#29 Highest Peak of All Time (Baylor '61 wins)

[Doctor MJ]

Penny '96 has been enshrined. We move on.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Howard '11

Sticking with my current vote unless someone sways me.

I'm going to try to keep from being an absolute bore about Baylor, but I did want to share a thought on Pettit (who I rate higher than Baylor):

I have a ton of respect for Pettit and his all around game, but I concluded a while back that I just couldn't justify ranking him ahead of the modern power forward monsters who not only have far greater efficiency than him, but who stand out compared to modern standards on this front more than Pettit did by old-time standards.

This though came to mind when comparing careers, and that meant Pettit vs guys like Malone & Barkley. However, peak-wise, it certainly includes McHale as well. So yeah, I have McHale ahead of Pettit ahead of Baylor here. The select class of ultra-efficient volume scoring power forwards we've seen in the past few decades have been doing stuff well beyond what the interior scorers of the '60s did really by any standards that include adjustment for pace.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote 2009 Howard

I could be swayed towards Baylor, but right now I still like 2009 Howard's mix of elite defense, finishing and opening up shots for 3pt shooters by collapsing the D rolling to the rim, as something you can build an elite team around

[C-izMe]

I'm voting 87 McHale. He was a dominant PF that year and actually *gasp* passed decently that year. 26/10/2.5 on 66TS and 11.5TO%. In the PS he put up 21/9/2 63TS and 13.5TO%.

[Lightning25]

Vote: 2012 Durant

I give Durant the slight edge over Howard due to having a superior offensive game (spacing, off-ball play, score from anywhere, etc.). I have no problem with Howard over Durant but it definitely better be 2011 Howard and not 2009. 2009 Howard was clearly a worse player than 2011 Howard. I'm not even sure if 2009 Howard would even make my top 40 honestly.

[therealbig3]

Vote: 88 McHale

Dwight Howard is going to be next up for me, but as I've mentioned before, I'm not really seeing why he should be above McHale.

[PTB Fan]

Vote: '61 Elgin Baylor

The post ardee had, If I'm not wrong, explained it all.

[ardee]

Yup, that was me

Vote: 1961 Elgin Baylor

I think it's going to be pretty hard to reach a true consensus from here on out.

[bastillon]

87 McHale played injured in the postseason and was only about 75% of himself. clearly 86 and 88 versions are better. dont be fooled by the RS numbers. as you could see during key playoff stretches McHale was a guy who could raise his volumes without losing any efficiency at any time. thats exactly what happened in 86 and 88 playoffs. McHale obliterated Sampson in the 86 finals, and he did the same to Pistons great frontcourt in 88 ECFs when Bird was struggling with the injury.

Dwight is probably a better RS player but when it counts you can make Dwight play 1 on 1 and foul him when necessary and even though he'll put up decent numbers, his team's offense is gonna stagnate to a point where it makes no sense to start double teaming at any point. Dwight is definitely more dominant against poor competition but McHale's offensive versatility and skillset allows him to maintain his monstrous production against the very best. I feel like you could put D-Rob and McHale in the post ups and D-Rob would get schooled on both ends. cant say the same about Dwight.

Baylor...not that much into him. poor basketball IQ (smth Doc talked about many times), just avg defender (which is important because early 60s Baylor was playing as big man), you cant really run the offense through him because he doesnt get his teammates involved nearly as much and just chucks a bunch of shots. I'd pick at least 5 guys ahead of Baylor. even pre-merger I see Baylor on par with guys like McAdoo or McGinnis with Gilmore, Barry, Reed, Frazier clearly ahead of them.

vote: 1988 Kevin McHale
I won't be swayed towards 87 because he was injured. there's just no way he could be more impactful playoff player in 87. you can look at his playoff numbers in 86 and 88 and then compare it to 87. vaaast gap. especially for someone who is so damn consistent.

[lorak]

vote: 1961 Baylor.
Very underrated all around player with GREAT basketball IQ - including playmaking skills and defensive abilities (for example in games I stat tracked - and all of them were with past his prime, injured Baylor - he was clearly better defender than Jerry West). His inefficiency is overblown, because before his knees started to be big issue he was very efficient scorer. In 1961 he averaged 34.8 PPG with +2.9 TS%. That's as good as Kobe '06 (+2.4 TS%) or Jordan '87 (+2.8 TS%).

[bastillon]

great basketball IQ ? dude was playing with far better and more efficient offensive player on his own team yet wasted tons of possessions instead of playing off his teammate. then when Wilt arrived Baylor had huge struggles to adjust, partly because of Wilt clogging the lane, partly because he wasn't very versatile offensively (weak jumper). then in 72 his retirement was something that sparked GOAT winning streak. I really have a hard time seeing how he has "great basketball IQ". this is actually something that I'm least impressed about when I'm looking at Baylor.

as for his defense, I see his offense being detrimental to team D. from what I've seen he was a high tov player who liked to shoot illadvised shots (fastbreaks waiting to happen) and he attacked offensive glass a lot... which was good and bad. either way that made his rebounding much less impressive to me than it could've been. his actual defense wasn't good either. I don't know which games you stat-tracked but when I was watching Baylor he seemed poor defensively, couldn't protect the paint, wasn't very active. lets remember early 60s Baylor was basically a power forward so if he's not a big positive impact defender, it makes him hard to build around.

I dont understand the argument for era-adjustment. as Doc said, Oscar and West were players who easily played at high efficiency at the time. am I going to assume Oscar would be a 65-70% TS player today ? because after making the adjustment it would seem so. I see no reason why Baylor couldnt be more efficient in his days if he was that good. his offensive skillset was just lacking, weak outside jumpshot (though ok from close range), poor shot selection, offensive rebounding is an asset but overrated one etc. watching 60s Baylor never made me impressed one bit.

[lorak]

great basketball IQ ? dude was playing with far better and more efficient offensive player on his own team yet wasted tons of possessions instead of playing off his teammate.

And it was his choice? Or maybe Lakers coaches, because they saw the game different way than you or some other realGMers?

I dont understand the argument for era-adjustment. as Doc said, Oscar and West were players who easily played at high efficiency at the time. am I going to assume Oscar would be a 65-70% TS player today ?

That's really silly argument. TS% or DRTG/ORTG relatively to league average don't work that way. You should have know that.

[Dr Positivity]

West and Oscar wouldn't adjust above .63-.64, I believe. Regardless it wouldn't be crazy to say "West compared to the league was a .65 TS% type of player", indicating that West and Oscar were FAR above the rest of the league in efficient scorers, in part due to their ineptitude compared to modern day competition

The point is Baylor wasn't inefficient for his time. In 61 he led his team in TS%. In 61 West was a 17ppg player who was less efficient than Baylor so I don't see a huge problem with him not giving more shots to Jerry that year. I think Baylor's a player who generally is going to lend himself to at least decent efficiency in most eras because he attacks the rim like crazy and gets to the FT line. Post surgery Baylor basically turned into Rudy Gay, but before that as far as I can tell he was closer to being the original Doctor J

[Doctor MJ]

The point is Baylor wasn't inefficient for his time. In 61 he led his team in TS%. In 61 West was a 17ppg player who was less efficient than Baylor so I don't see a huge problem with him not giving more shots to Jerry that year. I think Baylor's a player who generally is going to lend himself to at least decent efficiency in most eras because he attacks the rim like crazy and gets to the FT line. Post surgery Baylor basically turned into Rudy Gay, but before that as far as I can tell he was closer to being the original Doctor J

"his time"? You're promoting him in '61, An older Pettit is already significantly more efficient than him, a rookie Oscar is already FAR more efficient than him, and once West adjusts to the NBA in the next couple years, he's far more efficient than Baylor too.

This "but look at him compared to the average player back then" is just kind of weird to me because if we did that for West and Oscar they'd have GOAT level efficiencies, but to my knowledge, no one here suggested we look at West & Oscar that way. Nor would I suggest they should. The early '60s is clearly a time where the NBA is still emerging and many of the players back then are still nowhere near modern standards either in skill or talent. The fact that West & Oscar plateaued in efficiency tells us what they truly were (outstanding, but not GOAT). The fact that Baylor was right next to them the whole time and shooting with an efficiency so much lower than them that it would make any modern scorer blush even just talking about the relative gap, how can that not be a big deal?

[JordansBulls]

Vote: 1975 Rick Barry

Averaged 30.6 ppg / 5.7 rpg / 6.2 apg / 2.9 spg in the season

Averaged 28.2 ppg / 5.5 rpg / 6.1 apg / 2.9 spg in the playoffs and doubled the win shares of any teammate in the playoffs.


In the finals he averaged 29.5 ppg / 4.0 rpg / 5.0 apg / 3.5 spg / 0.8 bpg

[Dr Positivity]

It bears mentioning that the gap in efficiency in the 60s was not that dramatic. In 61 league average eFG was .415, in 63 it's .441, in 66 it's .431, in 69 it's once again .441. So after 63, efficiency is about the same as it would be the rest of the 60s. West and Oscar's jump in TS% from 60-62 to the mid/late 60s is actually greater than the jump in league wide efficiency, and the reason for that is probably just that they were young from 60-62 and developed. It's not as if West/Oscar not jumping in efficiency proves Baylor wouldn't have

The best evidence for what Baylor's efficiency would've been likely is 63, where he put up .519. I don't think that's atrocious for a league without 3pt shooting and spacing, when the guy is scoring 34ppg

[bastillon]

It bears mentioning that the gap in efficiency in the 60s was not that dramatic. In 61 league average eFG was .415, in 63 it's .441, in 66 it's .431, in 69 it's once again .441. So after 63, efficiency is about the same as it would be the rest of the 60s. West and Oscar's jump in TS% from 60-62 to the mid/late 60s is actually greater than the jump in league wide efficiency, and the reason for that is probably just that they were young from 60-62 and developed. It's not as if West/Oscar not jumping in efficiency proves Baylor wouldn't have

The best evidence for what Baylor's efficiency would've been likely is 63, where he put up .519. I don't think that's atrocious for a league without 3pt shooting and spacing, when the guy is scoring 34ppg

...with far less advanced team defenses and fastbreak layups being a common weapon in the arsenal of most offensive stars...

[lorak]

"his time"? You're promoting him in '61, An older Pettit is already significantly more efficient than him, a rookie Oscar is already FAR more efficient than him, and once West adjusts to the NBA in the next couple years, he's far more efficient than Baylor too.

This "but look at him compared to the average player back then" is just kind of weird to me because if we did that for West and Oscar they'd have GOAT level efficiencies,

That's not true. Their TS% relatively to league average isn't GOAT level, especially when we include volume. For example +14.4 TS% and 24.1 PPG (Wilt '67) - that's GOAT level efficiency.
(besides, except of two Oscar years, their big efficiency seasons were AFTER peak Baylor we are discussing here...)

And Pettit was much lower volume scorer at the time, so saying he was significantly more efficient (+4.2 TS% vs +2.9 TS%) is simply not fair. Baylor in 1961 (34.8 PPG with +2.9 TS%) as a scorer (efficiency + volume) was close to Kobe '06 (35.4 PPG, +2.4 TS%) or Jordan '87 (37.1 PPG, +2.8 TS%).

[Doctor MJ]

It bears mentioning that the gap in efficiency in the 60s was not that dramatic. In 61 league average eFG was .415, in 63 it's .441, in 66 it's .431, in 69 it's once again .441. So after 63, efficiency is about the same as it would be the rest of the 60s. West and Oscar's jump in TS% from 60-62 to the mid/late 60s is actually greater than the jump in league wide efficiency, and the reason for that is probably just that they were young from 60-62 and developed. It's not as if West/Oscar not jumping in efficiency proves Baylor wouldn't have

The best evidence for what Baylor's efficiency would've been likely is 63, where he put up .519. I don't think that's atrocious for a league without 3pt shooting and spacing, when the guy is scoring 34ppg

Hmm. Having a little trouble processing this.

You're arguing that the rise in efficiency in the '60s was actually not that dramatic, and that West & Oscar jumped more than the rest of the league, but also that them not jumping in efficiency doesn't say anything about Baylor. I guess I'm thinking you're just making multiple points here and I wrongly read it as if it was meant to be one point building on top of each other.

So I'm just going to bullet point it out:

-Getting to the raw numbers, the super-huge shift in efficiency occurred from '59 (Baylor's rookie year) to '63. In the span of 4 years, eFG went from .395 to .441. So I'd say you have a point when talking about the efficiency of West & Oscar that the shift in efficiency wasn't that huge through the bulk of their career compared to how things shifted through Baylor's most prominent time.

-Pretty weird though to mention that and then need to talk about how West & Oscar's limitations on efficiency improvement don't mean Baylor would have the same issues. Baylor's the one coming of age in the NBA while the mega-shift is happening, Baylor's the one with the far weaker efficiency, and Baylor's the one who improved less. Add in that Baylor's the one who showed no ability to perceived how he was wasting possessions next to Jerry West.

We can talk about how much of this efficiency tone deafness is due to tone deaf coaches, but the fact remains that Baylor showed major efficiency issues compared to the other scoring superstars of his day as a baseline, and also showed less ability to improve that efficiency over time. If Baylor wasn't tone deaf, he did a remarkably accurate impression of one possessing that handicap.

Re: not atrocious compared to league, particularly when scoring so much. I've been talking about the league and what other superstars look like. The bottom line that when you compare Baylor to the other guys along these lines who are already in, the difference is astonishingly big. You bring up the other side of the coin here though when you say basically, "it's not easy to be efficient when you shoot so much". And my answer would be: So don't shoot so much.

You might say, "He was just doing what he was told.", but to some degree that's just irrelevant to me. This again goes back to this idea of inefficiency as basically a forgivable sin. "Sure we'd rather he be efficient, but he was doing something tough". This is not a reasonable way to see efficiency to my mind. If you aren't doing it with strong efficiency, then your scoring isn't having direct impact. The only reason for you to ever shoot the ball is if you have a better chance of getting it in than your teammates. If you aren't shooting for that reason, or your ability to accurately gauge what you're doing is too weak, then often won't be helping your team when you shoot.

I do understand that the pro-Baylor argument here is resting on the notion that while Baylor eventually was problematic on this front, early on his efficiency was tolerable enough that you couldn't look at it as ridiculously weak. Where I take the biggest issue with this is the fact that I feel like people are adjusting for league efficiency without any particularly good reason. Efficiency was rising like crazy in this era because basketball was getting WAY better.

A player then who looked okay early on but stagnated as competition increased needs to be viewed as someone who dominated in an inferior league. I think it's pretty clear that people are already thinking along these lines when we consider the stars of the '50s, but Baylor is getting immunity on this front, and I don't see why he should.

[Dr Positivity]

I don't think Baylor's lack of efficiency jump from his rookie season onwards is evidence of much. Rookies in general aren't the same players they become later.

The only reason for you to ever shoot the ball is if you have a better chance of getting it in than your teammates. If you aren't shooting for that reason, or your ability to accurately gauge what you're doing is too weak, then often won't be helping your team when you shoot.

Baylor had the highest TS% on the team in 1961, though, so it did have a better chance of going in than his teammates'. And for most stars that doesn't happen. Many stars play on teams where they're the 3rd-5th most efficient player on the team beside low USG role players. I understand the concern about Baylor not adjusting after his surgery, coinciding with West's big leap up in shooting %, but we're judging 61-63 Baylor and not post surgery Baylor here. In the early 60s Baylor's efficiency doesn't indicate he was doing a wrong thing shooting instead of his teammates

Secondly, I've written about this a few times but there's a difference between a) Baylor taking so many bad jumpshots preventing his team from getting efficient shots and b) Most of Baylor's jumpshots being ones that his teammates would've converted at either the same rate or worse, if he had passed it to them. If the scenario is b) Baylor's jumpshots aren't hurting his team, leaving only the positive value of presumably all the high efficiency shots he creates whenever he takes a shot at the rim or FT line.

I'm not voting for Baylor and I'm not a huge fan, but I'm fine putting him in the same conversation as Barry, Pierce, Durant, King, Drexler, etc. Of that group Durant and King are the best scorers but don't pass like Barry, Pierce, Baylor, Drexler is probably the best passer but worst scorer. All are somewhat flawed but are dominant/superstar wings

PS Isn't it time to start talking about Vince Carter? Pretty elite all around wing, behind Tmac but not that far behind