RealGM

Three different groups have my attention now:

Players with long, consistent careers . . . mainly wings: English, Dantley, Sam Jones, or Vince Carter. Dolph Schayes would go here too. My personal favorite is Dantley, my head says English, my heart says Jones, and my gut says Carter. Would like to see some comps between these guys.

Players with reasonable but not long careers and some peak seasons: Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, Tracy McGrady, Kevin Johnson, Chauncey Billups. Not really feeling this crew but willing to listen.

Players with unreasonably short peaks but who were really extraordinary and special. Bill Walton, Connie Hawkins, Sidney Moncrief. Walton only had 1 year where he made it to the playoffs as a starter; Hawkins similarly only 1 great year though 1 pretty good year after reinventing his game following his first big knee injury; Moncrief 4-5 good years but not as good as the other two.

Vote: Alex English but willing to change my mind.

Vote: Tracy McGrady

T-Mac's quality of prime is Kobe-level though much shorter compared to Bryant. In his prime, he combined amazing pick-n-roll play with low turnovers, 3-point shooting, super-high volume/USG%, and solid defense. He never got to prove it really, but I think his game would flourish next to offensive talent.

His final Toronto year shouldn't be discounted either. He was a really good 2-way player with great rebounding and defensive activity.

I will hop on the Alex English train. Love me some Air Canada and Ray-Ray, but i do appreciate English as well!

Okay I'm carrying this over because it seems the logical thing. And apologies to T-Rex who seems like he wants to move on from the subject, but he just brought up stuff I feel I need to respond to:

trex_8063 wrote::vent:

My last (hopefully) little soapbox rant about era portability speculation. I frankly think it engenders recency bias. Basketball is a much (much much MUCH) more popular and global game today than it was 60 years ago. The number of kids growing up practicing basketball with dreams and aspirations of playing in college or the pros is MASSIVE compared to that era. And thus the player pool from which to select pros today is MASSIVE by comparison. So yes, as consequence the average talent in league today is greater. And as consequence of that, talents like Schayes would have a much more difficult time distinguishing themselves as "great" in this modern context. And of consequence of that, era portability is fairly consistently going to be biased toward the recent.

However, this doesn't change the fact that Schayes (and Cousy, Arizin, Mikan, etc) were among the best on the entire planet Earth at playing basketball in their time. I anticipate someone saying something about the lack of integration in the league, and that Schayes (or whoever) wouldn't have been anything special if they had allowed more blacks into the game at that time. But I sincerely doubt that is true. Again: basketball at that time simply didn't yet have the popularity/broad appeal, the cultural resonance with the black American population, nor the perceived potential to provide a means of improving life circumstances. There were not millions upon millions of black youths playing basketball on playgrounds all across urban America with dreams of making it big in the 1930's and early 40's. That would come later.

These guys like Schayes (yes, predominantly white) were indeed among the best of the best---not just the best of the whites---in that time period. How can that account for so little?

Tell me: Where is Tarzan Cooper on your list?

Assuming he isn't, why not? He played only 20 years before Schayes, and was the best player on the entire planet.
Of course he was also a 6'4 center, but that didn't matter back then.

Note: Don't say "Not in NBA". If being the best in the world matters so much to you, then the only thing keeping him off your list in this project is a constraint you shouldn't be a fan of.

The point is this: Basketball is 120 years old, and the NBA only covers the last 70 years of it. For the prior half century, there were always "best players in the world" because the moment the sport is invented, someone in the room is the best in the world. It is therefore essentially impossible to have a coherent viewpoint that is impressed simply with someone being among the best in any era. We always judge these things by how mature the sport is.

If you personally judge the '50s to be mature enough to vote Schayes here, okay, but it's far from a given.

trex_8063 wrote:If I can make another analogous comparison to an entirely different field......
Orson Welles was a genius as a film-maker. His flare for unraveling a story, his use of set designs, as well as lighting, camera angles, camera motions, varied depth of field lenses, and other innovative employments of cinematography to help set mood/tone, develop a scene, or otherwise distinguish his film from nearly everything else being made at the time.......well, again: he was a genius. In the medium of film he was one of the greatest artists of his era.

To a non-studied casual movie-goer, his techniques may not seem overly special (maybe even routine)......because they've been mimicked or augmented by hundreds of film-makers over several decades since his time. The film-making community and organizations, however, haven't lost sight of his contributions. He's still renowned as one of the most influential writer/directors of all-time, and some of his movies (like Citizen Kane, The Third Man, or Touch of Evil) are still perceived as some of the most innovative and influential (and best) films of all-time. And rightly so, imo.

Perhaps I'm being overly nostalgic, but I feel the basketball giants should be honored similarly. Is all this "era portability" not being blatantly dismissive of them? And how far are we going to take it? With Schayes for instance, suppose we "conclude" that he would only be an average player (and highly unlikely he could be better than a borderline All-Star) in the modern league.......so where does that leave us? Are we then going to declare players like Al Horford, Al Jefferson, Jamal Crawford, Ty Lawson----guys who have likely never once been a top 10 player (sometimes not even top 20) in any given year, and whom will be largely forgotten except by the most devoted and studious of fans within the next 25 years----should ALL be ranked higher all-time than Dolph Schayes (who was a top 8 player in the game for more than a decade solid)?....because hey, they might all be more effective players than he could manage in the modern game.

I think your issue here is that you're trying to conflate different standards into one list, and to be honest this is not only a common problems, but something I've seen a lot in this project.

If we made a list about the most era dominant players in history, I'd have already voted for Schayes.
If we made a list about the most Hall-worthy players in history, I'd have already voted for Schayes.
If we made a list about the most influential players in history, I may have already voted for Schayes.

But it is wrong to come to a list like this and think, "But X simply has to be on here because he deserves to be honored whenever we have an all-time great discussion."

One thing I'll also note with artists like Orson Welles, and also with scientists like Albert Einstein:

We judge artists and scientists primarily for their ability to make a breakthrough that no one's made before, but this is not how we judge most workers. For most people it's about what they can bring reliably day in and day out.

NBA teams decide who they want based on what that guy can do to help them win. If the player's creativity leads to wins through innovation that's great, but it's only one way to skin a cat.

Nash's career, for example, is now over and we're getting beautiful eulogies talking about how aesthetically pleasing his game was and how influential the offense he led was. That stuff is wonderful, and it ties into why I like him so much, but none of it makes him a better player than Tim "doing the same stuff guys always did" Duncan from the perspective of actually helping teams win games.

Doctor MJ wrote:Tell me: Where is Tarzan Cooper on your list?

I don't know enough about him to have much of an opinion. About all I know of him is what's summed up in a Wikipedia entry.
Although even if I did know more of him, I'm skeptical that he'd even be within sniffing distance of the top 100. Era portability is only a small consideration for me; I do indeed pay much more attention to in-era dominance. But I also consider the strength of the era, and have mentioned this multiple times.

There is quite a wide bit of difference between the way pro basketball looked in '47 to how it looked ~'55 or '56 (less than a decade later). Based on that difference and on his meh longevity, Joe Fulks is approximately a fringe top 200 player to me (even though he was likely one of the top 2-3 players in the league for a couple years there), while Schayes gets my serious consideration NOW.

And I'm inclined to assume "pro" ball in the 1930's was even less competitive than the BAA. And thus, I don't think Cooper would rate particularly high with me. tbh, I'd like to have him on my list somewhere (I do try to maintain a pretty extensive list). Presently, I don't think I know enough about him to formulate any sort of meaningful opinion. Can only rate what you know, you know? (and it's not for lack of looking; but unfortunately there's next to nothing of substance that exists of Cooper and his peers)

Doctor MJ wrote:I think your issue here is that you're trying to conflate different standards into one list, and to be honest this is not only a common problems, but something I've seen a lot in this project.

If we made a list about the most era dominant players in history, I'd have already voted for Schayes.
If we made a list about the most Hall-worthy players in history, I'd have already voted for Schayes.
If we made a list about the most influential players in history, I may have already voted for Schayes.

I guess I'd need some clarification on what you mean by "Hall-worthy", but otherwise these are all valuable (though not equally so) considerations for all-time ranking to me.

trex_8063 wrote:There is quite a wide bit of difference between the way pro basketball looked in '47 to how it looked ~'55 or '56 (less than a decade later).

Schayes began his career in 49-50. And the league now looks even more different than the separation between 46-47 and 49-50. Food for thought.

Obviously, stars are frequently able to bridge era gaps at least to one extent or another. We saw Wilt/Kareem, Kareem/Hakeem, Hakeem/Shaq, etc. It depends on the talent, though. There are meaningful, substantial differences in the nature of the game, more so between then and now as opposed to the last 30 years of basketball. The game evolves; sometimes in so doing, it leaves behind those who were great before the most recent changes.

A lot of the arguments you used in an attempt to counter Doc's points are similar to the ones being used to support a portability argument. And you've also slightly changed your narrative from "we should exclude portability" to "it matters only a little to me."

What's to say that the BAA or 30s basketball are any less admissible under the criteria you outlined than the 50s, without using the same arguments you're dismissing for 50s-to-10s portability/competitive nature?

Though I don't expect him to get in for awhile, I guess I won't stop now. Vote: Dolph Schayes.

#44 all-time in MVP Award Shares (even though MVP wasn't awarded his first SIX seasons in the league).
#24 in RealGM RPoY Shares.
#29 all-time in career rs PER.
#13 all-time in career playoff PER.
#24 all-time in career rs WS/48.
#15 all-time in career playoff WS/48.
#26 all-time in career rs Win Shares.
#44 all-time in career playoff Win Shares.
12x NBA All-Star (tied for #14 all-time)
12x All-NBA (tied for #6 all-time)
**6x All-NBA 1st team (tied for #16 all-time)
1x NBA Champion as clear best player on the team (had amazing playoffs that year, too)

That's the snap-shot. The rest has been covered ad nauseam in the last two threads; don't really have the time nor inclination to say it again.

trex_8063 wrote:Though I don't expect him to get in for awhile, I guess I won't stop now. Vote: Dolph Schayes.

Do your thing man. I think I voted for Isiah for like, a dozen threads in a row.

tsherkin wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:There is quite a wide bit of difference between the way pro basketball looked in '47 to how it looked ~'55 or '56 (less than a decade later).

Schayes began his career in 49-50.

I know; Schayes had his peak/best seasons from '54-'58, so I picked a year or two in the middle of that to compare to '47 ('47 and '48 being the only particularly noteworthy seasons from Joe Fulks).

tsherkin wrote:And the league now looks even more different than the separation between 46-47 and 49-50. Food for thought.

No question about it, not even close if we're just talking about that 3-year span. This has never been argued (not by me, anyway). Even a 10-year gap: difference from '47 to '57 is perhaps not as large as the gap from '57 to present day. I noted previously that if not for the big difference between the modern era game and the 1950's, Schayes would have easily made the top 25 (and had a case for top 20).

tsherkin wrote:A lot of the arguments you used in an attempt to counter Doc's points are similar to the ones being used to support a portability argument. And you've also slightly changed your narrative from "we should exclude portability" to "it matters only a little to me."

No, here you are putting words in my mouth. I have not changed my narrative--->You find one quote of mine and show it to me where I said "we should exclude portability" from consideration. You're gonna have a long search because I'm pretty sure I NEVER said that. I'm even reasonably certain that I never said I don't use it at all (closest I may have come was to say "It doesn't factor much into my criteria" or similar).
I encouraged that everyone "use caution" with this criteria, because it's pure speculation, with absolutely no objective means of substantiating it. I've criticized it for being by far the "noisiest" of all potential criterion (and haven't heard that denied either, fwiw). I've said I'm of the opinion that it should not be a MAJOR consideration within a criteria. I've said that for me it's a minimal consideration. But to my knowledge I never said "exclude it".

tsherkin wrote:What's to say that the BAA or 30s basketball are any less admissible under the criteria you outlined than the 50s, without using the same arguments you're dismissing for 50s-to-10s portability/competitive nature?

It's not that it's not inadmissible (another thing I didn't say). I DO consider BAA accomplishments. I DO have guys like Joe Fulks, Bob Davies, Maz Zaslofsky, and Bobby Wanzer (also Carl Braun, Jim Pollard) on my ATL (in some of those cases it's to a large degree based on their BAA days). As to the 1930's, it's not that it's inadmissible to me......I simply have no relevant info to admit into consideration: There are no stat-sheets or box scores I'm aware of; no team records (no official league, even); the only video I'm aware of is a couple minutes worth of the original 1930's Celtics doing some practice drills.......very little even in the way of anecdotal info other than the occasional vague "that guy was really good" tidbits. Give me some more substantial info to consider, and I WILL consider it.

So I'm not sure where you got the impression this stuff was not admissible. If you're asking why BAA accomplishments (and to a greater degree "pro" accomplishments from the 1930's) don't carry as much weight as later accomplishments, I don't know how many more times I must say it, or how much more clearly I need to say it, but I DO temper career accomplishments against strength of the era. And I consider the late 40's the weakest era (by far) in the recorded history of the BAA/NBA.
And while I don't know, I assume the 1930's were probably---at least to a small degree---even LESS competitive.

trex_8063 wrote:No, here you are putting words in my mouth. I have not changed my narrative--->

You haven't said it directly, but you've vociferously argued against it's consideration, to the point of directly saying it engendered recency bias and in the process of spending a GREAT deal of time trying to diminish the relevance in the #44 thread while voting for Schayes.

It's a semantic distinction between the amount of effort you put into your attempt to counter the inclusion of portability and saying it should be excluded. You can freely substitute "exclude" with "dramatically reduce the relevance of" if it makes you feel better, but the net truth is still the same: you didn't like that era portability was used against Schayes' candidacy. Which is fine; as I said several times, I respect that you hold that stance even if I disagree... but I do hold the position that portability is relevant, so naturally, your thoughtful critique thereof registers.

I'm not trying to frame you as unreasonable or anything, trex, I'm just discussing what's actually happened in-thread, that's all. You didn't spend a ton of time building up Schayes' credibility compared to his peers competing for the spot, you spent most of it discussing his in-era resume and then battling the notion that these achievements shouldn't be viewed differently compared to players who did their thing in a wildly different league environment. For example, yes, it's true that Schayes was one of the best of the much-smaller pool of players in the league during his hey-day, when there was a significant period without full integration in a time when basketball wasn't nearly as possible as it is today and in which the rules and fundamental nature of the differed on a profoundly significant level. But you're telling us that these factors should be entirely (or in concession to your dislike of the "exclude" terminology, "mostly") removed from relevance.

With that, I do not agree. There are contextual differences, and if you don't want to deal with them, that's fine... but then we should do era-specific lists, because there is no other way to properly account for the difference in meaning between achievements in one era and the next.

Just a quick response from the last thread....

Texas Chuck ... My bad. I misunderstood your post.

trex ... In regards to Arizin and Schayes, I see your point. I do view Arizin as one who has a shot that at least resembles what we see to day versus Schayes and his set shot. There's an era penalty that I apply more for that than I would other players even if they played during the same time. Differing criteria, so agree to disagree. I generally have skipped over the posts in regards to how he would do in the modern league since the way he shoots the basketball just isn't done. But I know that's not the basis if your argument since it sounds like you value era dominance. We just penalize eras differently, and maybe penalize certain attributes differently.

tsherkin wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:No, here you are putting words in my mouth. I have not changed my narrative--->

You haven't said it directly, but you've vociferously argued against it's consideration, to the point of directly saying it engendered recency bias and in the process of spending a GREAT deal of time trying to diminish the relevance in the #44 thread while voting for Schayes.

I've vociferously argued against the HEAVY use of portability speculation because a) it is the sole factor undermining the candidacy of someone like Schayes (my pick), b) it pretty necessarily MUST be given heavy consideration in order to sufficiently undermine his candidacy for this spot, which I find a bit problematic given c) it has the potential to be wildly inaccurate.

If there were other points or other factors which filled all of those criteria, rest assured I'd vociferously argue against making excessive use them as well. As it turns out, there are no other such factors for me to focus my energies on.

tsherkin wrote:With that, I do not agree. There are contextual differences, and if you don't want to deal with them, that's fine... but then we should do era-specific lists, because there is no other way to properly account for the difference in meaning between achievements in one era and the next.

This is utterly untrue. You can simply weight the achievements differently. This is what I do (which I have stated in one way or another at least 3-4 times now). How you choose to weight them is up to you, and it's certainly no more subjective/no less accurate than era portability. Upon reflection, this can certainly have its inaccuracies, too; although I don't think it's as fraught with that potential as trying to hypothetically map one's career over multiple eras during which he never actually played.

FWIW

I mostly share trex's perspective on era portability. In particular when people try and project a career into a different era without realizing just how differently guys would actually play if they were born 25, 35, 50 years later. I think it requires way too much guesswork to be of much value for me. Maybe some of you feel more confident in your ability to project than I do.

tsherkin wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:No, here you are putting words in my mouth. I have not changed my narrative--->

You haven't said it directly, but you've vociferously argued against it's consideration, to the point of directly saying it engendered recency bias and in the process of spending a GREAT deal of time trying to diminish the relevance in the #44 thread while voting for Schayes.

It's a semantic distinction between the amount of effort you put into your attempt to counter the inclusion of portability and saying it should be excluded. You can freely substitute "exclude" with "dramatically reduce the relevance of" if it makes you feel better, but the net truth is still the same: you didn't like that era portability was used against Schayes' candidacy. Which is fine; as I said several times, I respect that you hold that stance even if I disagree... but I do hold the position that portability is relevant, so naturally, your thoughtful critique thereof registers.

I'm not trying to frame you as unreasonable or anything, trex, I'm just discussing what's actually happened in-thread, that's all. You didn't spend a ton of time building up Schayes' credibility compared to his peers competing for the spot, you spent most of it discussing his in-era resume and then battling the notion that these achievements shouldn't be viewed differently compared to players who did their thing in a wildly different league environment. For example, yes, it's true that Schayes was one of the best of the much-smaller pool of players in the league during his hey-day, when there was a significant period without full integration in a time when basketball wasn't nearly as possible as it is today and in which the rules and fundamental nature of the differed on a profoundly significant level. But you're telling us that these factors should be entirely (or in concession to your dislike of the "exclude" terminology, "mostly") removed from relevance.

With that, I do not agree. There are contextual differences, and if you don't want to deal with them, that's fine... but then we should do era-specific lists, because there is no other way to properly account for the difference in meaning between achievements in one era and the next.

I’ll jump in here as a Schayes advocate with the qualification that I can only speak for myself and anything else is guesswork (whether others agree).

Firstly everyone has their own (favoured) criteria for GOAT type lists, inevitably leading to different results. Which is fine/good (so long as it is acknowledged so people aren’t talking at cross purposes and just end up shouting at each other – as might happen elsewhere).

Secondly internal consistency is something very important to strive for (and a huge reason why I argued vehemently against Isiah where he went). It’s difficult anyway with the learning aspect of the project in trying to keep an open mind. But in particular it’s hardest when comparing across eras. I absolutely get that basketball has changed. As you’ve said above separate era lists make sense (I mooted that, perhaps in combination with position specific, as a possible pre-project project iirc, though obv not done to this level). Particularly where we’re talking pre-shot clock and pre-black stars.

All that said ...
The reason Cooper et al aren’t in here (aside from this being an NBA/ABA list) is that there isn’t the data (quantitative or qualitative) to make anything like meaningful comparisons with “modern” pros. Is there any way of fairly comparing Dutch Dehnert, or Marques Haynes, Tom Barlow or Soup Cable to say Robert Parish, Sidney Moncrief, Kevin Johnson or Bill Sharman? Could we even meaningfully compare them with one another? I’d suggest not, with differences in competition, scheduling etc, and as above the lack of information (even same exact time, NBL, wartime comparisons might be dicey).

Comparing across eras is tough enough. With the game evolving, the potential talent pool changing, the expansion of the league etc. And it’s hard to be consistent. The tendency isn’t to launch campaigns for pre-shot clock guys like Bob Feerick, in part because of uncertainties about the level of play (and because they’d be futile, and in this instance because he doesn’t have longevity, doubts about NBL eligibility etc). If there are doubts, the tendency is to leave it. Neil Johnston for instance has an epic boxscore peak, before and after the clock, but aside from longevity concerns, he didn’t always win, and somewhat-related potential D concerns and not lasting into the black star era mean he probably won’t get a serious push.

But the Schayes case is different. There’s stuff about his conditioning (from when he was a coach) that said he was fitter than the players he was coaching. He probably peaked post-shot clock. He’s got some solid years going into the black star era (admittedly a disconcerting drop around that time, though age looks to be a factor). He’s got a pure shooting touch unrivalled by big men up until Dirk came along. He’s got longevity beyond the norm for his era. You can factor in beliefs about weak eras and marginally weighted portability arguments and still feel confident about Schayes here.

I think 50s players are having to exceed a higher bar (based on their standing within their era) than others to get consideration, for pretty much everyone (Schayes advocates included). But as Trex has said going too far into time machine stuff adds a lot of guesswork. It also raises questions about eras and indirectly about 60s guys that are already in. For instance recall that Russell, in combination with Ramsey, had a marginal impact on Boston’s SRS upon their arrival in ’57, Russell’s arrival didn’t initially much move the needle arriving in an era when, the argument goes, people shot primitively and inaccurately, had limited incentive to hone perimeter shots, in a nearly exclusively white game. We have Russell at 3 (with a significant contingent pushing for him at one). I’m not saying this is a watertight case (Russell continued to be very productive later, though his last really serious MVP consideration came in ’65) or anything but can you see where it might be argued there’s a disconnect there?

john248 wrote:Just a quick response from the last thread....

Texas Chuck ... My bad. I misunderstood your post.

trex ... In regards to Arizin and Schayes, I see your point. I do view Arizin as one who has a shot that at least resembles what we see to day versus Schayes and his set shot. There's an era penalty that I apply more for that than I would other players even if they played during the same time. Differing criteria, so agree to disagree. I generally have skipped over the posts in regards to how he would do in the modern league since the way he shoots the basketball just isn't done. But I know that's not the basis if your argument since it sounds like you value era dominance. We just penalize eras differently, and maybe penalize certain attributes differently.

I'm not comparing schayes to dirk, but the bolded statement pretty much fits the way he shoots as well. There are plenty of examples, but I go back to this game winner he had against the magic in 2012:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNMQ9-1ZBJ0[/youtube]

The guy shot off one foot on a turnaround banking it high off the glass. No one is being taught that. Now, as his unorthodox shooting became more popular, players have tried to emulate it, but it's far from the norm. Schayes was so effective with his set shot because of the high arc on his release. I again feel that speculating on how he'd perform in today's game is really subjective given the large gap in eras, but I think he had the skills to adapt offensively. I'll leave it at that.

It's interesting that the same people, who voted for Russell/Oscar/Wilt/West/Baylor now are using "different era" card against Schayes. I wonder if you all realize that difference between Schayes' era and 60s was much smaller than between 60s and now (and in fact players from pre shot clock era were doing fine - or even good if we adjust for age - in shot clock era, even in the 60s). Or that Schayes played 7 (!) seasons in the same league as Bill Russell and was multiple all NBA player and in top 10 MVP voting during those years - and that includes a couple in the 60s.

Clyde Frazier wrote:

john248 wrote:Just a quick response from the last thread....

Texas Chuck ... My bad. I misunderstood your post.

trex ... In regards to Arizin and Schayes, I see your point. I do view Arizin as one who has a shot that at least resembles what we see to day versus Schayes and his set shot. There's an era penalty that I apply more for that than I would other players even if they played during the same time. Differing criteria, so agree to disagree. I generally have skipped over the posts in regards to how he would do in the modern league since the way he shoots the basketball just isn't done. But I know that's not the basis if your argument since it sounds like you value era dominance. We just penalize eras differently, and maybe penalize certain attributes differently.

I'm not comparing schayes to dirk, but the bolded statement pretty much fits the way he shoots as well. There are plenty of examples, but I go back to this game winner he had against the magic in 2012:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNMQ9-1ZBJ0[/youtube]

The guy shot off one foot on a turnaround banking it high off the glass. No one is being taught that. Now, as his unorthodox shooting became more popular, players have tried to emulate it, but it's far from the norm. Schayes was so effective with his set shot because of the high arc on his release. I again feel that speculating on how he'd perform in today's game is really subjective given the large gap in eras, but I think he had the skills to adapt offensively. I'll leave it at that.

I'd see your point in regards to Dirk's shot if that was the only shot he took, but it isn't unless you're implying that Dirk shoots off of 1 foot every time down the court. With Schayes, we're talking about a shot that no one is trying to copy. This is in contrast to Dirk's shot that people are trying to emulate. So for me at least, I go back to why that the set shot isn't seen anymore which is that it's simply much easier to defend and less accurate. One is a shot that takes longer to load up, with a low release point, and where the mechanics make it less accurate and easier to defend than what we are currently seeing.

john248 wrote:

Clyde Frazier wrote:

john248 wrote:Just a quick response from the last thread....

Texas Chuck ... My bad. I misunderstood your post.

trex ... In regards to Arizin and Schayes, I see your point. I do view Arizin as one who has a shot that at least resembles what we see to day versus Schayes and his set shot. There's an era penalty that I apply more for that than I would other players even if they played during the same time. Differing criteria, so agree to disagree. I generally have skipped over the posts in regards to how he would do in the modern league since the way he shoots the basketball just isn't done. But I know that's not the basis if your argument since it sounds like you value era dominance. We just penalize eras differently, and maybe penalize certain attributes differently.

I'm not comparing schayes to dirk, but the bolded statement pretty much fits the way he shoots as well. There are plenty of examples, but I go back to this game winner he had against the magic in 2012:

Spoiler:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNMQ9-1ZBJ0[/youtube]

The guy shot off one foot on a turnaround banking it high off the glass. No one is being taught that. Now, as his unorthodox shooting became more popular, players have tried to emulate it, but it's far from the norm. Schayes was so effective with his set shot because of the high arc on his release. I again feel that speculating on how he'd perform in today's game is really subjective given the large gap in eras, but I think he had the skills to adapt offensively. I'll leave it at that.

I'd see your point in regards to Dirk's shot if that was the only shot he took, but it isn't. Unless you're implying that Dirk shoots off of 1 foot every time down the court.

Actually, my point was that schayes didn't just take set shots. He used his range to get to the basket, hit shots off balance, and even had a floater in his game. As for dirk, sure, he can hit an open jumper as well as anyone, but the majority of his effectiveness comes from unorthodox shooting motions, pivots, etc.

Clyde Frazier wrote:

john248 wrote:

Clyde Frazier wrote:
I'm not comparing schayes to dirk, but the bolded statement pretty much fits the way he shoots as well. There are plenty of examples, but I go back to this game winner he had against the magic in 2012:

Spoiler:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNMQ9-1ZBJ0[/youtube]

The guy shot off one foot on a turnaround banking it high off the glass. No one is being taught that. Now, as his unorthodox shooting became more popular, players have tried to emulate it, but it's far from the norm. Schayes was so effective with his set shot because of the high arc on his release. I again feel that speculating on how he'd perform in today's game is really subjective given the large gap in eras, but I think he had the skills to adapt offensively. I'll leave it at that.

I'd see your point in regards to Dirk's shot if that was the only shot he took, but it isn't. Unless you're implying that Dirk shoots off of 1 foot every time down the court.

Actually, my point was that schayes didn't just take set shots. He used his range to get to the basket, hit shots off balance, and even had a floater in his game. As for dirk, sure, he can hit an open jumper as well as anyone, but the majority of his effectiveness comes from unorthodox shooting motions, pivots, etc.

Well, we're pretty much in agreement here. I've mentioned in the previous thread that (at least from what I can tell) it seemed Schayes used his shot to compliment his drive to basket, able to finish with both hands, good FTR. But I still can't support a set shot player at this point, and a player who was said to have no jumping ability. So while I see a fundamentally sound dribbler for his size which created an advantage for him on that end, his shooting style still holds him back (for me at least). I don't know where I'd rank Schayes just yet.

FWIW, I've haven't been too active in the early NBA votes aside from Pettit and West.

Doctor MJ wrote:Tell me: Where is Tarzan Cooper on your [trex_8063's] list?

Assuming he isn't, why not? He played only 20 years before Schayes, and was the best player on the entire planet. Of course he was also a 6'4 center, but that didn't matter back then.

Note: Don't say "Not in NBA". If being the best in the world matters so much to you, then the only thing keeping him off your list in this project is a constraint you shouldn't be a fan of.

The point is this: Basketball is 120 years old, and the NBA only covers the last 70 years of it. For the prior half century, there were always "best players in the world" because the moment the sport is invented, someone in the room is the best in the world. It is therefore essentially impossible to have a coherent viewpoint that is impressed simply with someone being among the best in any era. We always judge these things by how mature the sport is.

If you personally judge the '50s to be mature enough to vote Schayes here, okay, but it's far from a given.

I don't see that at all as an easy cop out. This project is NBA/ABA only. Of course the scope of the project would change dramatically if we included the entire history of pro basketball. And if we did, I think that would really resemble more of an "evolution of the game" project considering those eras prior to the NBA were largely undeveloped.

Even if we take pre-shot clock era of the 50s down a notch compared to 55 to early 60s of schayes' career, he still comes out looking good. I'd say there's a sharp enough contrast between that era and pre-NBA to still hold his accomplishments in high regard.

We can all weigh strength of eras differently, but putting a player of his stature outside the top 50 doesn't seem warranted to me. Almost seems like an entire era is being written off as insignificant, and with schayes specifically, he didn't really fall off in the early 60s. He was just nearing the end of his career and got old.