RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #39 (Manu Ginobili)

[AEnigma]

I would probably sort the average English season as more in line with Ray Allen, except not as much of a target in his era or on those rosters. Both on a reasonable defensive team, I see one helping to make it better (if not by that much), and the other hoping to not make it worse. And I feel like that difference spoke for itself pretty clearly when they were on the same team, even keeping in mind that Allen was two years older.

[trelos6]

Vote: Rick Barry Barry had 2 weak MVP level seasons, 9 All NBA, 11 All Star, and 3 All D level seasons. Very good floor spacer, and decent passer for his position. Volume scoring was ok. Peak seaons was 25.4 pp75 on +0.7 rTS%. 3 year PS was 26.4 pp75 on -1 rTS%.

Alt Vote: Ginobili. Manu is a hard one for me to rate, his peak is phenomenal. I guess if you had him above Rick Barry I wouldn't complain. I have him at 1 weak mvp level season, 4 more all nba level seasons, and 3 more all star level seasons. All up, that gets him a little above a guy like Clyde Drexler, but still well behind the guys I have listed above.

Now let's say in 05 he was MVP level, then I'll give him weak MVP for 2011. A few more all nba level years in 06, 07, 08, 10, 14. A couple more all star level, and 2 all D level seasons, now I have him a hair under Rick Barry, just above Westbrook. And you know what, I think that's totally fine.

Nomination: Dwight Howard

Fantastic defender in his prime. Also had very good rim gravity. Yes, couldn't do anything outside the rim, but boy was he amazing with his catch radius and dunking prowess. Hung around due to his defensive ability. Great weak MVP level peak (at this point in the top 100), and 10+ years as an All-D level center.

Alternate: Dolph Schayes

I was considering Dolph Schayes here. Probably the second best player of the 50's. Schayes had 8 seasons over 10 WS, 7 seasons over .200 for WS/48. Compare that with Jason Kidd's 2 and 0 seasons, Stocktons 13 and 14, Miller's 11 and 5. Suggests he's in the ball park. Ultimately, I have him at 2 weak MVP level seasons, 8 All NBA Seasons, 12 All Star seasons. His peak 3yr PS was 25.3 pp75 on +7 rTS%, and regular season he was around 17-18 pp75 on +5-6 rTS%.

Looking at all the guys on the board, plus a few to be nominated, I think this is how I'd rank them.

Dwight Howard
Rick Barry
Dolph Schayes
Russell Westbrook
Anthony Davis
Joel Embiid
Artis Gilmore

[Owly]

On Baylor-Barry
Fwiw, conventional wisdom was this wasn't a discussion.
On a more actual level ... Barry's playmaking ... at it's best I think he (probably) is a great passer. But that happens circa ... '74? That aligns with two of his top 3 box years in a strong league (up there with his 2nd NBA year), but then he's on a lower overall level at least on the production side for 76-78 and then worse. The fuller ABA seasons aren't that dominant ... weaker than Cunningham's arrival year, RS only I don't think he's separating himself from Donnie Freeman apart from minutes (rate-wise I'm not sure he's better, looking at box stuff). The only time he looked like a colossus there (a) the league was 2nd tier and (b) he couldn't stay healthy.

Baylor has longevity of quality issues especially on the production side (think I was surprised WoWY stuff later still solid, from memory).

As ever I haven't gotten to a point where I could be happy with a consistent process for a list. But my inclination is early Baylor is more or less a genuinely top tier ... ish - there are pantheon guys above him and maybe he was overrated at the time but ... for a spell in a way I don't think Barry was and my guess is Barry's 6th, 7th, 8th etc ... best years aren't making up that gap.

Understandable. How would you respond to this thought?

Barry led a team to a chip in the mid-70s with basically no other stars around him and him playing drastically more minutes than any of his teammates - they rotated in & out while he played as much as possible.

It's hard for me to imagine Baylor doing the same.

Simple version

1) fwiw, it's not about one scenario.

2) it's hard to imagine Baylor doing it over the Celtics. Baylor faced a consistently dominant dynasty. Barry's chip comes as the powerhouses break down and there are weaker champs. They win a sweep with what was it a net ... 16?? ... point margin. It's very easy for me to seem them not winning it and then we don't get the sort retrospective "Barry was the real MVP" "he was robbed [because he was a jerk]" that I think Bill Simmons and maybe others put out.

3) Much of that cast stuck around and got better or was improved on the next year, Barry got worse and did less. The team was, in the larger sample (RS) significantly better. Fwiw, some allege Barry sulked that team out of the playoffs, he denies it (hard to deal with, tend to think on lines of innocent until proven guilty though if true it's functionally nuking your teams odds that year as it happened to happen and the players who get this allegation [Barry, Kobe] tend to have reps as ... difficult ... teammates).
4) Looking at Baylor's production in that early spell it's really not that hard for me to imagine Baylor doing the uni-polar offensive engine thing if there's a deep cast of competent role players ...

5) ... which brings us to ... GS - from memory - won in the playoffs primarily driven by a strong defense. Hard to get a precise read on players back then, a pretty large range is possible, but I'm not in place where I think Barry is a big driver there. The others were interchangeable parts but the impression off Lazenby ('96) is that they're all working, all scrapping, all at least ... okay, nobody killing them. Nobody ever seeing the court that you think ... this will really hurt them. And there's a possibility that rotation allowed their team to be more aggressive (not worried about fouling, there's a player about as good; not worried about energy). There's some leverage on ... he's playmaker, maybe the offense is a lot worse without him ... maybe ... but I think other superstars might be able to do a similar job and my guess is he's not a big driver on D (especially given the offensive/minutes load).

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Rick Barry
Vote 2 - Artis Gilmore
Nomination 1 - Dolph Schayes
Nomination 2 - Clyde Drexler

Barry's '75 title run is just really impressive culminating in a sweep of the 60 win #1 ranked SRS bullets. Going up against Unseld, Hayes, Chenier and Porter was a very formidable opponent. He put up 29.5 PPG, 4 RPG, 5 APG, 3.5 SPG, .8 BPG on 44.4% FG and 93.8% FT (8 FTAs per game) in the series.

It's tough to parse out what he did in the ABA as it was in its early years and clearly weaker. That said he really did dominate the competition. In '69 for the oakland oaks he had a crazy +11.4 rTS, albeit in 35 games. He did follow that up with a +7.6 rTS in '70 on a relatively high volume 27.7 PPG on 58.2% TS.

I think Barry is more versatile than given credit for, especially as a playmaker. Longevity is just so so by my standards, but i've already voted in guys with similar longevity. I think he's accomplished enough overall for this range.

As for Gilmore, here are some things that impressed me in his 17 year career:

He used his size very well to create space, but it was more about agility than just sheer power. Far more athletic than you'd expect from someone his size as a finisher. He could go up in one fluid motion, absorb contact, and finish off balance without being right at the rim. As a rookie in the ABA, he took the league by storm, winning MVP and leading Kentucky to a league best 68-16 record. They finished 44-40 in the prior season. In his '75 championship run, he put up the following:

24.1 PPG, 17.6 RPG, 2.5 APG, 1 SPG, 2.1 BPG, 53.9% FG, 77.2% FT, 60.2% TS, 114 ORtg

He also had a monster 28 points and 31 boards in the title clincher. Even if we adjust for pace and a marginally lower overall talent level in the ABA, he still comes out looking rather impressive. And at the end of the day, I value his contribution to that championship highly regardless of any variables you want throw in there. Per David Friedman of 20 Second Timeout:

ABA Commissioner Dave DeBusschere challenged the NBA champion Golden State Warriors to play a three game series against Kentucky but, not surprisingly, the established league declined, realizing that it had nothing to gain and potentially a lot to lose in staging such a matchup.

Gilmore's post-ABA longevity from '77-'86 (age 27-36)

19 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 2.1 APG, .6 SPG, 2.1 BPG, 60% FG, 72% FT, 64.6% TS, 118 ORtg

That's 10 seasons of consistent production well into his 30s. While he may get knocked for being a passive scorer as his career went on, I appreciate his ability to still be an effective second option with a volume scorer like Gervin. He didn't have as much playoff success in the NBA as he did in the ABA, but also faced tough competition along the way. In '77, '81, and '83, his teams would lose to the eventual NBA champs.

[homecourtloss]

Do you have Pierce as a good defender? I have him pretty average in the Alex English type category, not bad, but not good either, with less consistent effort.

I have English as either average or less than average to poor defender, while Pierce was a plus defender basically his entire career, even in some of his older years.

[penbeast0]

English started as a defensive forward (Indiana/Milwaukee) before coming to Denver and had nothing but Dan Issel behind him (and sometimes Kiki Vandewedghe at PF) so playing tight was often not an option. Not a good defensive rebounder, above average in the passing lanes. He had 9/16 years with better than average Drtg (110.6 is NBA average apparently) and his career number is just above average for the league and stays there pretty consistently right up to the end of his career. I admit Drtg is not a terribly reliable measure but other than going he said/she said about what we saw, it's one of the few measures from that era.

Pierce does indeed look much stronger than I remember from watching him when you look at his Drtg and his steal numbers are very good early. I think I'm underrating his defense rather than overrating English's.

[trex_8063]

English started as a defensive forward (Indiana/Milwaukee) before coming to Denver and had nothing but Dan Issel behind him (and sometimes Kiki Vandewedghe at PF) so playing tight was often not an option. Not a good defensive rebounder, above average in the passing lanes. He had 9/16 years with better than average Drtg (110.6 is NBA average apparently) and his career number is just above average for the league and stays there pretty consistently right up to the end of his career. I admit Drtg is not a terribly reliable measure but other than going he said/she said about what we saw, it's one of the few measures from that era.

Pierce does indeed look much stronger than I remember from watching him when you look at his Drtg and his steal numbers are very good early. I think I'm underrating his defense rather than overrating English's.

The NBA average DRtg was not 110.6 in English's career. The highest it ever was at any point in his career was 108.3; the lowest was 99.5, and average [collectively] was probably about 106.
English actually had an individual DRtg that was worse than league average every single year of his 15-year career.

Though as you say: individual DRtg is a rather atrocious measure of defensive value. But jsia....


Pierce, fwiw, had a positve DRAPM nearly every year of his career (at times around a +1.5 to +2 level, iirc), indicating he was a fairly solid defensive piece.

[trex_8063]

On Baylor-Barry
Fwiw, conventional wisdom was this wasn't a discussion.
On a more actual level ... Barry's playmaking ... at it's best I think he (probably) is a great passer. But that happens circa ... '74? That aligns with two of his top 3 box years in a strong league (up there with his 2nd NBA year), but then he's on a lower overall level at least on the production side for 76-78 and then worse. The fuller ABA seasons aren't that dominant ... weaker than Cunningham's arrival year, RS only I don't think he's separating himself from Donnie Freeman apart from minutes (rate-wise I'm not sure he's better, looking at box stuff). The only time he looked like a colossus there (a) the league was 2nd tier and (b) he couldn't stay healthy.

Baylor has longevity of quality issues especially on the production side (think I was surprised WoWY stuff later still solid, from memory).

As ever I haven't gotten to a point where I could be happy with a consistent process for a list. But my inclination is early Baylor is more or less a genuinely top tier ... ish - there are pantheon guys above him and maybe he was overrated at the time but ... for a spell in a way I don't think Barry was and my guess is Barry's 6th, 7th, 8th etc ... best years aren't making up that gap.

Understandable. How would you respond to this thought?

Barry led a team to a chip in the mid-70s with basically no other stars around him and him playing drastically more minutes than any of his teammates - they rotated in & out while he played as much as possible.

It's hard for me to imagine Baylor doing the same.

Simple version

1) fwiw, it's not about one scenario.

2) it's hard to imagine Baylor doing it over the Celtics. Baylor faced a consistently dominant dynasty. Barry's chip comes as the powerhouses break down and there are weaker champs. They win a sweep with what was it a net ... 16?? ... point margin. It's very easy for me to seem them not winning it and then we don't get the sort retrospective "Barry was the real MVP" "he was robbed [because he was a jerk]" that I think Bill Simmons and maybe others put out.

3) Much of that cast stuck around and got better or was improved on the next year, Barry got worse and did less. The team was, in the larger sample (RS) significantly better. Fwiw, some allege Barry sulked that team out of the playoffs, he denies it (hard to deal with, tend to think on lines of innocent until proven guilty though if true it's functionally nuking your teams odds that year as it happened to happen and the players who get this allegation [Barry, Kobe] tend to have reps as ... difficult ... teammates).
4) Looking at Baylor's production in that early spell it's really not that hard for me to imagine Baylor doing the uni-polar offensive engine thing if there's a deep cast of competent role players ...

5) ... which brings us to ... GS - from memory - won in the playoffs primarily driven by a strong defense. Hard to get a precise read on players back then, a pretty large range is possible, but I'm not in place where I think Barry is a big driver there. The others were interchangeable parts but the impression off Lazenby ('96) is that they're all working, all scrapping, all at least ... okay, nobody killing them. Nobody ever seeing the court that you think ... this will really hurt them. And there's a possibility that rotation allowed their team to be more aggressive (not worried about fouling, there's a player about as good; not worried about energy). There's some leverage on ... he's playmaker, maybe the offense is a lot worse without him ... maybe ... but I think other superstars might be able to do a similar job and my guess is he's not a big driver on D (especially given the offensive/minutes load).

Just to chip in my 2c.....

Regarding scoring efficiency, I don't believe Barry holds any relevant edge. The following had been noted previously:

If we take out Barry's years in the ABA, he has a total of +216.6 TS Add in the NBA (most of that in his earliest years.....in fact he has more than that in his first two seasons, but then was a net-negative for the other 8 years of his NBA career, as he was a negative every single year post-merger, and in '76 as well, while being only small positives in '73-'75).
If we pro-rated his 10-year average out to his full 14-year career, he'd have about +304 for his career (Baylor had +533.7).

I'm willing to allow Barry was a better playmaker, though the margin could be questioned.

In terms of defense and rebounding, I'm going to lump them together in this instance because it was you, Doctor MJ, who once posited that in some of these older eras where shooting efficiency was so much lower, the primary means by which a big made a defensive imprint was via REBOUNDING: ending the possession with the rebound of a missed shot.
To be fair you were talking about George Mikan when you said this. FG% was higher in Baylor's era, though still not as high as it would be later (and FT%'s were similar).

Speaking toward this, in addition to some things I'd noted in prior threads (justification for nominating Baylor) with regards to Baylor's potential defensive imprint, I want to point out his rank in rpg each year:

'59: 3rd (trails only Russell and Pettit)
'60: 4th (trails only Pettit [barely], and Russell, Wilt)
'61: 4th (same three ahead)
'62: 5th (Wilt/Russell again, then barely behind Bellamy and Pettit [and well ahead of 6th-place Red Kerr])
'63: 5th (same four)
'64: 9th
'65: 9th
'66: 15th (though did so while being 28th in mpg; fwiw, Barry was 10th in the league in rpg that year, though was 11th in mpg)
'67: 9th
'68: 9th
'69: 18th


Regarding Owly's point #5 above, I'm quoting the following:

Spoiler:

There was someone who brought up the "carried" argument in favour of Rick Barry a couple threads back, but I couldn't find the post.

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that Barry gets an awful lot of mileage out of "carried bunch of nobodies" [or similar] type of sentiments (which probably aren't fully warranted).

Firstly, I'd say that NOBODY wins the title with "a bunch of nobodies" [or whatever]. Great players can "carry a bunch of nobodies" to a decent record and a playoff berth or similar; but not a title.
Not even Duncan or Hakeem (who are probably the closest to any such claim) can truly say that. It's disrespectful to literally thousands of actual good NBA players to refer to them by such terms.

For '03 Duncan.....
Last legs of David Robinson was still a pretty valuable low-minute player. Though they struggled in the playoffs, young Tony Parker, Malik Rose, and Stephen Jackson were all decent NBA players in '03 (league avg or slightly better). Bruce Bowen is a nice-fitting 3&D role player who I would assess as a "decent starter-level player" overall. Speedy Claxton, who they had for the 2nd half of the season, was a decent (league avg at least) NBA player. Guys like old Steve Kerr and Steve Smith are not bad role players considering they only have to fill the role of being 8th-12th in playing time (it indicates a pinch of depth).
It's not what you'd call a "title-worthy" supporting cast, no; it's decidedly weak for a supporting cast that actually did win the title. But it's not a collection of scrubs.


Similar for '94 Hakeem....
Robert Horry, Otis Thorpe, and Kenny Smith are all at least fair/decent starter-level players in '94 (considering his defensive acumen and tendency for playoff rising, Horry probably slightly BETTER than that; and probably Thorpe too, considering his ability to play at a better than average level while shouldering ~36 mpg).
Rooke Sam Cassell and Mario Elie provided a bit more back-court punch (fair/decent players). Vernon Maxwell chucked a lot, but was a good defender.
While there are certainly no great players or "All-Stars" in that backcourt, it's pretty darn good backcourt depth that you can go to your FOURTH-BEST guard and still have someone as decent as Vernon Maxwell or Mario Elie.
And then considering there was the starting frontcourt of Hakeem/Horry/Thorpe.......that's not too shabby.

When it comes to title teams, I think people too easily fall into the fallacy of thinking that if you aren't an All-Star, you're complete trash. It's just not true.

And again, I am NOT saying this is a strong title-winning supporting cast. But this is not a bunch of "scrubs" or "nobodies", as the narrative usually runs.


For '75 Rick Barry....
Clifford Ray was a fine defensive center. In '74, with 32-year-old Nate Thurmond at C, the Warriors were at +0.7 rDRTG [8th of 17]. Then they traded Thurmond for Ray [though this wasn't the only change, to be fair], and the improved to -0.4 rDRTG [5th of 18].
Meanwhile, the '74 Bulls [with Clifford Ray] had been a -4.1 rDRTG [1st in the league]. In '75, with 33-year-old Nate Thurmond in his place, they fall slightly to -3.3 rDRTG [2nd of 18]. I realize these aren't big changes, but were talking about a swap with Nate Thurmond, who was [at worst] in his early post-prime in these years.
George Johnson was a nice defensive role player to have as back-up C. Jamaal Wilkes wasn't a bad defender, too.

In short, this was a quite strong defensive frontcourt. I won't deny that Barry "carried" [to a degree, though I really hate that word] the offense. But they won, in no small part, because of their defense; especially in the late playoff rounds.

In the rs, they were the 2nd-rated offense (and as mentioned: the 5th-rated defense). And in the WCSF, too, it was their offense that carried the day, and Barry was brilliant in the series: 27.0 ppg @ 54.9% TS (pretty good for the time period) with 7.0 apg, leading the team by comfortable margins in both points and assists, and leading everyone who scored 8+ ppg in TS, too.

In the WCF [against the Bulls], the offense mostly maintained its rs standard (at least relative to the opponent faced); that is: it was a significant drop in raw terms from their rs standard, but they're facing the 2nd-rated defense here. Relative to the Bulls defense, they performed as a +2.2 rORTG (they'd been +2.7 in the rs).
Barry averaged 28.4 ppg, though on only 46.6% TS, with 5.9 apg.
Wilkes helped out with 15.3 ppg @ 51.1% TS, and Charles Johnson delivered 13.7 ppg @ 49.2% TS, and Butch Beard averaged 10.9 ppg @ 50.6% TS. Jeff Mullins averaged 8.1 ppg @ 49.7% TS.
Overall, those four guys combined for 48 ppg @ >50% TS [more than 3.5% above Barry], as well as 8.6 apg. So he wasn't entirely without help there.

And at any rate, their DEFENSE out-shined that, performing as a -4.2 rDRTG in the series. This could be said to have been key in game 7 in particular, when the Warrior offense managed just a -6.2 rORTG [scoring just 83 pts].......but they won anyway, because their defense performed as a monstrous -13.4 rDRTG, holding the Bulls to just 79.

Barry, in that game, scored 22 pts @ 42.2% TS, with 4 assists.
Jamaal Wilkes delivered a game-high 23 pts @ 55.4% TS, with 3 assists.

Where might Rick Barry and the '75 Warriors have been without Jamaal Wilkes offensive performance and/or the total team defense's performance in game 7?
I strongly suspect Barry would scarcely have received mentions at this early stage of the list without those things.


Then in the Finals their offense underperformed (+0.1 rORTG, relative to the team faced). In other words they were a completely average offense in the Finals, though I will admit it was Rick Barry "carrying" that average offense.
But that's OK, because their defense was once again monstrous, performing as a -10.3 rDRTG; and that carried the series.


Ultimately I just don't agree with the narrative/sentiment (to say nothing of this being a sort of watered down league in '75).

I would ask our proctor, Doctor MJ---who I've came at hard at times in the past for a perceived lack of consistency---this question......because I recall him once taking the "hottish" take that Paul Seymour was actually the best player on the '55 Nats, because they won on the strength of their defense.

Now, the '75 Warriors are not as polarized (Offense vs Defense) as the '55 Nats; but at the same time, the defensive gap between Seymour and Schayes (in absolute value) is likely not as large as that between Barry and say.....Clifford Ray.

Barry was indeed the primary engine ["carrying"] their offense much of the time; however, it was often a mediocre offense in the playoffs that year, while their defense carried multiple series' to victory.


When we talk about Allen Iverson and '01 Sixers, the sentiment here is often in sharp rebuke of the typical narrative [that AI "carried" them to the Finals]; and this sentiment frequently comes from the very same posters who credit Rick Barry with a "carry-job" in '75.

Though with Allen Iverson and the '01 Sixers, while the offense he "carried" in the rs was fairly average [+0.6, ranked 13th of 29], and they won primarily on their defense in the rs.........in the playoffs they carried forth to the Finals based [certainly to a far greater degree than is seen for the '75 Warriors] on the performance of their offense.......

Relative to the defense being faced, they were:
+5.6 rORTG in the 1st round against the Pacers (defense slightly underperformed as a -1.4 rDRTG).
+5.4 rORTG in the ECSF against the Raptors (defense underperformed drastically at +2.1 rDRTG).
+2.1 rORTG in the ECF against the Bucks (defense performed as a -2.4 rDRTG).
-2.2 rORTG in the Finals (defense was OK(ish) at a -1.6 rDRTG).


So it seems like, if anything, Iverson is MORE deserving of the "carrying" narrative (though they did fall short in the Finals, albeit to an all-time tier team [something which did not stand in Barry's way in '75]).

[trex_8063]

Induction Vote: Elgin Baylor

Piggy-backing on my comments on post #28 above......

A partial case for Baylor follows:

Spoiler:

The opening salvo to get Elgin Baylor on the list of eligible candidates (from my archives):


I view him as a very good [not great] scorer in his era.......a modern(ish) comp [as a scorer only] maybe being Carmelo Anthony.

But although he's a touch shorter than Melo, I'm not sure he wouldn't be a slightly better rebounder, even in the modern era. I know the league was marginally shorter and a bit less athletic at that time, but Baylor's pre-injury rebounding numbers are resoundingly impressive. Here are his reb/100 possession estimates by year:
'59: 15.3
'60: 15.85
'61: 17.75
'62: 16.3
‘63: 13.9

For comparison, here are some notable big-time big-men and their reb/100 possession estimates for the same years (and relation to Baylor's avg):
Pettit
'59: 17.1 (+1.8)
'60: 16.9 (+1.05)
'61: 18.9 (+1.15)
'62: 17.1 (+0.8)
‘63: 16.0 (+2.1)

Wilt
'59: na
'60: 20.9 (+5.05)
'61: 20.7 (+2.95)
'62: 19.4 (+3.1)
‘63: 19.9 (+6.0)

Russell
'59: 20.2 (+4.9)
'60: 19.9 (+4.05)
'61: 19.3 (+1.55)
'62: 16.3 (+2.8)
‘63: 19.9 (+6.0)

Wayne Embry
'59: 15.5 (+0.2)
'60: 17.1 (+1.25)
'61: 15.1 (-2.65)
'62: 14.3 (-2.0)
‘63: 15.0 (+1.1)

Walter Dukes
'59: 16.7 (+1.4)
'60: 16.1 (+0.25)
'61: 19.2 (+1.45)
'62: 16.4 (+0.1)
‘63: 15.7 (+1.8)

Dolph Schayes
'59: 14.4 (-0.9)
'60: 13.2 (-2.65)
'61: 11.9 (-5.85)
'62: 11.05 (-5.25)

Bailey Howell
'59: na
'60: 13.1 (-2.75)
'61: 14.3 (-3.45)
'62: 13.5 (-2.8)
‘63: 12.2 (-1.7)

When viewing that I'd note two things: every single one of those guys is taller than Elgin, and every single one of them was more a low-post player on one or both ends (so presumably would more frequently [than Elgin] be in the position to grab rebounds). And yet he's at least in the neighborhood of all of them except for Wilt and Russell----who are both a) legitimately BIG and b) legitimately freakish athletes, and c) considered on the short-list of greatest rebounders ever (and even Russell isn't far ahead of him in '61, fwiw).
Otherwise Baylor's reasonably close to everyone else, and well ahead of Schayes and Howell (though admittedly Schayes is trickling into his post-prime for most of the years referenced here).

He was a thick strong guy, good at creating space with his lower body, could jump (isn't he labeled the "grandfather of hang-time" or some such?), and seems to have had great anticipation for where the rebound was going (a la Jerry Lucas, Fat Lever, and Jason Kidd). All this has me suspecting that Baylor would be special kind of rebounder for the SF position in any era (maybe likened to Shawn Marion in this regard).


Basic WOWY:
‘59: 33-37 (.471) with, 0-2 without
‘60: 23-47 (.329) with, 2-3 (.400) without
‘61: 34-39 (.466) with, 2-4 (.333) without
‘62: 37-11 (.771) with, 17-15 (.531) without **West missed only 5 games, no one else in the regular rotation missed more than 2 games
‘63: 52-28 (.650) with


The Lakers in ‘58 were 19-53 with an SRS of -5.78. And then they obtained rookie Elgin Baylor.
In ‘59--with Baylor being the only relevant player acquisition--they improved by 14 games to 33-39, SRS of -1.42 (+4.36 improvement); also made it to the finals (defeating the 2.89 SRS defending champion Hawks 4-2 along the way). That strikes me as indication of fairly significant impact.

The big criticism on Baylor has been his offensive efficiency (relative to his astronomical volume), and whether he was really “helping” the offense.

The Laker team offensive rating improved with rookie Baylor by +2.8 (+1.4 in rORTG terms) in ‘59. I won’t claim that Baylor always “helped the offense optimally” to the best of his abilities; but I do think he helped it. Obviously other metrics of offensive production/efficiency suggest Baylor was a “big deal” (more on that below)......but what I’m beginning to wonder about is whether or not Baylor had a defensive impact that hasn’t been properly appreciated.

Maybe his capability as a rebounder eliminated a lot of second-chance points for opponents????

idk, but something I noted is that the Laker team rDRTG improved by -2.8 in ‘59. In ‘58, they were 8th of 8 defensively, DRtg +4.5 over league avg and +2.5 over the next worse team.
In ‘59, improved to +1.7 over league avg (6th of 8).
They would continue to improve defensively over the next couple of seasons with acquisitions of Jerry West and aging Ray Felix. And then interestingly their defense appears to suffer slightly in ‘62 when Baylor misses significant games:
In ‘61, the Laker DRtg is -1.3 to league average (again: minus is good), 4th of 8.
In ‘62 Baylor misses 32 games and the Laker DRtg falls a little: just -0.3 vs league average (though still 4th of 9).
In ‘63: no more big Ray Felix in playing significant minutes in the middle and Jerry West misses 25 games (things you’d expect to hurt the team defense); they otherwise obtain guard Dick Barnett, and the only other change from the previous year is that Baylor is healthy (doesn’t miss a game)…….and the team DRtg improves to -1.2 vs league average (3rd of 9).
And then beginning in ‘64 (perhaps non-coincidentally just as Baylor begins to be significantly hampered by knee injuries, which causes his overall effectiveness to suffer, as seen by sudden drop in PER, etc), the Laker team DRtg takes a sudden dip……...And it would never recovery to a better than average team defense (even with big bodies like Darrall Imhoff and Mel Counts) until ‘69 when they obtained Wilt Chamberlain.

So I’m starting to wonder if Baylor had a bigger impact defensively than he’s typically given credit for.
And I sort of wonder if he isn't like Carmelo Anthony scoring, Shawn Marion on the glass, with defense somewhere in between (and a little better passer than either). That's an awfully good player.

Anyway…..
Otherwise, I promised some tidbits regarding his overall production and efficiency during his prime years:

In ‘59 and rookie Elgin Baylor had the 2nd-highest PER in the league, behind only a peak Bob Pettit.
In ‘60 he had the 2nd-highest PER in the league, behind only Wilt Chamberlain.
In ‘61: he had the highest PER (even ahead of Wilt, not to mention Pettit and rookie Oscar Robertson).
‘62 and ‘63: 2nd-best PER in the league both years, behind only Wilt Chamberlain (even ahead of triple-double season Robertson, as well as Pettit and Walt Bellamy’s insane rookie season).

That’s a super-impressive 5-year span. Yes, he drops off quite a bit after, but it’s not as though he faded into obscurity or ineffectiveness in subsequent years. He was a relevant player until ‘70. So…..


For another comparison:

Kevin Durant (‘10-’14) rs
Per 100 Possessions: 38.7 pts, 10.0 reb, 5.1 ast on 61.7% TS% (+8.0% on league avg)
26.9 PER, .250 WS/48 in 38.8 mpg

Elgin Baylor (‘59-’63) rs
Estimated Per 100 Possessions: 30.3 pts, 15.7 reb, 4.2 ast on 49.9 TS% (+2.7%)
26.1 PER, .195 WS/48 in 42.1 mpg


Kevin Durant (‘10-’14) playoffs
Per 100 Possessions: 35.8 pts, 10.2 reb, 5.2 ast on .583 TS% (+4.6%)
24.4 PER, .189 WS/48 in 42.3 mpg

Elgin Baylor (‘59-’63) playoffs
Estimated Per 100 Possessions: 30.4 pts, 13.2 reb, 3.5 ast on 51.2 TS% (+4.0%)
25.1 PER, .183 WS/48 in 44.0 mpg

Spoiler:

When thinking about what has driven improvement in the league......integration has helped, but I suspect most of us agree that probably the biggest factor is size of player pool.

And obviously things like scheming/coaching/strategy/analytics have helped toward getting players guided toward better and more effective outcomes. Skills training, shot mechanics, etc, have also evolved, improving the all-around quality of play. However, these latter things are all EXTRINSIC factors: they are things that players from 50-60 years ago would have absorbed if they had been immersed in them from day one (like today's players).

Otherwise, increasing the size of the player pool that the league can tap into is probably the largest driver of improved player quality.

And I think arguably the biggest driver in player pool size is the popularity of the game. As such, I think there is something to be said for those players who were, quite simply, big draws: the guys that put butts in seats, and who inspired the imaginations of younger generations of players.

I bring this up as another small plug for Elgin Baylor. In his time, he was certainly someone who fits this distinction. I'll offer one quote:

“.....Fans specifically came to see him [Baylor]. When he was on military duty and playing sporadically, they called the box office before games to ask if he would be appearing. The Lakers front office had run figures calculating Baylor’s ability to sell tickets, and they determined that in games when he did not play, the Lakers drew an average of 2,000 fewer fans. That amounted to approximately $6,000 per game, or $200,000 over the course of a season….”

I'd place the career of either of these guys ahead of that of Rick Barry. Will try to post more to that sentiment later.
Suffice to say that I think we're getting on toward long overdue for having Baylor at least listed among the nominees. I don't think his career is behind Barry's, and I simply have a very hard time seeing it FAR behind.

Alt. Induction Vote: Artis Gilmore
Glad to see he got on the ballot finally. Me leaning toward longevity a bit more puts him in high contention here. I sort of view his career like Dwight Howard, but with better durability/longevity. Similarities include both being freakishly athletic big men who peaked kinda early; terrific finishers around the rim who were also defensive giants when their athleticism was still at its apex (though admittedly falling off quickly once injury took its toll on that athleticism: both had their affectiveness on that end drop dramatically before the age of 30). Both fantastic rebounders, limited passers.

Gilmore led a team to an ABA championship [as clear best player] in his 4th season. Dwight led his team [as clear best player] as far as the NBA Finals in his 5th season.

The major difference [for me], is Artis had better longevity.


Nomination: Clyde Drexler
Alt Nom: Paul Pierce

(fwiw, Pau Gasol is the other guy I'd really like to nominate, but he has no traction presently; so I'll go with Pierce instead)

[70sFan]

I haven't found enough time to make a longer post about Artis Gilmore, but at least I managed to analyze his turnover problems by splitting tracked tovs into various categories. Here is how it looks for 1973-81 Gilmore (27 games sample):

Bad passes: 29%
Off. Fouls: 16%
Three secs: 7%
Strips/dribbles: 19%
Bad catches: 5%
Traveling: 17%
Moving screens: 2%
Rest: 5%

I don't know if we have such data for all these categories, but we do have bad passess and offensive fouls in basketball-reference, here it is how some modern bigs compare:

2000-03 Shaq:

Bad passes: 34% (24% in playoffs)
Off. Fouls: 21% (21% in playoffs)

1999-07 Duncan:

Bad passes: 38% (32% in playoffs)
Off. Fouls: 14% (13% in playoffs)

2008-12 Howard:

Bad passes: 15% (9% in playoffs)
Off. Fouls: 25% (32% in playoffs)

2019-23 Embiid:

Bad passes: 35% (28% in playoffs)
Off. Fouls: 16% (17% in playoffs)

2019-23 Jokic:

Bad passes: 58% (50% in playoffs)
Off. Fouls: 9% (15% in playoffs)

A few notes:

- I was surprised how little offensive fouls affected Gilmore's overall turnover numbers,
- despite being a natural comparison, Howard's turnovers contribution looks much different,
- high volume playmakers usually have high % of turnovers coming from bad passes,
- traveling calls would be interesting, does anybody know how to find them for recent players?

I could do the same for other oldschool players (Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Moses, Hakeem), if I find enough time of course.

[penbeast0]

English started as a defensive forward (Indiana/Milwaukee) before coming to Denver and had nothing but Dan Issel behind him (and sometimes Kiki Vandewedghe at PF) so playing tight was often not an option. Not a good defensive rebounder, above average in the passing lanes. He had 9/16 years with better than average Drtg (110.6 is NBA average apparently) and his career number is just above average for the league and stays there pretty consistently right up to the end of his career. I admit Drtg is not a terribly reliable measure but other than going he said/she said about what we saw, it's one of the few measures from that era.

Pierce does indeed look much stronger than I remember from watching him when you look at his Drtg and his steal numbers are very good early. I think I'm underrating his defense rather than overrating English's.

The NBA average DRtg was not 110.6 in English's career. The highest it ever was at any point in his career was 108.3; the lowest was 99.5, and average [collectively] was probably about 106.
English actually had an individual DRtg that was worse than league average every single year of his 15-year career.

Though as you say: individual DRtg is a rather atrocious measure of defensive value. But jsia....


Pierce, fwiw, had a positve DRAPM nearly every year of his career (at times around a +1.5 to +2 level, iirc), indicating he was a fairly solid defensive piece.

Ah, I looked up Drtg to figure out what its basis was before talking and the article said the average was 110.6, must have been for a different time period.

[LA Bird]

Vote 1: Artis Gilmore
Vote 2: Manu Ginobili
Nom 1: Dolph Schayes
Nom 2: Russell Westbrook
* Not fully convinced on alternate votes but I go by whoever has traction

Reposting from last round because I still don't see any justification for Barry over Gilmore when we break it down into year by year comparisons:

All time lists can often be hard because of cross-era comparisons but Gilmore vs Barry is pretty straightforward IMO. Both peaked in the same title season (1975) and Gilmore has consistently ranked higher by around ten spots in each of the last three RealGM peak projects. Both of their primes overlapped in the same league for a few years (1972 ABA, 1977/78 NBA) and Gilmore was the better player in each of those seasons. In terms of career longevity, Gilmore crushes Barry and it's not close. I guess Barry stands out more as a volume scoring perimeter player in an era where almost every MVP candidate was a center but unless we are taking into consideration value relative to position and era (in which case Dwight Howard probably goes above Wade for example), I don't see the case for Barry over Gilmore. Actually, the case for Barry over his own teammate Thurmond is already not that strong and Thurmond isn't even nominated yet...

Will make a separate post for Schayes' nomination soon.

[LA Bird]

Briefly mentioned him before when Pettit was getting voted in but I think it's about time Schayes gets nominated. High peak, excellent longevity for his time, fairly all-rounded game, and won a title as the clear best player in the post shot clock era. Schayes was the original stretch big with 3pt range and his ten straight seasons being top 3 in the league in FT% is still the best in history barring Barry (whose FT form obviously doesn't translate to regular shots). Besides the outside shooting, Schayes also attacked the basket well even in his later years (he was 33 in the first video below) and by most reasonable thresholds, he is the GOAT FT merchant at 1.154 career free throws per field goal over regular season and playoffs combined.

His passing also passes the eye test to me. There is one play at 0:36 mark in the second video where he spots the cutter and delivers a perfect behind the back pass. Obviously that's just one highlight but his assist numbers are generally pretty good too. It is more common now with the rise of heliocentric guards in recent years but Schayes along with Wilt and LeBron are still the only non guards to have been top 5 in both points and assists per game in the same season and he did it in his rookie (NBA) year. In G5-G7 of the 1959 Finals against the Russell Celtics, Schayes had games of 7, 8, 9 assists and while I know high assists don't necessarily mean good passing, a PF getting those kind of numbers in crucial playoff games against a #1 defense still says a lot.

For team performance, Schayes' 54 Nationals was 1st in both regular season SRS and defensive rating, the only team to ever top prime Mikan's Lakers in either categories. Schayes was injured and practically out of half of the Finals but still put up solid numbers in a close G7 loss (18/13 on 51% TS vs Mikan's 11/15 on 38.2% TS). The Nationals go on to win the title the following season after Mikan's retirement. Schayes consistently rated above Pettit for non-box impact in Moonbeam's regressed WOWY and ElGee's WOWYR and he is one of the guys who maintained their box score numbers well in the postseason. If we look at WS/48, the 50s stars could be divided into two contrasting groups when it comes to playoffs resiliency:

Mikan (0.249 -> 0.254)
Schayes (0.192 -> 0.189)
Arizin (0.183 -> 0.183)

Johnston (0.241 -> 0.159)
Pettit (0.213 -> 0.159)
Macauley (0.196 -> 0.134)

Note that we are missing minutes data for playoffs before 1952 or Schayes would likely be above 0.200 for his career postseason WS/48, which would be 5th all time among retired players.

Obviously, era is a concern for Schayes and that's partly why I've not been pushing for him earlier. But Pettit was nominated in round #25 and I don't see him as being that much better than Schayes (if at all). Mikan's a better player no contest but his career is literally half the length of Schayes' - I don't think it's a stretch to argue the 2nd best player over the decade of the 50s should at least be nominated at this point.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[OhayoKD]

Vote: Manu Ginobli
Alt vote: Artis Gilmore
Nomination: Draymond Green
ALT Nomination: Paul Pierce

Just in time, Taylor comes out with a video about Manu. No new revelations and the same questions about whether he could do the same things for 38 or 40 minutes per game, but Taylor makes a case for Manu being the 1b (in some ways a 1a) to Duncan.

[url]

Watch on YouTube

;t=1609s[/url]

Some relevant graphs (no new real info info other than maybe offensive load when solo on court but good to point out)






I wrote a bit about him in the “Peak Manu in 2023” thread and the nature of his game that translates into this high impact

In essence, Manu’s game was characterized by the additive nature of his contributions to his team's MOV. His monster RAPM can be attributed not only to his individual skills but also to the additive nature of everything that he did. He wasn't just good at just about everything (most players aren’t); his goodness translated into tangible benefits for the entire team in pretty much all aspects of basketball. This is a reason why his RAPM numbers looked like what they did throughout his career. His play either lead to individual results from him (box score) or helped the results of the players around him.

His versatility was such that he wasn't below average in any aspect of the game. He could score (off the ball in motion off of cuts or as a spot up shooter, with the ball in screen-roll actions, in iso, in transition) defend (individual and team), pass and play-make (with the ball, or off of quick passes off of his motion) effectively. This well-roundedness allowed him to impact the game positively in various ways, not only directly off of his direct box score contributions, but due to the additive nature for his teammates through his actions in every phase of the game.

He had no real weaknesses and good in every aspect of the game, both individually and in a team concept.

1. Defense: Ginobili's defense wasn't just about stopping his man. His defensive often led to turnovers, steals, and fast-break opportunities for the Spurs. I wish we had some Synergy stats from his prime to see this. His ability to disrupt opponents' plays was a catalyst for his team's defensive success, including high % offense off defense. He was also a good vocal leader on defense, getting teammates in position.

Once in transition, his ability to excel there played a role in the Spurs’ offense. He was pushing the ball up the court and making plays in transition or setting up transiron threes or easy scores for teammates. Ginobili's speed and decision-making created fast-break opportunities that boosted the team's offensive efficiency

2. Playmaking and Passing: While not always the primary ball-handler, Ginobili's playmaking abilities often led to high leverage offense opportunities that were created out of nothing sometimes, but also synergized well with what Pop wanted to do on offense even though Pop knew that he had to rein in Ginobili’s wildly, creative and often risky play. His passes and court vision created scoring opportunities for his teammates including many hockey assists.

3. Offensive Movement: Ginobili's non-stop movement on the court was a nightmare for defenders. His cuts, screens, and off-ball plays not only created opportunities for himself but also for teammates. One of the things about Ginobili was that his movement didn’t just lead to catch and shoot opportunities once he got the ball, but his movement would lead to him getting the ball and then creating off of that catch once defenders had been taken out of posirtion via the motion offense and his movement. so, he could score in isolation, he could score on catch/shoot, he could score via cuts, he could make assisting passes off of his motion. Once he got the ball, he could create a hockey assist once he got the ball out of motion.

Doc MJ wrote about some of his impact signals (and Draymond’s) in the same thread:

Spoiler:

So I said "Yes", but I should be really clear:

I've been getting higher and higher on Ginobili with time. Let me state something up front that I need folks to know I acknowledge:

To what extent was Ginobili unable to play more MPG? I'll acknowledge that if this was indeed a major problem, then it makes total sense to be considerably less impressed with Ginobili than I am, and to vote "No" on this poll.

Okay, so in terms of Ginobili, what do I see?

1. His style of play is that of the intuitive genius. He makes improvisations in the moment that surprise everyone on the court, and it's often beautiful.

2. Players like this tend to either boom or bust analytically. A player who sees an opening that could work has some percentage chance of success. If that chance is lower than what the offense could otherwise achieve, then the player can quite easily hurt your team.

But Ginobili pops like crazy in the +/-, which means that was we're talking about here is someone with sufficient dexterity and risk assessment to harness the creativity productively.

3. For those unfamiliar with the specifics of Ginobili, know first that Ginobili is a known darling of +/- metrics. To just give one study that I think encapsulates things in the right general direction:

Calculating Regularized Adjusted Plus-Minus for 25 Years of NBA Basketball

Based on this list, which serves as a career average RAPM for most of these players, this is the leaderboard they give:

1. LeBron
2. Embiid
3. Garnett
4. Paul
5. Curry
6. Duncan
7. Jokic
8. Ginobili
9. Draymond
10. Tatum

By no means does this "prove" Ginobili was the 8th best player for the time period in question - it wouldn't even if we didn't know about Ginobili's limited minutes, but we do know that that's a thing too.

But the key point is that this data makes Ginobili look quite good right from the start. I'd say everyone on that list in their peak would be expected to be a Top 10 player today - though aside from Ginobili, I'm sure there's disagreement pertaining to Draymond.

Now though, this data gives most of the weight to the regular season.

How about a pretty-close playoff-only model?

1998-2019 Playoffs RAPM

Leaders:

1. LeBron
2. Draymond
3. Ginobili
4. Robinson
5. Kawhi
6. Embiid
7. Duncan
8. Durant
9. Garnett
10. Curry

The fact that Ginobili actually passes up Duncan isn't necessarily the big deal - cuz minutes - but the fact that he's showing a clear upward trend is significant. If Ginobili was mostly about feasting on secondary lineups from weak teams, we'd expect that advantage to go down in the playoffs. Instead it's going up.

But now focusing further on the deeper playoffs I'll quote what I recently posted on another thread:

So, 70s asked about whether I was using RS, PS, or both, and I said Both.

I figure there's not a lot of curiosity about the RS, so here's some PS data.

This is for the 3 year ranges specified before (Spurs 2005-07, Warriors 2014-16).

If we go by +/- per game:

Green +6.88
Ginobili +6.11
Curry +4.76
Duncan +3.84
Thompson +3.17
Parker +3.11

And since we're talking Ginobili, if I do a per 48 minutes:

Ginobiil +9.09
Green +8.95
Curry +6.08
Duncan +4.92
Thompson +4.26
Parker +4.01

We can also do a "deep playoffs" evaluation by chopping out April. So just based on May & June:

+/- per game

Ginobili +6.40
Curry +4.06
Green +4.00
Duncan +3.67
Parker +3.11
Thompson +1.21

And per 48:

Ginobili +9.33
Curry +5.13
Green +5.09
Duncan +4.60
Parker +3.97
Thompson +1.62

Note that because the Warriors were eliminated in the first round in '13-14, you can definitely see this as cherry picking for the Warrior trio, but I'm actually looking to focus the attention on the Argentine. Ginobili's numbers are truly insane, and a reason to wonder about how strong the Spurs could have been if they had been strategically different in this era.

Key takeaway: Ginobili isn't just standing out more in the playoffs, he's specifically standing out in the deep playoffs in a way I'm not sure we have anyone can match.

Here's where I'll also note that in each of the 4 titles the Spurs won with Ginobili, he led the team in playoff +/-. Going back to '96-97, we haven't seen this from anyone else.

Oh, and there's also the matter that he led Argentina to the Gold Medal in the 2004 Olympics then came back to the NBA and was really the dominant force carrying the Spurs through that 2005 playoff gauntlet.

It's astonishing stuff.

Finally circling back to the MPG issue:

While I don't want to appear as if I'm saying that the MPG limitations could not have been based on something fundamentally real and definitive - maybe that motor wears itself out quicker than most over the course of a game - I think we have to recognize that there's good reason to think that this is one sort of situation where a guy may not ever get used to true optimality. Why?

1. He joined a team that had already won a title with their current young franchise player as the focal point of the team's offense, and wasn't looking to make a switch.

2. He played an improvisational style that at times broke the play the Spurs were trying to use. Former teammate Robert Horry recently commented something astonishing:

Let me just say this: You got yours because, if Manu Ginobili would have did the things he was supposed to do, I would have had like 10 championships.

This is the sort of statement gives us a window into how things felt within the team when Ginobili did his own thing on the court. They were frustrated by it. They saw it blowing up possessions at times, and at least one of them, thought the bad was really weighing the team down.

Horry, and anyone like him, was 100% wrong in his assessment. The reality is that Ginbili was helping and helping like crazy...

But on a team that was build around another offensive fulcrum, the frustration of letting Manu be Manu could very well have played a part in putting Ginobili with secondary units.

3. It worked really well, as it was. With Ginobili in this secondary role, the Spurs were excellent for a long time and won 3 titles in 5 years, including - perhaps importantly - Ginobili's rookie year. What all this means is that there really never was a time in that first half decade where Pop was likely to be asking himself, "What if we're going about things backwards on offense?". Even when you know it's your defense that's carrying the real load, if your offense is already good built around your star, are you really going to try something radically different?

So yeah, while I'll never be able to prove it, I actually think there's pretty good reason to think that Ginobili would be a first-class superstar in today's game if he were to land in the right place.

I feel like refraining from trying to peg him at a specific slot in today's league, beyond responding to the poll with the "Yes", but I'll say this:

In my latest assessment, I ranked Ginobili as having the most impressive '04-05 campaign out of any player. In years where the Spurs fall short Ginobili's limited MPG makes him hard to consider in such rare, but in a year where he was pretty clearly the best player on the best team through the 4 series victories, hard for me to insist that other players should rank above him when I really don't think they and their extra minutes could have achieved what Ginobili did.

[/quote]
Westbrook needs to be nominated first though to help doc here:

I believe this vote was done when the op had westbrook as a nominee so in case hcl doesn't see this, maybe count this as a nomination vote?

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Thinking about my nomination vote, and wanted to pose a question. Dwight is a guy I'm considering here, but something I noticed as I took a deeper dive into his numbers, is that during his peak years - which I'm defining as his last five years in Orlando - he had a negative on/off in three out of four playoff runs(he was out for the 2012 playoffs, I think that was when he had his back surgery):

08 +8.4(10 games)
09 -12.7(23 games)
10 -3.8(14 games)
11 -1.2(6 games)

It seems especially jarring that he would have -12.7 the year the Magic went to the Finals.

Thoughts? Is there an explanation here?

[iggymcfrack]

Vote: Anthony Davis
All-time box score stats, DPOY-caliber defender, better playoff on/off than LeBron. And for all his shortcomings with durability, he's played in >98% of the playoff games his teams have qualified for.

Alternate: Manu Ginobili
All-time impact stats, best player in the world in 2005, was a key contributor to 4 rings.

Nominate: Russell Westbrook
All-time season in 2017. Incredible prime from 2012-2018 where he very well might have been better than Durant. Has several years better than the peak year for most of the current nominees.

[iggymcfrack]

Thinking about my nomination vote, and wanted to pose a question. Dwight is a guy I'm considering here, but something I noticed as I took a deeper dive into his numbers, is that during his peak years - which I'm defining as his last five years in Orlando - he had a negative on/off in three out of four playoff runs(he was out for the 2012 playoffs, I think that was when he had his back surgery):

08 +8.4(10 games)
09 -12.7(23 games)
10 -3.8(14 games)
11 -1.2(6 games)

It seems especially jarring that he would have -12.7 the year the Magic went to the Finals.

Thoughts? Is there an explanation here?

The key reason is probably that Gortat was a starter caliber center playing very few minutes off the bench fresh against inferior players. In 2009 for instance, the Dwight had a NetRtg of +9.1 in the playoffs while averaging 39 MPG which is fantastic. They just did a little better in the bench minutes with Gortat. Now with that said, Dwight never had super impressive impact numbers at any point of his career. He was a poor passer with a high turnover rate and was much less of a positive offensively than his box numbers would suggest. I'd say it's still a little bit early to nominate him at this point although I do think he belongs in the top 50 somewhere.

[OhayoKD]

Vote: Artis Gilmore: Not the personality type I want as my leader, would have been a much greater player if less passive, but an incredible physical talent who would score, defend the post, block shots, and even shoot FTs very well for a big.
Alt Vote: Manu Ginobili: I prefer his more consistent even though lower minute impact to the often injured Anthony Davis among the shorter prime contenders.

Nominate: Draymond Green: Impact monster, great defense, enough offense with his playmaking and occasional 3 point shooting to be positive on that end though not a lot.

Alt nomination: Kevin McHale: Russell Westbrook is the best player left but it's just really hard to build a great team around him with his playstyle. Too ball dominant to be that inefficient in a league where we've seen how important spacing and efficiency are. Possibly in a previous era, I'd have voted him in already but no way to know how well he'd translate in a different situation. Considered Pierce, Lillard, and Schayes as well, feel free to talk me into changing my nomination.

I mean, OKC had some great teams with Westbrook --without spacing-- and empirically he looks like the main driving force of the best ones. Westbrook may not have been an efficient scorer, but he was a hyper-efficient postseason playmaker at his best.

[trex_8063]

Thinking about my nomination vote, and wanted to pose a question. Dwight is a guy I'm considering here, but something I noticed as I took a deeper dive into his numbers, is that during his peak years - which I'm defining as his last five years in Orlando - he had a negative on/off in three out of four playoff runs(he was out for the 2012 playoffs, I think that was when he had his back surgery):

08 +8.4(10 games)
09 -12.7(23 games)
10 -3.8(14 games)
11 -1.2(6 games)

It seems especially jarring that he would have -12.7 the year the Magic went to the Finals.

Thoughts? Is there an explanation here?

The key reason is probably that Gortat was a starter caliber center playing very few minutes off the bench fresh against inferior players. In 2009 for instance, the Dwight had a NetRtg of +9.1 in the playoffs while averaging 39 MPG which is fantastic. They just did a little better in the bench minutes with Gortat. Now with that said, Dwight never had super impressive impact numbers at any point of his career. He was a poor passer with a high turnover rate and was much less of a positive offensively than his box numbers would suggest. I'd say it's still a little bit early to nominate him at this point although I do think he belongs in the top 50 somewhere.

Mostly agree.

Based on box-based indicators and accolades, Dwight should already be among our nominees. It's his impact profile [which usually lagged slightly behind] that gives me reluctance, though I definitely believe he belongs in the top 50 at least (arguably top 45).

wrt to the jarring playoff on/off, yes, it boils down to two primary factors: 1) generally VERY small sample size (he averaged 42.1, 39.3, 35.5, and 43.0 mpg, respectively, in the years cited, which doesn't leave much of an "off" sample), and so can create some wonky results [particularly if any amount of his "off" sample was garbage time]; and 2) his sole replacement [at least by '09 and after: note that's when Dwight's on/off take a dive] was Marcin Gortat, who was basically a starter-level C.

Additionally, wrt the '09 sample specifically, the one and only among those years where he missed a game (to provide a slighlty larger "off" sample): the Magic happened to [fluke] win that one game in a blowout [+25]......which in a sample of only 24 games is going to damage his "off" substantially.

[Doctor MJ]

Thinking about my nomination vote, and wanted to pose a question. Dwight is a guy I'm considering here, but something I noticed as I took a deeper dive into his numbers, is that during his peak years - which I'm defining as his last five years in Orlando - he had a negative on/off in three out of four playoff runs(he was out for the 2012 playoffs, I think that was when he had his back surgery):

08 +8.4(10 games)
09 -12.7(23 games)
10 -3.8(14 games)
11 -1.2(6 games)

It seems especially jarring that he would have -12.7 the year the Magic went to the Finals.

Thoughts? Is there an explanation here?

The key reason is probably that Gortat was a starter caliber center playing very few minutes off the bench fresh against inferior players. In 2009 for instance, the Dwight had a NetRtg of +9.1 in the playoffs while averaging 39 MPG which is fantastic. They just did a little better in the bench minutes with Gortat. Now with that said, Dwight never had super impressive impact numbers at any point of his career. He was a poor passer with a high turnover rate and was much less of a positive offensively than his box numbers would suggest. I'd say it's still a little bit early to nominate him at this point although I do think he belongs in the top 50 somewhere.

I should point out that in the name of optimizing more around Howard they traded Gortat in '10-11. Howard still managed to have a negative On/Off in the playoffs on that team with no other real big getting major minutes, as the team lost in a pretty big upset in the first round to the Hawks.

Full disclosure here: While '10-11 was a weak year for MVP, Howard was my pick at the end of the regular season. And while Howard certainly put up box score numbers in that Hawks, I was still really disappointed.

I don't want to be too negative here - Howard was an outlier physical force without question - but I think one of the things to understand is that people at the time tended to really overrate Howard's defense. There was actual talk about whether we were watching the best defensive player in history...as a post-peak Garnett out-impacted Howard's defense as a matter of course. One aspect of this is that Howard's blocks tended to be visually stunning but dumb - he tended to block shots hard so that they flew out of bounds, and also tended to get called for goaltends on shots that literally weren't necessarily going to be made baskets.

This then to say that part of the reason why he didn't seem to show great impact relative to a starter-caliber center like Gortat, was that he wasn't actually that much more effective than Gortat like we'd expect a superstar to be.

You add that to what I mentioned earlier about him taking issue with the Magic for essentially building perfectly around him - he wanted to prove he could post-up like Shaq when that was not the right approach for him, he had big time "grass is greener" vibes when it came to daydreaming about free agency - and yeah, Howard won't be a guy I personally consider for quite a while.