it, but I think you're going a bit far. I mean do you think he'd be AC Green (only guy with his durability who isn't a super star and in that I can think of).

[iggymcfrack]

Voting Vince Carter in the runoff.

Hayes is pretty much the definition of an empty calories scorer. Of his 12 first seasons (the best before he dropped off), he finished with a TS% under .500 in 9 of them. And even as a volume scorer, he wasn't better than Carter. He averaged 19.7 PP36 for his career compared to 20.6 for Carter. He does have 7K more career minutes than Carter but that's mainly due just to the strategies of riding starters for big minutes at the time. Carter played more total games and played heavy starters minutes for his era the first 11 seasons of his career.

Hayes does appear to have been an impact defender as when he went from the Rockets to the Bullets in his prime, the Rockets' DRtg went from 96.8 (8th) to 99.4 (12th) while the Bullets DRtg went from 97.6 (9th) to 93.3 (5th). The ORtgs meanwhile of the team he left got better while the team he joined stayed the same, and I wouldn't be surprised if we had RAPM type numbers in the 70s to find that he was actually neutral or even a negative on that side of the ball since he took on such a high load with poor efficiency. I know that league TS% was significantly lower at that point, but even if he was a positive on offense, the ability to get a high volume of shots at low efficiency in the block isn't a remotely portable skill as it wouldn't have any value in more efficient offenses down the line post-merger.

Seems like the stronger case for Hayes is for his defense than his offense, and that is obviously extremely difficult to judge from previous eras before more advanced metrics were available. I think to get to the point of being voted in now on the basis of his defense, we'd need a little better recommendation from the people who actually watched him day in and day out. Over his entire career, he only had 2 all-defense selections and both were to the second team. Seems like if you're looking for a player to put in on the basis of good defense and decent O, there are much better options out there like say Sidney Moncrief who was a legit stopper year in and year out and also put up valuable, efficient offense.

It's actually a pretty close runoff, but Carter was a solidly above average defender as well throughout his career and I think going from a good defender to better defender with more impact but never at a laudatory elite level isn't enough to make up for Carter's superior offense, especially considering that Hayes put up the vast majority of his numbers during the ABA era when the talent was most spread out and thin.

[dhsilv2]

Voting Vince Carter in the runoff.

Hayes is pretty much the definition of an empty calories scorer. Of his 12 first seasons (the best before he dropped off), he finished with a TS% under .500 in 9 of them. And even as a volume scorer, he wasn't better than Carter. He averaged 19.7 PP36 for his career compared to 20.6 for Carter. He does have 7K more career minutes than Carter but that's mainly due just to the strategies of riding starters for big minutes at the time. Carter played more total games and played heavy starters minutes for his era the first 11 seasons of his career.

Hayes does appear to have been an impact defender as when he went from the Rockets to the Bullets in his prime, the Rockets' DRtg went from 96.8 (8th) to 99.4 (12th) while the Bullets DRtg went from 97.6 (9th) to 93.3 (5th). The ORtgs meanwhile of the team he left got better while the team he joined stayed the same, and I wouldn't be surprised if we had RAPM type numbers in the 70s to find that he was actually neutral or even a negative on that side of the ball since he took on such a high load with poor efficiency. I know that league TS% was significantly lower at that point, but even if he was a positive on offense, the ability to get a high volume of shots at low efficiency in the block isn't a remotely portable skill as it wouldn't have any value in more efficient offenses down the line post-merger.

Seems like the stronger case for Hayes is for his defense than his offense, and that is obviously extremely difficult to judge from previous eras before more advanced metrics were available. I think to get to the point of being voted in now on the basis of his defense, we'd need a little better recommendation from the people who actually watched him day in and day out. Over his entire career, he only had 2 all-defense selections and both were to the second team. Seems like if you're looking for a player to put in on the basis of good defense and decent O, there are much better options out there like say Sidney Moncrief who was a legit stopper year in and year out and also put up valuable, efficient offense.

It's actually a pretty close runoff, but Carter was a solidly above average defender as well throughout his career and I think going from a good defender to better defender with more impact but never at a laudatory elite level isn't enough to make up for Carter's superior offense, especially considering that Hayes put up the vast majority of his numbers during the ABA era when the talent was most spread out and thin.

He lead the league in defensive winshare twice and is 8th all time in it. Is that not enough to make his case as a far more impactful defender?

His case is that he was seen as a better player relative to his era, he was a top 2 guy on a title team, and in a playoff run he lead in ws, d ws, o ws, and vorp. I dont think anyone will champion his offense beyond a point, but he could create his own shot which other defenders on the board couldnt.

[iggymcfrack]

Voting Vince Carter in the runoff.

Hayes is pretty much the definition of an empty calories scorer. Of his 12 first seasons (the best before he dropped off), he finished with a TS% under .500 in 9 of them. And even as a volume scorer, he wasn't better than Carter. He averaged 19.7 PP36 for his career compared to 20.6 for Carter. He does have 7K more career minutes than Carter but that's mainly due just to the strategies of riding starters for big minutes at the time. Carter played more total games and played heavy starters minutes for his era the first 11 seasons of his career.

Hayes does appear to have been an impact defender as when he went from the Rockets to the Bullets in his prime, the Rockets' DRtg went from 96.8 (8th) to 99.4 (12th) while the Bullets DRtg went from 97.6 (9th) to 93.3 (5th). The ORtgs meanwhile of the team he left got better while the team he joined stayed the same, and I wouldn't be surprised if we had RAPM type numbers in the 70s to find that he was actually neutral or even a negative on that side of the ball since he took on such a high load with poor efficiency. I know that league TS% was significantly lower at that point, but even if he was a positive on offense, the ability to get a high volume of shots at low efficiency in the block isn't a remotely portable skill as it wouldn't have any value in more efficient offenses down the line post-merger.

Seems like the stronger case for Hayes is for his defense than his offense, and that is obviously extremely difficult to judge from previous eras before more advanced metrics were available. I think to get to the point of being voted in now on the basis of his defense, we'd need a little better recommendation from the people who actually watched him day in and day out. Over his entire career, he only had 2 all-defense selections and both were to the second team. Seems like if you're looking for a player to put in on the basis of good defense and decent O, there are much better options out there like say Sidney Moncrief who was a legit stopper year in and year out and also put up valuable, efficient offense.

It's actually a pretty close runoff, but Carter was a solidly above average defender as well throughout his career and I think going from a good defender to better defender with more impact but never at a laudatory elite level isn't enough to make up for Carter's superior offense, especially considering that Hayes put up the vast majority of his numbers during the ABA era when the talent was most spread out and thin.

He lead the league in defensive winshare twice and is 8th all time in it. Is that not enough to make his case as a far more impactful defender?

His case is that he was seen as a better player relative to his era, he was a top 2 guy on a title team, and in a playoff run he lead in ws, d ws, o ws, and vorp. I dont think anyone will champion his offense beyond a point, but he could create his own shot which other defenders on the board couldnt.

Well, I mean for judging his defensive abilities beyond rebounds and blocks (when available). I'm not really a huge fan of win shares to begin with but if you do use them, Vince Carter has more career win shares in 7K less minutes so I don't think the DWS are necessarily a huge feather in Hayes' cap.

[dhsilv2]

Voting Vince Carter in the runoff.

Hayes is pretty much the definition of an empty calories scorer. Of his 12 first seasons (the best before he dropped off), he finished with a TS% under .500 in 9 of them. And even as a volume scorer, he wasn't better than Carter. He averaged 19.7 PP36 for his career compared to 20.6 for Carter. He does have 7K more career minutes than Carter but that's mainly due just to the strategies of riding starters for big minutes at the time. Carter played more total games and played heavy starters minutes for his era the first 11 seasons of his career.

Hayes does appear to have been an impact defender as when he went from the Rockets to the Bullets in his prime, the Rockets' DRtg went from 96.8 (8th) to 99.4 (12th) while the Bullets DRtg went from 97.6 (9th) to 93.3 (5th). The ORtgs meanwhile of the team he left got better while the team he joined stayed the same, and I wouldn't be surprised if we had RAPM type numbers in the 70s to find that he was actually neutral or even a negative on that side of the ball since he took on such a high load with poor efficiency. I know that league TS% was significantly lower at that point, but even if he was a positive on offense, the ability to get a high volume of shots at low efficiency in the block isn't a remotely portable skill as it wouldn't have any value in more efficient offenses down the line post-merger.

Seems like the stronger case for Hayes is for his defense than his offense, and that is obviously extremely difficult to judge from previous eras before more advanced metrics were available. I think to get to the point of being voted in now on the basis of his defense, we'd need a little better recommendation from the people who actually watched him day in and day out. Over his entire career, he only had 2 all-defense selections and both were to the second team. Seems like if you're looking for a player to put in on the basis of good defense and decent O, there are much better options out there like say Sidney Moncrief who was a legit stopper year in and year out and also put up valuable, efficient offense.

It's actually a pretty close runoff, but Carter was a solidly above average defender as well throughout his career and I think going from a good defender to better defender with more impact but never at a laudatory elite level isn't enough to make up for Carter's superior offense, especially considering that Hayes put up the vast majority of his numbers during the ABA era when the talent was most spread out and thin.

He lead the league in defensive winshare twice and is 8th all time in it. Is that not enough to make his case as a far more impactful defender?

His case is that he was seen as a better player relative to his era, he was a top 2 guy on a title team, and in a playoff run he lead in ws, d ws, o ws, and vorp. I dont think anyone will champion his offense beyond a point, but he could create his own shot which other defenders on the board couldnt.

Well, I mean for judging his defensive abilities beyond rebounds and blocks (when available). I'm not really a huge fan of win shares to begin with but if you do use them, Vince Carter has more career win shares in 7K less minutes so I don't think the DWS are necessarily a huge feather in Hayes' cap.

Well your question was about defense and if that was the case for hayes, which I think it is. More importantly however was that hayes lead the league in defensive win share, which I'd argue at least gives credence to having an elite peak that is understated by his lack of all defensive team selections. Carter has a very high offensive win share to haye's defensive winshare. The two have nearly identical career winshares.

As for WS, it's by no means perfect, but it is really our only good 1 stat pre 74, so it's our best stat for this project. I almost don't even want to use PER for modern players and I don't think the PER formula makes a lot of sense pre 74. The only real value in PER is generally that most people are somewhat comfortable with it.

[pandrade83]

A pair of ironmen who I'm not in love with, but I understand why people are voting for them.

Hayes has elite defensive impact that translates into winning. You see it in SD when the team finished 3rd in D Rating and has a 4 point swing in Rel D RTG and has a similar drop-off when he leaves. The DC Area team improves defensively and when Hayes is hurt in '74, Hayes still leads the team to a strong defensive impact as the team maintains a reasonably high level of performance.

So, for me this really comes down to "what do you think of Hayes offensively"? During the Unseld debate, I argued that Hayes is not that helpful offensively and called out some weak playoff performances + the brutal TS%. He had a career TS% of 49 which is below the average for the era (50-52) and was a black hole who barely had any assists. The one saving grace is that ages 32-35 when we do have turnover data, his turnover economy is a strong 12 or less; it's not inconcievable that at his peak he probably had TO rates at < 10.

He does get better offensively in '78-'79, but for the rest of his career he is the "anchor" of a below average team from an offensive standpoint; but in one of the aforementioned years, he's arguably the best player on a title team & another that made the Finals.

Overall, I'm going to take Hayes - by a nose. I can more easily see Hayes impact on winning; and while I think that for most of his career he was a below average offensive player who shot too much, I think the defensive impact he made is robust and had a demonstrative impact on winning. Couple that with a positive offensive impact in key years that resulted in team success, and it's just enough to make Elvin Hayes my run-off choice.

In all fairness, it's possible I have a negative recency bias against Carter. During his prime I had a pretty poor impression of him & it doesn't seem like the light bulb went on until his impact was reduced to modest at best. I'm also not convinced that he had a huge impact on winning because there were years where he sat and the team seemed to play better; I also wonder why he didn't help the Nets more and because I hated watching him play, the biases accrued negatively towards him because of off the court stuff while he's going against a candidate who I didn't get to see play during his era but also has negative intangibles. However, I'd need to see a demonstrative impact on winning from Carter the way I see it from Hayes.

[Doctor MJ]

Runoff Vote: Elvin Hayes

I suspect with Hayes with his personality issues that 70s reporting judged him too harshly at the time. He appears to be an all star level player offensively while being a top tier defender for a relatively long period of time. It may not sound all that impressive, but someone of say Paul Milsap or LMA caliber offense with top 10 in league type defense is a guy I'd fear. Otherwise too Top 10 all time in points, rebounds, DWS, W/S per 48, etc. he accumulated impressive raw (and some advanced) numbers over time with strong consistency. Frankly too having a player that can lead the league in minutes as a big man also is impressive, especially when it comes in comparison to a guy with durability issues (T-Mac). I will give a slight pass for scoring efficiency based on team design and era. I don't think it'd quite fly today were he to adjust his game.

Anyway, I happen to like him. Amongst all time PF's already voted in, might've picked him over Pau Gasol and certainly has a case vs McHale, who I think got by a somewhat inflated rep thanks to Bird.

I mean, look at Hayes efficiency. It's god awful. It's basically the case in point for how messed up strategy was back then when it was so common to plan to just let your big man volume score even if he couldn't do it effectively.

Hayes has basically gotten by forever on the idea of him being a true 2-way star, but if he were around today, I'd expect him to be scoring more like 10 PPG than 20, and he'd be a better player for it. That's assuming he'd deign to accept such a reduced role given that his attitude was pretty questionable.

19.1 PER in a lower level PER era for his career in the playoffs. His title run looks pretty solid, 49.1% field goal percentage. WS numbers look solid as does his 5.1 BPM.

Honestly, the guy has major flaws I get it, but I think you're going a bit far. I mean do you think he'd be AC Green (only guy with his durability who isn't a super star and in that I can think of).

You’re really focused on the advanced stats here, tho I was thinking in terms of TS% so I don’t know if I’m really different. It’s just to me that players in general are better understood through more fundamental aspects.

Hayes was a contemporary of Kareem’s whose FG% was typically 10% lower than Kareem. That’s insane. It makes the gap between Jordan and Iverson looks minor in comparison.

What I’m saying then is that Hayes devoted the bulk of his energy to trying to score, and he wasn’t good at it. Inefficient scoring big man have no business volume scoring and in all cases the team would be better off if they totally reformatted the orientation of their game.

Remember also that Hayes was on Wed Unselds team. I self who gets underrated because he didn’t focus on scoring, instead focus big on just adding value with everything he did while also being known to be every ounce the inspirational leadership presence that Hayes was not.

Would Hayes be AC Green today? I think it’s not right to assume that a failed star can be a great role player, but if Hayes learned to approach the game wiser, he’d be viewed more like Green than he would be DeMarcus Cousins certainly.

Simply put: what is it about Hayes’ game that gets you excited for today’s game? Not saying he couldn’t be good on defense, but certainly not DPOY worthy. What do we talk about when we talk about big men who are major stars in any aspect of their game, are prone to counterproductive vainglorious habits, and aren’t great in the locker room?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[dhsilv2]

I mean, look at Hayes efficiency. It's god awful. It's basically the case in point for how messed up strategy was back then when it was so common to plan to just let your big man volume score even if he couldn't do it effectively.

Hayes has basically gotten by forever on the idea of him being a true 2-way star, but if he were around today, I'd expect him to be scoring more like 10 PPG than 20, and he'd be a better player for it. That's assuming he'd deign to accept such a reduced role given that his attitude was pretty questionable.

19.1 PER in a lower level PER era for his career in the playoffs. His title run looks pretty solid, 49.1% field goal percentage. WS numbers look solid as does his 5.1 BPM.

Honestly, the guy has major flaws I get it, but I think you're going a bit far. I mean do you think he'd be AC Green (only guy with his durability who isn't a super star and in that I can think of).

You’re really focused on the advanced stats here, tho I was thinking in terms of TS% so I don’t know if I’m really different. It’s just to me that players in general are better understood through more fundamental aspects.

Hayes was a contemporary of Kareem’s whose FG% was typically 10% lower than Kareem. That’s insane. It makes the gap between Jordan and Iverson looks minor in comparison.

What I’m saying then is that Hayes devoted the bulk of his energy to trying to score, and he wasn’t good at it. Inefficient scoring big man have no business volume scoring and in all cases the team would be better off if they totally reformatted the orientation of their game.

Remember also that Hayes was on Wed Unselds team. I self who gets underrated because he didn’t focus on scoring, instead focus big on just adding value with everything he did while also being known to be every ounce the inspirational leadership presence that Hayes was not.

Would Hayes be AC Green today? I think it’s not right to assume that a failed star can be a great role player, but if Hayes learned to approach the game wiser, he’d be viewed more like Green than he would be DeMarcus Cousins certainly.

Simply put: what is it about Hayes’ game that gets you excited for today’s game? Not saying he couldn’t be good on defense, but certainly not DPOY worthy. What do we talk about when we talk about big men who are major stars in any aspect of their game, are prone to counterproductive vainglorious habits, and aren’t great in the locker room?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I've only seen a bit of Hayes but he could rebound and defend well. He could create a shot. I get the knocks on him, but his early years he shot better than his team as a whole did. Later on he was a bit behind his team though often he and their second leading shooter were both below team average.

When they won it was on defense.

Carter just created too many negatives for me after 01.

[trex_8063]

Simply put: what is it about Hayes’ game that gets you excited for today’s game? Not saying he couldn’t be good on defense, but certainly not DPOY worthy.

Judging by the massive defensive lift that seems to be consistently associated with his presence/absence, I'd say pretty close some years. Roughly a current DeAndre Jordan level defensive big (from what I've watched, he's an excellent finisher at the rim like DeAndre, too)......which perhaps offers an alternate way to think about Hayes: where would you rank a DeAndre Jordan who shot way too much (maybe spamming a few ill-advised turnarounds----not to the degree that Hayes did in his own time, because I thoroughly believe [and you seem to have implied this yourself] that part of the blame lies with a still relatively [to modern times] poor understanding of basic offensive tenets by even the best basketball minds of the time period---but also wasn't a liability at the FT-line like our actual DeAndre), and played 16 [mostly huge mpg] seasons while NEVER sustaining an injury?

I'd hazard a guess that somewhere around now would not be unreasonable at all for that hypothetical player.