#28 Highest Peak of All Time (Penny '96 wins)

[PTB Fan]

PTB Fan, would you consider changing your vote to '61 Baylor?

Yeah, I do actually. I wouldn't mind it.

[ardee]

PTB Fan, would you consider changing your vote to '61 Baylor?

Yeah, I do actually. I wouldn't mind it.

If you do so, then I think we'll be in a tie with Penny.

I really wish I'd looked into Baylor more earlier, would've voted for him right after West then.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I personally think peak Penny was a bit better than peak Baylor. Frankly, I have a hard time putting Baylor over Petitt. In his peak years, he's was leading the Hawks to 4 NBA Finals in 5 years, and beat the Russell Celtics, while getting 2 MVPs.

[Doctor MJ]

The fact that he was slightly inefficient (and not inefficient at all if we take into account era) is not enough of a reason to sway me.

Wow. Okay, I guess I'll say one more thing:

To me the thing I just can't get passed is how people say "slightly" on this. I could understand it more if there'd been a huge push for West early, like Top 10 early, but West didn't get in until the 20s. Obviously, we're talking about pluralities here, so part of the issue is that Baylor might be able to win with a minority vote that simply wasn't enough for West, but when people say "slightly", perspective seems to me to be a real issue:

By West's 4th year in the league ('63-64), he was a 56% TS guy. In that year, Baylor was still in his 20s, and was shooting basically the same as he'd ever done (49% TS). This is an edge of 7 percent.

Now go look at the people we've voted in from later eras. Look at all of them, and their scoring and efficiency. Is there anyone we're considering who was comparable to these guys as contemporaries but 7% less efficient. How can this possibly be seen as a 'slight' inefficiency then when a 7% edge is about as big as you'll ever see?

I guess, all of this only makes sense to me if you just don't think efficiency is a real issue. If you really think of the scoring volume as the goal, and that efficiency is nice but really it's the fact that you did score that matters, not how you got there, then I understand loving Baylor. Obviously from my perspective, the goal is in providing scoring your team otherwise would not have gotten, and any time you're in an era where a 7% higher efficiency is possible for your scoring, this basically guarantees that the value above replacement of your scoring is at best a small fraction of what others did.

And I guess that feeds in one more time to why even if you're looking for a guy from that era, I have Pettit over Baylor. Pettit didn't start out a more efficient scorer than Baylor, but he adapted with the league strategic improvements in a way Baylor didn't and by the time Baylor was at his peak, Pettit was still scoring 30 PPG but doing it more efficiently than Baylor. Had he been told to jack more shots, I'm sure he could have scored 35+ too, but that was never the goal.

[SDChargers#1]

It's like people don't understand the concept of pace, and how 38/15 in 1961 is not the same as 38/15 in 2012. Just using a minutes adjustment, Baylor's numbers don't look super-godly anymore, other than rebounding.

Baylor not recognizing West's talent in later years and appropriately dialing back his volume shooting IS a legitimate knock on him, because it's a big knock on his portability.

He was a poor defender. He racked up assists, but he wasn't really a willing passer, as his years with West proved, and come on, I know people have recognized that we've seen people that put up big scoring numbers (even with efficiency) that are just not helping their teams that much (Wilt, Dantley, Melo, etc.). Based on everything I've read and seen, I have no reason to think Baylor isn't like those guys. The Lakers showed improvement the very next year, a year when Baylor had military duty and missed 34 games while West took on a bigger role.

And it's also disingenuous to gloss over how good a rookie West still was, especially in the playoffs.

I understand the concept of pace very well. Even with pace accounted for, Baylor's numbers are still VERY good)

You do realize that Baylor and West went to like 7 Finals together right? You act like Baylor was completely incompatible with West. They were a great team that was unfortunate to run into the Celtics dynasty year after year. And West was already recognized in this project a while ago, so stating whether West was more important or not is irrelevant.

Dantley and Melo have never had the individual or team success as Baylor. And Wilt's peak was voted in top 5, so I don't know what you are getting at there.

Baylor is hands down the most dominant player of the players left in this project. When you include impact on the league it is even higher.

Penny Hardaway is such a flash in the pan compared to Baylor it is silly. Even adjusted for pace Baylor's numbers are WAY better. He had WAY better team success. He was considered better by his pears and journalists.

The hate on Baylor has started to get into ridiculous proportions when he starts getting compared to Carmelo Anthony who has never even been to an NBA Finals compared to a guy who went to 8 of them and was All NBA First Team ten years in a row.

[SDChargers#1]

The fact that he was slightly inefficient (and not inefficient at all if we take into account era) is not enough of a reason to sway me.

Wow. Okay, I guess I'll say one more thing:

To me the thing I just can't get passed is how people say "slightly" on this. I could understand it more if there'd been a huge push for West early, like Top 10 early, but West didn't get in until the 20s. Obviously, we're talking about pluralities here, so part of the issue is that Baylor might be able to win with a minority vote that simply wasn't enough for West, but when people say "slightly", perspective seems to me to be a real issue:

By West's 4th year in the league ('63-64), he was a 56% TS guy. In that year, Baylor was still in his 20s, and was shooting basically the same as he'd ever done (49% TS). This is an edge of 7 percent.

Now go look at the people we've voted in from later eras. Look at all of them, and their scoring and efficiency. Is there anyone we're considering who was comparable to these guys as contemporaries but 7% less efficient. How can this possibly be seen as a 'slight' inefficiency then when a 7% edge is about as big as you'll ever see?

I guess, all of this only makes sense to me if you just don't think efficiency is a real issue. If you really think of the scoring volume as the goal, and that efficiency is nice but really it's the fact that you did score that matters, not how you got there, then I understand loving Baylor. Obviously from my perspective, the goal is in providing scoring your team otherwise would not have gotten, and any time you're in an era where a 7% higher efficiency is possible for your scoring, this basically guarantees that the value above replacement of your scoring is at best a small fraction of what others did.

And I guess that feeds in one more time to why even if you're looking for a guy from that era, I have Pettit over Baylor. Pettit didn't start out a more efficient scorer than Baylor, but he adapted with the league strategic improvements in a way Baylor didn't and by the time Baylor was at his peak, Pettit was still scoring 30 PPG but doing it more efficiently than Baylor. Had he been told to jack more shots, I'm sure he could have scored 35+ too, but that was never the goal.

West was already voted in a little while ago (like 7 spots ago). Because West didn't get voted in higher means Baylor has to suffer because West has a 7% advantage in efficiency?

Even when they played together many gave West the edge, but Baylor was always right there in terms of the comparisons, so it would make sense for Baylor to fall about 5-10 spots after West.

[Doctor MJ]

West was already voted in a little while ago (like 7 spots ago). Because West didn't get voted in higher means Baylor has to suffer because West has a 7% advantage in efficiency?

Even when they played together many gave West the edge, but Baylor was always right there in terms of the comparisons, so it would make sense for Baylor to fall about 5-10 spots after West.

Focus on what I asked though. Consider Kobe. Kobe's efficiency is about what West's was, so consider someone he has a 7% efficiency gap over. Is there anyone shooting 50% TS as a volume scorer from our current era being discussed?

You look at the Pierces and Carters of the world, they are in the same ballpark as Kobe efficiency-wise. Kobe getting in before them makes total sense, but that gap that we see as obvious is still not anywhere near as large as the gap between West & Baylor.

Again, how you view efficiency is your own thing, but when you call Baylor someone with a 'slight efficiency' problem in a comparison with scoring GOATs, you're basically saying that efficiency is never more than a 'slight' problem. If it doesn't matter with regards to Baylor, I don't see where it would ever matter.

[drza]

Looks like this one is coming down to '96 Penny vs '61 Baylor. I actually wouldn't mind either of them at this spot...I obviously am not one that overly focuses on efficiency, as I think the focus on individual efficiency is counted way too much when it comes to judging players. I tend to have Iverson, Isiah, and Kidd higher in these projects than the norm. I think efficiency is important, but that a player that does enough other positive things can still be having a big impact on games even if his efficiency is low. That players can put pressure on defenses and cause defenses to react even if they're shooting inefficiently, and that there's no current standard stat that captures this the way that most advanced boxscore stats rely on efficiency.

That said, I still tend to lean Penny here. A lot of what made Elgin special was that his size and athletic ability made his game so unique. Well, a 6-8 athlete capable of legitimately running the point was still unique in Penny's time. It's hard to judge volume across eras, but for Baylor to be in the top-8 in points, rebounds and assists is impressive. On the other hand, in a much more diverse and specialized league, Penny was also among the league-leaders in three different categories (scoring, assists, steals) and was a good rebounder from the boxscore as well.

In this comparison, though we're focusing on a single year, I do think the evidence of what happened later tells us good things about the portability of their games. Penny was the do-everything second option to Shaq in '96...but a year later he was dropping 40-point efforts at great efficiency to push a much more talented Heat team to the wire. It seems as though he could legitimately play any style, contribute across the board, and tailor his scoring output to need while maintaining efficiency. Baylor proved that he could maintain his volume at similar efficiencies next to West before his knees gave out, but as others have pointed out this maybe wasn't the best thing for the team...either way, he didn't show the ability to adapt that Penny did.

Anyway, cross-era comparisons are always difficult. There is very little common ground in the games that they played. But in this 1-on-1, I tend to lean Penny.

Vote: 1996 Penny Hardaway

[Doctor MJ]

Penny '96 takes it.