RealGM Top 100 List #56

[RSCD3_]

Vote : Elvin Hayes

Much more portable

Great defender and rebounder and scored on decent efficiency during his era......

The bolded is a bit dubious, even when being compared to Iverson. Hayes wasn't even "decently efficient" relative to his own era:

Hayes' relative ts% (to league average in same years) was -1.84% during his prime ('69-'80); for his career he was -2.52%.

That being said, I'd be content with him getting voted in here. But let's be honest about the reasons why.

What I meant by that and appear to have left out was with a reduction in role in the offense he could be more efficient.

Now you could say the same thing about iverson yes but there is an intangible factor with Hayes that makes me feel like it would be easier for him to chance his role if asked upon


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[ronnymac2]

Runoff Vote: Allen Iverson

If I thought Hayes was like LaMarcus Aldridge on offense, I'd take him. Aldridge is a jump shooting PF with meh scoring efficiency and an elite turnover rate given his USG%, making him an incredibly valuable offensive player. Aldridge is also a smart player who reads defenses well and reacts accordingly with movement (slip into open space to catch for a jumper, or roll and use great hands to catch and finish inside). Underrated passer, too.

This may be unfair to Hayes because offensive strategy may not have been as optimized for his game back then, but I don't think Hayes has that same "meh scoring efficiency but what an offensive player!" effect like LMA does. I think he just takes bad turnaround jump shots because he thinks it's a good idea. When recorded, his turnover rate isn't so great. I don't think his mind reacts quickly on offense.

Hayes is a very good defensive player though. His combination of steals, blocks, defensive rebounds, and mobility is really good, and he plays high minutes. Hayes was perhaps the main guy on a title squad, and he's got some great longevity/consistency.

It's very close between Hayes and Iverson for me. I can totally see taking Hayes based on longevity and defense with above average offense. I don't think Elvin's offense is all that valuable though, whereas I think Iverson, despite his relative scoring inefficiency, provides an elite combination of minutes, USG%, creation, and low turnovers that makes him a scary offensive player.

[Quotatious]

If I thought Hayes was like LaMarcus Aldridge on offense, I'd take him. Aldridge is a jump shooting PF with meh scoring efficiency and an elite turnover rate given his USG%, making him an incredibly valuable offensive player. Aldridge is also a smart player who reads defenses well and reacts accordingly with movement (slip into open space to catch for a jumper, or roll and use great hands to catch and finish inside). Underrated passer, too.

This may be unfair to Hayes because offensive strategy may not have been as optimized for his game back then, but I don't think Hayes has that same "meh scoring efficiency but what an offensive player!" effect like LMA does. I think he just takes bad turnaround jump shots because he thinks it's a good idea. When recorded, his turnover rate isn't so great. I don't think his mind reacts quickly on offense.

Honestly, I think Hayes was more like prime Jermaine O'Neal on offense, than LaMarcus Aldridge, meaning that his offensive impact wasn't really impressive, and it was about as good (or actually, not very good at all) as you could expect just looking at his high volume, low efficiency scoring numbers in boxscores. That is clearly not the case with LMA, though, because his offensive impact seems to go well beyond his boxscore numbers. His absurdly low turnover rate (on par with Dirk, which is quite a feat) is certainly a big factor, but also the fact that he's a very decisive player on the offensive end (even if that means he's settling for midrange jumpers a lot - he's actually really good at those, especially 16 feet out, so it's not really a problem, even if his overall scoring efficiency leaves a bit to be desired), he plays well within the flow of an offense. Underrated passer, as well, that's for sure. Aldridge's offensive impact is pretty clear when you see that PTB is one of the best offensive teams in the league with him as by far their leading shot taker, and ORAPM also supports that notion (he had +2.0 offensive split in 2014 NPI, and +3.41 in prior informed).

[john248]

Vote : Elvin Hayes

Much more portable

Great defender and rebounder and scored on decent efficiency during his era......

The bolded is a bit dubious, even when being compared to Iverson. Hayes wasn't even "decently efficient" relative to his own era:

Hayes' relative ts% (to league average in same years) was -1.84% during his prime ('69-'80); for his career he was -2.52%.

That being said, I'd be content with him getting voted in here. But let's be honest about the reasons why.

What I meant by that and appear to have left out was with a reduction in role in the offense he could be more efficient.

Now you could say the same thing about iverson yes but there is an intangible factor with Hayes that makes me feel like it would be easier for him to chance his role if asked upon

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I disagree. Hayes wasn't coachable. His coaches tried to coach him up, but Hayes pretty much refused to pass the ball and would continue to just be a black hole. So I don't see this as an instance of hypothetically giving Hayes less touches. It's not like Hayes was anything close to being a solid passer either. If anything, it was good that he played next to Unseld who didn't have a skill set that overlapped with Hayes nor the attitude where there was at least a good fit on both sides of the court.

Hayes, black hole on offense. Athletic guy yet took turnarounds so his FTR is meh. Couldn't pass well so doubling was effective where he might chuck a shot up. No where to be found during 4th quarters though at least he wasn't chucking it up there. Not sure why he's getting a lot of credit as a rebounder either. 15% TRB isn't eye popping, so his volume came due to minutes played. Gets too much credit as a shot blocker as he was roughly a 3.5% BLK at his peak and likely the same coming into the league. BLK % drops due to age and playing with a weaker defender in Moses Malone when he gets to Houston. Then you got coaches telling teammates to ignore Hayes and well...generally just calling him a piece of xxxx.

Iverson isn't going to win any personality awards either. I don't see both in this spot though I'm probably leaning Iverson as I do see value in his offense. Hayes help defense has me waffling between who I want to go with.

[Joao Saraiva]

[Iverson] Peaked a lot higher, achieved more than VC in his career and even had more team success.

Iverson didn't really peak a lot higher, though. He had higher scoring volume, but that's literally it. Yes, he had more team success, but he also had more team help the one year that he went further than did Carter's Raps, and the Raptors roster fell apart due to injuries and management incompetence fairly quickly, so this isn't really a super-salient point either... and then Carter went to New Jersey and added to his team success resume, then re-invented himself as a high-quality roleplayer later on in his career, of which Iverson was never capable.

I agree it wasn't a lot higher. Scored more volume, assisted more, played more minutes, got more steals... But yes there was a gap but a lot might not be accurate.

About Iverson having a better team, Carter with the Nets had a much better roster than Iverson ever did in Philadelphia. And he never got to the NBA finals.

[tsherkin]

I agree it wasn't a lot higher. Scored more volume, assisted more, played more minutes, got more steals... But yes there was a gap but a lot might not be accurate.

About Iverson having a better team, Carter with the Nets had a much better roster than Iverson ever did in Philadelphia. And he never got to the NBA finals.

Higher minutes per game and a propensity to shoot too much don't necessarily mean a higher peak. And the Conference sucked less when Carter was on the Nets.

[penbeast0]

I disagree. Hayes wasn't coachable. His coaches tried to coach him up, but Hayes pretty much refused to pass the ball and would continue to just be a black hole. So I don't see this as an instance of hypothetically giving Hayes less touches. It's not like Hayes was anything close to being a solid passer either. If anything, it was good that he played next to Unseld who didn't have a skill set that overlapped with Hayes nor the attitude where there was at least a good fit on both sides of the court.

Hayes, black hole on offense. Athletic guy yet took turnarounds so his FTR is meh. Couldn't pass well so doubling was effective where he might chuck a shot up. No where to be found during 4th quarters though at least he wasn't chucking it up there. Not sure why he's getting a lot of credit as a rebounder either. 15% TRB isn't eye popping, so his volume came due to minutes played. Gets too much credit as a shot blocker as he was roughly a 3.5% BLK at his peak and likely the same coming into the league. BLK % drops due to age and playing with a weaker defender in Moses Malone when he gets to Houston. Then you got coaches telling teammates to ignore Hayes and well...generally just calling him a piece of xxxx.

Iverson isn't going to win any personality awards either. I don't see both in this spot though I'm probably leaning Iverson as I do see value in his offense. Hayes help defense has me waffling between who I want to go with.

The bit about nowhere to be found in 4th quarters was disproved by analysis if I remember right. Hayes's 4th quarter and clutch stats weren't eye popping but were roughly equal to his general production. Someone did a statistical study on this on the old Wiz board I think but the reorganization of the site here lost us some of those old great posts.

[trex_8063]

Not really a fan of either of the options here. I guess I'll vote for Iverson.

Without an explanation, this vote does not count.

Hope you caught this and come back with some minimal reasoning (because I want Iverson to win this run-off, so I can finally move on). If not, this one would be particularly gross for him to lose, given your vote was disqualified and there are TWO other posters stating they're leaning toward Iverson (but whom I get the impression are not actually going to cast a vote).

[ceiling raiser]

If I cast a vote in time, I'm leaning Iverson. Before I do so though, I'd like to hear a bit more about Hayes' defense. Is his defensive reputation mostly on the basis of rim protection, or was his man and floor defense solid as well? From my understanding he blocked a good deal of shots (and from speaking to a few old sportswriters, he sent back a good deal before they became an official stat), but how do we feel about his team defenses? I actually think one of the first Bullets teams he was on was ridiculous on that end. Maybe someone who watched them (pen? if he has time) can break down how those teams functioned defensively, and what Hayes' and Unseld's roles were.

[Joao Saraiva]

I agree it wasn't a lot higher. Scored more volume, assisted more, played more minutes, got more steals... But yes there was a gap but a lot might not be accurate.

About Iverson having a better team, Carter with the Nets had a much better roster than Iverson ever did in Philadelphia. And he never got to the NBA finals.

Higher minutes per game and a propensity to shoot too much don't necessarily mean a higher peak. And the Conference sucked less when Carter was on the Nets.

The more minutes on the court also mean being less effective, Iverson took a ton of the burden on offense. But that suddenly doesn't really matter. Only the negatives.

There is a reason why Iverson has more top 5 MVP votes, 1 MVP, more 1st NBA teams (Carter doesn't even have one), more 2nd teams, more 3rd teams, more all-star games, etc.

[tsherkin]

The more minutes on the court also mean being less effective, Iverson took a ton of the burden on offense.

That's not universally true, no, especially not with his cardiovascular endurance and other physical tools. And it didn't seem a huge problem in Denver.

There is a reason why Iverson has more top 5 MVP votes, 1 MVP, more 1st NBA teams (Carter doesn't even have one), more 2nd teams, more 3rd teams, more all-star games, etc.

Voter foolishness and health differences, yes.

[penbeast0]

If I cast a vote in time, I'm leaning Iverson. Before I do so though, I'd like to hear a bit more about Hayes' defense. Is his defensive reputation mostly on the basis of rim protection, or was his man and floor defense solid as well? From my understanding he blocked a good deal of shots (and from speaking to a few old sportswriters, he sent back a good deal before they became an official stat), but how do we feel about his team defenses? I actually think one of the first Bullets teams he was on was ridiculous on that end. Maybe someone who watched them (pen? if he has time) can break down how those teams functioned defensively, and what Hayes' and Unseld's roles were.

They basically played with 2 inside and 3 out since Riordan was really a guard and Dandridge was more quick than strong. Unseld had knee issues and so would play behind the main post threat using his strength and mass to force them off their spot. Hayes was the more mobile and was the main help defender, both as a shotblocker against people driving the lane (Unseld tended to try to draw charging calls instead as he got older) and doubling the post threat off his man. The Washington defense was a good one and Hayes showed more on court intelligence there than he did offensively but it was more about physical post play and pressuring the ball than great shotblocking or individual defensive shutdowns.

[Clyde Frazier]

I disagree. Hayes wasn't coachable. His coaches tried to coach him up, but Hayes pretty much refused to pass the ball and would continue to just be a black hole. So I don't see this as an instance of hypothetically giving Hayes less touches. It's not like Hayes was anything close to being a solid passer either. If anything, it was good that he played next to Unseld who didn't have a skill set that overlapped with Hayes nor the attitude where there was at least a good fit on both sides of the court.

Hayes, black hole on offense. Athletic guy yet took turnarounds so his FTR is meh. Couldn't pass well so doubling was effective where he might chuck a shot up. No where to be found during 4th quarters though at least he wasn't chucking it up there. Not sure why he's getting a lot of credit as a rebounder either. 15% TRB isn't eye popping, so his volume came due to minutes played. Gets too much credit as a shot blocker as he was roughly a 3.5% BLK at his peak and likely the same coming into the league. BLK % drops due to age and playing with a weaker defender in Moses Malone when he gets to Houston. Then you got coaches telling teammates to ignore Hayes and well...generally just calling him a piece of xxxx.

Iverson isn't going to win any personality awards either. I don't see both in this spot though I'm probably leaning Iverson as I do see value in his offense. Hayes help defense has me waffling between who I want to go with.

You say he wasn’t coachable, yet his FGAs per game noticeably dropped once he went to the bullets, and he had a very effective championship run with them in 78, along with 2 other finals runs (i’m aware of his shortcomings against the warriors). I wouldn’t make a blanket statement about him being a black hole when he had a good case for finals MVP that season. His game did change for the better in washington. I wouldn’t call it lucky for hayes to end up next to unseld on the front line, because if he really was that rigid, it wouldn’t have worked out. It’s not uncommon for teams to make sense conceptually, but end up falling short. I think it’s clear that they mutually benefited from each other’s skill sets.

[penbeast0]

Still tied, let's get another vote!


IVERSON (3) drza, trex_8063, Joao Saraiva, ronnymac2, SactoKingFan

HAYES (3) Clyde Frazier, Quotatious, penbeast0, RSCD3_, tsherkin

[RayBan-Sematra]

Meh... fine.
Gonna vote for Iverson since we need the tie breaker.
I have a good book which has a few chapters about Hayes but don't have the time right now to read it.

VOTE : Iverson

This is a guy I am very conflicted about.
On one hand he was inefficient and his team offenses sucked (in Philly).
On the other hand he played with mediocre offensive talent in a tough defensive era with a coach who emphasized defense and team play more then offense.

I do think he had the tools needed to adapt if he was placed with other strong offensive talent and I think he'd be better under the 05+ rules.

[john248]

I disagree. Hayes wasn't coachable. His coaches tried to coach him up, but Hayes pretty much refused to pass the ball and would continue to just be a black hole. So I don't see this as an instance of hypothetically giving Hayes less touches. It's not like Hayes was anything close to being a solid passer either. If anything, it was good that he played next to Unseld who didn't have a skill set that overlapped with Hayes nor the attitude where there was at least a good fit on both sides of the court.

Hayes, black hole on offense. Athletic guy yet took turnarounds so his FTR is meh. Couldn't pass well so doubling was effective where he might chuck a shot up. No where to be found during 4th quarters though at least he wasn't chucking it up there. Not sure why he's getting a lot of credit as a rebounder either. 15% TRB isn't eye popping, so his volume came due to minutes played. Gets too much credit as a shot blocker as he was roughly a 3.5% BLK at his peak and likely the same coming into the league. BLK % drops due to age and playing with a weaker defender in Moses Malone when he gets to Houston. Then you got coaches telling teammates to ignore Hayes and well...generally just calling him a piece of xxxx.

Iverson isn't going to win any personality awards either. I don't see both in this spot though I'm probably leaning Iverson as I do see value in his offense. Hayes help defense has me waffling between who I want to go with.

You say he wasn’t coachable, yet his FGAs per game noticeably dropped once he went to the bullets, and he had a very effective championship run with them in 78, along with 2 other finals runs (i’m aware of his shortcomings against the warriors). I wouldn’t make a blanket statement about him being a black hole when he had a good case for finals MVP that season. His game did change for the better in washington. I wouldn’t call it lucky for hayes to end up next to unseld on the front line, because if he really was that rigid, it wouldn’t have worked out. It’s not uncommon for teams to make sense conceptually, but end up falling short. I think it’s clear that they mutually benefited from each other’s skill sets.

Yes, I'd call him a black hole. Kevin McHale was a black hole of sorts. Hayes is even worse off since his offense was poor. Are you saying he isn't based off a single playoff run that you're citing versus what he's done in his career? That's absurd. The guy was putting up shots against double teams and told his coaches that he'd continue to do so.

[Clyde Frazier]

I disagree. Hayes wasn't coachable. His coaches tried to coach him up, but Hayes pretty much refused to pass the ball and would continue to just be a black hole. So I don't see this as an instance of hypothetically giving Hayes less touches. It's not like Hayes was anything close to being a solid passer either. If anything, it was good that he played next to Unseld who didn't have a skill set that overlapped with Hayes nor the attitude where there was at least a good fit on both sides of the court.

Hayes, black hole on offense. Athletic guy yet took turnarounds so his FTR is meh. Couldn't pass well so doubling was effective where he might chuck a shot up. No where to be found during 4th quarters though at least he wasn't chucking it up there. Not sure why he's getting a lot of credit as a rebounder either. 15% TRB isn't eye popping, so his volume came due to minutes played. Gets too much credit as a shot blocker as he was roughly a 3.5% BLK at his peak and likely the same coming into the league. BLK % drops due to age and playing with a weaker defender in Moses Malone when he gets to Houston. Then you got coaches telling teammates to ignore Hayes and well...generally just calling him a piece of xxxx.

Iverson isn't going to win any personality awards either. I don't see both in this spot though I'm probably leaning Iverson as I do see value in his offense. Hayes help defense has me waffling between who I want to go with.

You say he wasn’t coachable, yet his FGAs per game noticeably dropped once he went to the bullets, and he had a very effective championship run with them in 78, along with 2 other finals runs (i’m aware of his shortcomings against the warriors). I wouldn’t make a blanket statement about him being a black hole when he had a good case for finals MVP that season. His game did change for the better in washington. I wouldn’t call it lucky for hayes to end up next to unseld on the front line, because if he really was that rigid, it wouldn’t have worked out. It’s not uncommon for teams to make sense conceptually, but end up falling short. I think it’s clear that they mutually benefited from each other’s skill sets.

Yes, I'd call him a black hole. Kevin McHale was a black hole of sorts. Hayes is even worse off since his offense was poor. Are you saying he isn't based off a single playoff run that you're citing versus what he's done in his career? That's absurd. The guy was putting up shots against double teams and told his coaches that he'd continue to do so.

I wasn't referencing 1 playoff run, I was referencing 3 finals runs, and his time in washington being largely positive overall. Not denying that he was a black hole, just the implication that his being one outweighed all the positives he brought to the floor.