trex_8063 wrote:
Again: generally NOT inefficient. That's the partially false rhetoric I'm arguing against. Just not as efficient as his teammate.
Point taken. I confuse matters when I take short cuts in my descriptions. To me it's the relative inefficiency that matters, but sometimes I don't think to include the qualifying adjective.
trex_8063 wrote:Indiana Pacers ~'90-'92: Chuck Person was consistently taking more shots than a vastly more efficient Reggie Miller.
Chicago Bulls '95: Scottie Pippen took more shots than Kukoc and Armstrong, despite worse efficiency than both. (though Armstrong in particular obv not a shot creator, and neither Kukoc or Armstong a "star").
Baltimore/Washington Bullets '73, '75: Elvin Hayes averaged more shots than Phil Chenier, Archie Clark, and Mike Riordan, despite generally worse efficiency than all three.
New York Knicks '70-'71: Reed averaged more shots than Frazier despite worse efficiency (and I don't think it can be denied that this team at least seemed to have found an effective balance).
Not saying it made sense in all instances, but I don't know for sure that it didn't make sense either (and in the case of those Knicks teams, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt).
So the 2 big things here:
1) Awesome examples. Thank you.
2) Your last sentence to is our difference in a nut shell. You see me as acting as if I know something for sure while you're giving the benefit of the doubt. And what does benefit of the doubt mean? Well it either means that in the end you're rating a guy as if the volume was the accomplishment, or that you're completely deferring your opinion to what you perceive to be the opinion of contemporary experts.
I do get being hesitant of essentially calling coaches and critics wrong from our lofty throne upon the internet, and believe me I don't do it lightly either, but in the end your vote here represents YOUR conclusion based on what you know about basketball, and so if by what you see something looks like a problem yet you brush that aside to parrot the status quo, what's the point?
This goes back to what I said early in the project: It's perfectly fine to tell another poster, "You sound like you really know what you're talking about, but I don't understand things like you do, and I have to vote based on what I understand." You might see me here as that kind of rhetorical bully, but from my perspective I'm that other guy just calling it like I see it.
Now, to those example:
-Person shot more than Miller...and then they traded Person and never looked back. Person would never be an all-star, and he would bounce from team to team the rest of his career never shooting the same volume again. I think the conclusion is pretty clear cut there about whether that strategy made sense. That said, such a thing would be possible with Miler because he was an off-ball player. The reason I make a distinction between guard & forward here is that typically the team's guards handle the ball first and thus when a forward shoots it's because an effort was made to transfer the ball to that forward. Such was not the case with Reggie.
-Pippen. As you allude to, this isn't really an example we're looking for. Pippen on offense is a forward in name only. He's a playmaker with far higher primacy than those role players, and even still his efficiency isn't much lower than theirs. There's no red flag about this strategy to me.
-Hayes. Yeah, I really don't think much of Hayes' scoring. Today you basically wouldn't find any team comfortable using a big that inefficient to shoot so much, and I think even back then Hayes would be looked at quite a bit differently if not for the team around. Of course even as is, he's known as a borderline toxic locker room personality.
There's always a Hayes vs Unseld debate with what I call the "realists" say, "Sure Unseld did all the little things and was a great leader, but Hayes was the guy taking on the star role, and so it's silly to rank Unseld over him." I'm not so sure. To me if you were to take away Hayes scoring volume, Unseld is probably considered the clear cut star of the team by contemporary observers, and if it's a choice between which was more valuable: Horribly inefficient volume shooting or moderate volume with superior playmaking and off-ball movement, I'm inclined to go with the latter.
Of course as I say all this, Hayes wasn't shooting at a volume like Baylor as the Bullets closed toward a championship in the late '70s, and he wasn't taking shots away from anyone remotely similar to West.
-Reed in '71. Right well, this one's clear cut. Reed's efficiency fell off a cliff that year, but the Knicks kept using him as if he shot like he'd shot before. Frankly it's a bit like the situation with Baylor, and the chronology to me makes it clear what happened: A guy gets established, and then he hangs on to the same role because of inertia.
So yeah, Reed shouldn't have been shooting so much at that time given what we know now. I'll say though I don't really blame the coach for this one because he was undoubtedly hoping Reed would round back into form. When he didn't, in subsequent seasons he wasn't used in such volume again. If only the Lakers had done the same with Baylor.
trex_8063 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:trex_8063 wrote:So was his efficiency great? No. But arguments stating his efficiency was "cruddy" (or pick your similar adjective) simply don't hold water for me. It's not as mediocre or poor as Iverson (although Iverson's is marginally more "excusable" imo, due to lack of relevant offensive help; but that's another discussion). In fact, it was more often than not better than average.
And Austin Rivers, don't forget him too.
I rank Baylor ahead of Iverson. For the record, if we look at Iverson's best 5 years by scaled RAPM along with the other HOF locks to enter the league in '96, this is what we see:
Nash +7.91
Kobe +7.52
Ben +4.73
Allen +4.48
Iverson +2.54
Iverson doesn't deserve to even be mentioned right now, and the fact he comes up for you......
Mwuh?
Are you taking that as name-dropping Iverson for consideration, particularly when the context in which I cited him was as an example of a volume scorer with actual poor efficiency (like actually poor compared to the league average, not just poor relative to a top 15 player).
My point is that if you have to reach down to Player X in order to make your candidate look good, then the standing of Player X has everything to do with what that compliment actually means.
trex_8063 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:trex_8063 wrote:And this while putting up volume that has only rarely been matched in NBA history.
Was Baylor's volume necessary/optimal for his team? Unknown. tbh, I suspect probably not (for some years at least); but nor do I think his volume did serious damage to his team. And it's conceivable that his volume was near-optimal for his team many years.
So, to get this straight, you believe you're rebutting the argument by drawing the line at Baylor's scoring not outright helping his opponent. Okay so, if we stay with that threshold:
Do you seriously think any one would be talking about Baylor now if his only noteworthy stats were in rebounding? Because if he ain't massively helping his team with his scoring, that should be your argument. That Baylor's rebounding makes him worth a Top 30 spot. I can't imagine you actually believe that.
I guess I'm not sure what
you're arguing at this point. Does Baylor's rebounding alone make him a top 30 candidate. No. Does being a top-tier rebounder AND a good scorer for a perennial contender make you a top 30 candidate? I would say so, yes. I'm not sure if you're trying to make the case that his scoring is negligible or somehow not worth consideration
at all because his efficiency takes a back-seat to West. That seems like a hefty penalty to apply for being a bit too willing to score.
See the part I've bolded. You didn't even say you refused to believe Baylor's scoring did no damage, you said "serious damage". Your assessment therefore could therefore be accurate even if Baylor's scoring had something of a negative impact on a team...which surely means you shouldn't be using his scoring as a major positive when you go to rank him.
So yeah I'm calling you on your rhetoric. You're setting a bar to subterranean levels and then using that as an argument for why Baylor is better than MVP-level players. You're doing it, perhaps unconsciously, to make it sound like I'm using hyperbolic language to insult Baylor, but in doing so you literally say things that damn your own perspective.
Re: "hefty price to pay for being too willing to score". Well first and foremost, let's forget about willingness. Our analysis of these players should start based on how they actually helped their team. Whatever things a guy did, no matter if his coach told him to do it, any one of those things that didn't actually work so well shouldn't be something you use to praise him to the heavens. Do you disagree with that?
Second, let's not pretend that when a player maintains primacy after changes make him cease to warrant it that this happens in some kind of vacuum. It's a really big deal to take primacy away from a guy, and you risk all sorts of ego problems. You typically tread very carefully as a coach when you have to do these things unless the star in question has a clearly team-oriented attitude which makes you confident he'll willingly sacrifice his own glamour.
The star though of course can solve this instantly by simply recognizing his own strengths and weaknesses. Now, judging based on what most likely happened - which should be our default - do we really think that Baylor was the super-team-oriented guys that made clear to his coach that he was willing to sacrifice his primacy for the good of the team now that West had arrived, and his coach was "No, you have to keep shooting!"?
trex_8063 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:And yeah, with regards to "rarely matched volumes". As stated so many times: Individual volume is not a goal....
You're right, it's a result. And while it's certainly not the pinnacle of all achievement, nor do I think it should be completely cast aside as irrelevant.
I'm not advocating to ignoring it. I'm advocating that it should be a piece of the puzzle to understand how a guy was helping his team, and what I worry when I see some of your points is that for all the sophistication that exists in your understanding, you may have a tendency to rationalize things back until your lists match the status quo. And to be clear, that's not something I'm alleging of you alone, to me it's a very common thing to do when you lack confidence in your own voice, and I've been there myself.
trex_8063 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:...., or at least it hasn't been in the last half century. It obviously was for Wilt's teams early on, and as has been discussed, that actually didn't work.
Baylor's biggest volumes were more reasonable than Wilt, but then of course, his team offenses utterly sucked until West arose, and from that point on they continued to be dependent mostly on West's presence.
fwiw, the Lakers team ORtg in '57 was 88.5 (6th of 8); in '58: 88.0 (8th of 8).
Laker team ORtg in '59 (rookie Baylor is the only major roster change): improve to 90.8 (4th of 8).
In '60 they slip again down to 87.7 (8th of 8), but there were
a lot of changes:
*Vern Mikkelsen has left and aging Larry Foust's role is diminishing (both had been reasonably efficient scorers).
**Hot Rod Hundley---who was 5th on the team in shot attempts in '59---has been given an increased offensive role: +3.9 FGA compared to the prior season, while shooting abysmal efficiency (-7.9% TS% compared to Baylor, -5.3% relative to league average).
***Rookie Rudy LaRusso now the 3rd-leading shot taker (TS% 3.3% worse than Baylor, and also below league average).
****New guy Frank Selvy is the team's 5th-leading shot taker, and he too is marginally below league average in efficiency.
......basically Baylor was the
only Laker taking significant shots who WAS an efficient scorer.
In '61 (West's rookie season): 90.8 (7th of 8). West is 2nd in shot attempts, though is -3.0% TS compared to Baylor (and actually marginally BELOW league average, too); but an obvious improvement over Hundley (whose FGA are -2.3 compared to '60). So even though West isn't efficient at this point, he's an obvious improvement over relying so much on Hundley. Baylor is still the main engine at this point and IS scoring efficiently; and 2nd-year LaRusso has improved significantly, too.
So And then as West blossoms (resultant further diminishing the role of Hundley doesn't hurt at all either) their offense really takes off. LaRusso's development helped some, too, I would speculate.
No question that West is the main driving force of the Laker offense. Not arguing that at all. However, within your criticism of Baylor there seems to be a subtext of "Baylor HURT the Laker offense".....a notion I largely reject. imo, Baylor being present (even with his trigger-happy tendencies) is better for the Lakers offense than no Baylor present. Could he have helped the Laker offense MORE by reining in and deferring more? Probably.
But "not helping optimally" is not the same as "hurting".
You're missing a key thing though:
The Lakers great leap forward happened in '61-62. Considerable offensive improvement, and major leap in team record...with Baylor missing much of the season.
The prior year, with Baylor in all his glory, the Lakers were an ineffective offense.
The next year, with Baylor missing much of the time, the Laker offense clicked.
I'm not literally saying Baylor hurt the team's offense. I don't believe that, but nevertheless this is not the correlation you expect to see from anyone on this list let alone a guy being voted in in the '20s. And to me what it says is that up to a certain point Baylor's obvious talent made it make sense to build around him even though there appeared to be clear diminishing returns, but later on there emerged other talent on the roster that allowed something truly great to form, and all signs indicate that greatness could exist even without Baylor.
trex_8063 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:trex_8063 wrote:He was also probably the greatest ever rebounder from the SF position. Really, Larry Bird is the only other SF who's really even in the conversation.
Baylor's rebounding is good and I don't want to knock it. However,
I think it's typically unwise to judge rebounding on a position by position basis.
Since when do we NOT look at rebounding in light of position?
So then guys like Nash and Stockton are inexcusably atrocious rebounders, and Jason Kidd is not a special rebounder at all? Shawn Marion is barely a noteworthy rebounder, and Rik Smits and '14 Roy Hibbert are now entirely decent as rebounders? Obviously none of these things are true, but that would be the conclusion if we're NOT looking at rebounding in light of position played.
Should we NOT look at assists relative to position either? Different positions have different roles. I have no idea why we would not evaluate these things in light of position played.
Should we take note that the Lakers gave him freedom to crash the boards? Of course. But that doesn't mean we treat him the same as a PF or C. He played on the perimeter a lot on offense, and was frequently guarding a perimeter player on defense (which puts him at a natural rebounding disadvantage compared to a strictly post player): Which is what makes the Barkley comparison a little disingenuous, imo.
Ah, let me clarify:
What I'm saying is that when you look at a player and judge his rebounding, you have to consider his role, which may or may not be what you'd expect based on his position.
So for example with Jason Kidd, it doesn't make sense to compete his rebounding numbers with other point guards as if they were both crashing the boards and only Kidd got the ball. Kidd like to get the rebounds, and as a result his team's rebounding strategy was (hopefully) built with that in mind.
To put it in concrete, let's consider that makes sense for any perimeter player:
Question: How can a perimeter player get a bunch of rebounds if he's playing out on the perimeter?
Answer: He has to run to the interior leaving his man alone.
Question: What happens if he gets the rebound?
Answer: Great things.
Question: What happens if he doesn't?
Answer: He's just put his team in worse position...unless teammates have already been assigned to make adjustments to plug the hole he's just opened up.
Now realistically with Baylor, I'm sure part of what allowed him to play this role is that he wasn't actually playing so far out on the perimeter. There was no 3-point line back then, and he had a tendency to drive into the heart of the interior anyway. So that's one reason to think Baylor's rebounding impact back then was perhaps bigger than what you'd expect given what his pace-adjusted numbers look like...but also a reason to question whether he'd be able to do it today. I mentioned Barkley before, well quite frankly I wonder if Baylor would play power forward today.
trex_8063 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:trex_8063 wrote:btw, he had more playoff win shares in those prime years alone than Chris Paul has had in his career to date (and advanced stat metrics LOVE Chris Paul).
Because he played more playoff games, not because his Win Share rate actually matches Paul's. (Though to be fair, Baylor had 2 playoff runs that did have truly great WS rates.)
Isn't the fact that Paul has as of yet failed to make a deep playoff run one of the big criticisms against him? Not as though the additional playoff games (particularly in a shorter playoff structure, due to small league) were simply gifted to Baylor and the Lakers, after all.
It's one of the big criticism made against him by people who count rings. He's had a couple rough playoffs due to injury, and he's got a slight frame which may make injury more likely, but I've seen him do plenty of great things in the playoffs.
Re: Baylor not gifted with playoff games. Well, actually, the Baylor Lakers had losing records in his first 3 years, yet still played multiple playoff series in each season despite only upsetting 1 +.500 team. I'm fine with you saying that Baylor did good things in those playoffs, but when we talk about it being easy to rack up huge numbers of playoff games in the modern era, that's only for elite teams. If you were a flat out mediocre team, it was much easier to get playoff games back then than now (at least in the West).
on .492 TS% (which again: is above average) 
