RealGM

Dr Spaceman wrote:.

Mutnt wrote:.

RSCD_3 wrote:.

Quotatious wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

drza wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

yoyoboy wrote:.

RebelWithoutACause wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:.

Gregoire wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

The-Power wrote:.

SKF_85 wrote:.

Narigo wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

PCProductions wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

theonlyclutch wrote:.

BallerHogger wrote:.

michievous wrote:.

JordansBulls wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

thizznation wrote:.

SideshowBob wrote:.

fpliii wrote:.

ronnymac2 wrote:In the playoffs, Penny helped ORL to historic offensive dominance in the first 2 rounds of the playoffs (120+ ORTG in both series), then went up against the GOAT perimeter defense (Jordan and Pippen) and dropped 25.5 points on 55.2%TS despite being the only ball-handler and crap shooting around him. Penny and Shaq were again the only players to play well.

Penny and Orlando battled injury in 1997 but then faced Miami (#1 defense, -6.1) in the first round. Penny dropped 31 points on 57.5%TS. Over the last 3 games in the series, Hardaway dropped 38.7 points, 8.3 rebounds, 4 assists, 2.3 steals, 1.7 blocks, 1.3 turnovers, 61.8%TS, 35.8 USG%, 130 individual ORTG. This was a defense that did a better job defending Michael Jordan than pretty much any defense ever did (MJ's stats: 30.2 points on 47.5%TS in the ECF).

Narigo wrote:1. 1972 Walt Frazier
Im taking 72 over 70 because he was better scorer in the playoffs. Led the Knicks to the NBA finals without Willis Reed. Averaged 23/8/8 in the finals on 61ts%. He is also one of the best point guard defenders ever.

2. 1969 Willis Reed
Im taking Reed over centers over Gilmore and Howard because imo he is a more capable scorer than both. Reed can shoot from the mid range area and he can also pretty good in the low post area as well. Probably not as good as Howard on defense but hes still above average on that end.

3. 1974 Bob Lanier
Could do it all. Has a good hookshot in the lowpost and has a solid jumper. He was a really solid passer.
He was a excellent defender that anchored a better defense team than the Boston Celtics that had Hondo and Prime Cowens and the Bullets who had Unseld and Hayes with terrible support.

trex_8063 wrote:1st ballot: Elgin Baylor '61
To some degree the volume vs. efficiency considerations of Baylor (among others from this era) should be viewed with a bit of leniency, imo, as efficiency and "finding a good shot" just wasn't on anyone's radar in the early 1960's. Any way you slice it, though, Baylor was an excellent (if not quite elite) scorer, and underrated playmaker for the SF position, as well as a GOAT-level rebounder for his position, and likely a better defender than some other perimeter players on the table presently (e.g. Nash, Harden).

Baylor '61 rs per 100 possession estimates: 31.1 pts, 17.75 reb, 4.55 ast @ +2.91% rTS. 28.2 PER, .227 WS/48 in 42.9 mpg
Baylor '61 playoff per 100 possession estimates: 32.5 pts, 13.1 reb, 3.9 ast @ +6.89% rTS (53.83% TS, which would be a little above average even by today's standards). 28.0 PER, .248 WS/48 in 45.0 mpg

Some additional stuff about prime Baylor in general (copied from prior thread):

Spoiler:

Here's some more info regarding Baylor's impact, draw your own conclusions.....

In '58 (before Baylor), the Lakers were 19-53 (.264) with an SRS of -5.78.

In '59 they obtain rookie Elgin Baylor (and he's the only relevant transaction that occurred), and improve to 33-39 (.458) and -1.42 SRS (improvement of 14 wins and +4.36 SRS). They would also make it to the finals by first defeating a -1.36 SRS Detroit team 2-1, and then defeating the +2.89 SRS defending champ St. Louis Hawks 4-2.
wrt to how that improvement was managed......
Yeah, we always tend to think of Baylor as primarily an offensive player; but there's some to suggest he had a significant impact defensively, too. His reputation is mostly as a "decent" (but not great) defender, though I wonder if perhaps his prowess on the glass reduced a lot of easy second-chance opportunities for opponents (he was 3rd in the league in rebounds right off the bat in his rookie season).
Because in terms of rORTG, the Lakers in '58 (before Baylor) were -0.8 (ranked 6th of 8), and in rDRTG were +4.5 (8th of 8, and +2.5 to the 7th place team!). In '59, their rORTG improves to +0.6 (a jump of 1.4, up to 4th of 8); but rDRTG improves to +1.7 (a big jump of 2.8, from a distant last place to 6th of 8).
The team is 33-37 (.471) with him, 0-2 without him.


In '60, an aging Vern Mikkelsen has retired, aging Larry Foust misses some games and is playing a reduced role, too. Meanwhile the offensive primacy of the wildly inefficient (even for the era) Hot Rod Hundley increases, as well as a marginally increase in role for the even worse Slick Leonard (ridiculously bad 37.3% TS.....that's even -9% relative to league avg; similar to someone shooting 44% TS or so today; you'd have to be an elite defender to get ANY playing time at all today, and no way would you be getting 28+ mpg and be 6th on the team in FGA/g.....goes to show how efficiency just wasn't on the radar yet). And they also obtained rookie Rudy LaRusso (who would eventually become a pretty good player, but is a fairly inefficient scorer in his rookie season). They also obtained the somewhat inefficient Frank Selvy as well as an aging 6'11" Ray Felix in mid-season trades.
Anyway, their rORTG falls to -3.4 (8th of 8), though their defense continues to improve to +0.1 rDRTG (4th of 8), as they finish 25-50 (-4.14 SRS).
The team is 23-47 (.329) with him, 2-3 (.400) without him.


In '61, we have the arrival of rookie Jerry West. He's not yet the player he would become, but nonetheless is the clear 2nd-best behind Baylor. This affords them to reduce the role of Hundley and Leonard in the backcourt. rORTG improves to -1.3 (7th of 8), rDRTG continues to improve to -1.2 (4th of 8).
The team is 34-39 (.466) with him, 2-4 (.333) without him.


In '62, West is now a legit superstar, too. Slick Leonard is gone, and Hundley's role is further diminished; LaRusso continues to improve and get more efficient. Non-surprisingly, the team rORTG improves to +1.4 (3rd of 9). Critics might argue Baylor missing games contributed to this improvement in rORTG, but I'm more inclined to think it's the additive effects of a) the improvements in West and LaRusso, b) the loss of Leonard, and c) the reduced role of Hundley; especially in light of the following.......
Baylor misses 32 games, not due to injury, but rather to military service: he's only able to play if he can get a weekend pass to quickly travel to the game, play, and then come back. So he likely barely gets to practice, and yet still establishes himself among the league's elite---->Per 100 possession estimates: 33.6 pts, 16.3 reb, 4.1 ast @ +1.34% rTS in a whopping 44.4 mpg.
The team is 37-11 (.771) with him, 17-15 (.531) without him. Some of his missed games may have overlapped with West's missed games, but the thing is: West only missed 5 games total that year. And NO ONE else in their main rotation missed more than 2 games all year.
They make it to the finals and take the Russell Celtics to 7 games. Baylor averages 40.6 ppg, 17.9 rpg, and 3.7 apg in the series @ 51.0% TS (+3.1 rTS). In a close game 5 victory, Baylor logs [what I think is still an NBA finals record] 61 pts (and I believe 22 reb as well).

EDIT: I'd also add this quote from The Rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor....

.....Fans specifically came to see him [Baylor]. When he was on military duty and playing sporadically, they called the box office before games to ask if he would be appearing. The Lakers front office had run figures calculating Baylor’s ability to sell tickets, and they determined that in games when he did not play, the Lakers drew an average of 2,000 fewer fans. That amounted to approximately $6,000 per game, or $200,000 over the course of a season….

Going back to our agreement that impact = goodness + fit + utilization......I don't think Baylor was utilized ideally (something that I think is unfortunately true for MANY old era players). Yet there's still several indicators of substantial impact circa his peak, especially in '62.

Correctly utilized, I think Baylor would be the best SF not named Lebron or Kevin Durant today: a roughly Carmelo Anthony level of scorer but a better playmaker, a roughly neutral level defender, and possibly the best rebounding SF outside of Shawn Marion (roughly equal to peak Lebron in this regard).


2nd ballot: James Harden '15
Will point out some of his features in comparison to Nash.
Harden's probably the best pure scorer in the league today except for a healthy Durant (better than Nash in this regard). His defense is improved to where I think we'd have to declare '15 Harden marginally better than Nash. He's also a little better rebounder, even relative to position. So is Nash's brilliance as floor-general and defense-warping playmaker enough to off-set all of that? idk, but my hunch is no, not under today's rules anyway.
Admittedly that last statement is another thing on my mind: given his style of play, I don't think there's anyone who benefits more from the no hand-checking rule than James Harden (though to be fair, Nash benefits, too). tbh, if not for that consideration, I think Harden probably should have been voted in 3-4 places ago.

Ultimately, I feel his size, durability, and combination of attack the rim (scoring in high volumes) and play-making for others puts him touch above Nash.


3rd ballot: Steve Nash '07/Anthony Davis '15
Nash is an offensive genius who headed some of the greatest offensive teams of the last 25 years, posting in '07 the 2nd-best scaled PI ORAPM seen in the years '98-'00, '02-'12. He's got a case for the GOAT shooter, shooting respectively from 0-3 ft, 3-10 ft, 10-16 ft, 16-23 ft, 3pt range: 67.6%, 55.4%, 50.0%, 52.2%, and 45.5% (and that's with a smaller proportion of his treys being assisted than even '15 Curry). Also 89.9% from the FT-line. Taking what the defense would give, that's utterly insane efficiency (65.4% TS) on moderate-high volume (26.4 pts/100 poss), while racking up 16.5 ast/100 (which is +1.6 to even '15 Chris Paul).
Defensive concerns are the primary reason I don't rank him higher. Though I'll say this for him: he wasn't dumb, he did try, and he was frequently among the league leaders in charges taken (at least one season where he led the league, iirc).

Anthony Davis is one I'm thinking more on, and def believe he deserves some traction: a 6'10" guy who can shoot in the mid-range, has some handles and some isolation game, who can score fairly large volumes on elite efficiency (very elite, when you consider not only shooting efficiency, but also the extreme low turnover rate)--->and he continued to provide elite volume on elite efficiency in four playoff games against the #1 defense. He also gets you some boards, defends the pnr and on switches and also protects the rim.
idk, I may end up giving him this spot to himself.

bastillon wrote:Kevin McHale is getting incredibly underrated, probably because of his RS stats not being very flashy. But if you look at what this guy brought to the table in the PS... and even his PS numbers are a little bit "deflated" beccause he was playing with Parish and Bird who had a lot of usage. McHale's scoring in particular seems very underrated. This is a top-6 scorer ever among bigs (Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Barkley, Dirk). Dude was a walking 25 ppg 65% TS in the PS. He was scoring against everybody. Twin Towers, Kareem, Pistons frontline, didn't matter. As a matter of fact, I believe McHale was a better scorer than Larry Bird himself. If you look at their PS production series by series, you can see that Bird is highly inconsistent meanwhile McHale always picks up the slack when Bird struggles, and handles additional usage very well.

I would even go as far as saying that McHale in 86 PS/87 RS/88 PS was on the level of peak Charles Barkley.

The guy who is getting very overrated is Frazier. He was never an MVP level player. We're talking about a guy who is a great addition to a team that's already good. But this isn't the same type of impact we would see from a guy like Jerry West or Oscar in the 70s (let alone in their primes). Frazier was good, certainly performed well in the PS, but he wasn't even close to MVP-caliber player. Those Knicks were built more like Pistons 2004.

Baylor is also getting very overrated. You have to look at Lakers performance with and without Baylor. He wasn't doing a lot of impact. Baylor is a case of boxscore stats overrating actual performance.

I'd actually like to see more discussion about Penny (a lot better than Frazier) and Mourning as well.

70sFan wrote:1st ballot - Karl Malone 1998
2nd ballot - Bob McAdoo 1975
3rd ballot - Elgin Baylor 1961

First two are explained before. I'm thinking about Nash and Baylor. Very, very close, but give me Elgin. In 1961 Lakers were bad team outside Baylor and rookie West (who wasn't the same superstar-West yet). They had bad record in RS (36-43), but keep in mind that in 1961 36-43 is not the same as today. This is still playoff team, anchored by Elgin.
This year, Baylor peaked as a rebounder. He's clearly the GOAT rebounding SF at his peak. Even better than Marion or Bird. Keep in mind that he played with LaRusso (solid rebounding PF). Elgin loved rebounding, he said it himself. He was also amazing scorer. Not the most efficient (still above league average), but look at his volume!! He's also very good passer (around Dr. J and KD level), so he was not all about scoring. One aspect of his game for me looks very underrated - defense. Everybody says he was average or above average defender. I didn't watch him, so I'm not sure about my statement, but look at this interesting fact:
- in the first round in the playoffs, Baylor faced Bailey Howell from Detroit. He was young, but averaged 23.6 ppg. on 46.9% FG and 55.2% TS. He was also 61.7 FTr that year. That's amazing when you compare this numbers to league averages. In the serie against the Lakers, his numbers dropped dramaticaly - 11.2 ppg. on 35.1% FG and 41.7% TS with 40.4% FTr. He was locked down by Baylor. Do you think that's only incident? Let's go to the second round.
- In the second round, he faced Cliff Hagan from Hawks (one of the most underrated players ever). His stats from RS: 22.1 ppg. on 44.4% FG and 50.3% TS. Well, that's not the best of his seasons, but he was still in his prime. Keep in mind how well he played in the finals against Celtics (first defense in the league): 29.4 ppg. on 50.9% FG and 58.3% TS. That's amazing efficiency!! Now, look at his numbers against Baylor's Lakers: 16.7 ppg. on 38.6% FG and 42% TS. Don't you think that's very impressive considering that he averaged at the same time 38.1 ppg?
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjNS_oYE92E&index=5&list=PLk0ojkrQDIQ6G7V9qURSy4YRm_Y6sglQI[/youtube]
Watch and enjoy!!

bastillon wrote:Kevin McHale is getting incredibly underrated, probably because of his RS stats not being very flashy. But if you look at what this guy brought to the table in the PS... and even his PS numbers are a little bit "deflated" beccause he was playing with Parish and Bird who had a lot of usage. McHale's scoring in particular seems very underrated. This is a top-6 scorer ever among bigs (Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Barkley, Dirk). Dude was a walking 25 ppg 65% TS in the PS. He was scoring against everybody. Twin Towers, Kareem, Pistons frontline, didn't matter. As a matter of fact, I believe McHale was a better scorer than Larry Bird himself. If you look at their PS production series by series, you can see that Bird is highly inconsistent meanwhile McHale always picks up the slack when Bird struggles, and handles additional usage very well.

I would even go as far as saying that McHale in 86 PS/87 RS/88 PS was on the level of peak Charles Barkley.

The guy who is getting very overrated is Frazier. He was never an MVP level player. We're talking about a guy who is a great addition to a team that's already good. But this isn't the same type of impact we would see from a guy like Jerry West or Oscar in the 70s (let alone in their primes). Frazier was good, certainly performed well in the PS, but he wasn't even close to MVP-caliber player. Those Knicks were built more like Pistons 2004.

Baylor is also getting very overrated. You have to look at Lakers performance with and without Baylor. He wasn't doing a lot of impact. Baylor is a case of boxscore stats overrating actual performance.

I'd actually like to see more discussion about Penny (a lot better than Frazier) and Mourning as well.

E-Balla wrote:

bastillon wrote:Kevin McHale is getting incredibly underrated, probably because of his RS stats not being very flashy. But if you look at what this guy brought to the table in the PS... and even his PS numbers are a little bit "deflated" beccause he was playing with Parish and Bird who had a lot of usage. McHale's scoring in particular seems very underrated. This is a top-6 scorer ever among bigs (Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Barkley, Dirk). Dude was a walking 25 ppg 65% TS in the PS. He was scoring against everybody. Twin Towers, Kareem, Pistons frontline, didn't matter. As a matter of fact, I believe McHale was a better scorer than Larry Bird himself. If you look at their PS production series by series, you can see that Bird is highly inconsistent meanwhile McHale always picks up the slack when Bird struggles, and handles additional usage very well.

I would even go as far as saying that McHale in 86 PS/87 RS/88 PS was on the level of peak Charles Barkley.

Well that's why h's not here yet. I was considering him but he never pieced a healthy regular season (he missed a decent amount of time in 86 and 88) with a top 30-40 all time postseason. His 87 RS is amazing but his postseason performance was only "good". Yeah you can say he was as good as Chuck but Chuck didn't have any durability issues like he did and he pieced together great seasons with great postseasons.

The guy who is getting very overrated is Frazier. He was never an MVP level player. We're talking about a guy who is a great addition to a team that's already good. But this isn't the same type of impact we would see from a guy like Jerry West or Oscar in the 70s (let alone in their primes). Frazier was good, certainly performed well in the PS, but he wasn't even close to MVP-caliber player. Those Knicks were built more like Pistons 2004.

36-45 before getting Walt, 43-39 his rookie year, 54-28 with him as the second option the next year (3rd in the NBA in assists), 60-22 in 70 (8+ SRS) and 4th in MVP voting. I'm not sure if you can call a team with the league MVP and the 4th player in MVP voting similar to the 04 Pistons. It was way more Shaq and Kobe in 01 than 04 Pistons.

Baylor is also getting very overrated. You have to look at Lakers performance with and without Baylor. He wasn't doing a lot of impact. Baylor is a case of boxscore stats overrating actual performance.

I'd actually like to see more discussion about Penny (a lot better than Frazier) and Mourning as well.

The 62 Lakers were +6.4 in SRS when Baylor played when adjusting for the games Jerry West missed. +6.8 in 65 when he played too (13 game sample without him). That's a pretty good impact even if the impact in years where he missed 1-5 games or was past his peak aren't that good.

RebelWithACause wrote:
3. Baron 2007


Baron for the third ballot, though I could see Harden or Ginobili here as well.

Pretty much open here to be convinced of anyone, I am considering above.


If I find the time, I would like to compare those 3 a bit more in depth and also explain why Baron is almost up there with those 2 guys for me.


Quick dash why Baron is here for me:


Put all of his incredible talents together that year. Had everything you want from your PG, amazing playmaker and ballhandler, capable scorer from multiple areas on the court, great post game because he was such a big and strong point guard. So versatile.

Very good defender when he was into it.


The +/- numbers actually back up what I just said, since he has the 2nd best offensive RAPM of the databall era, while rating out as a good defender as well. Very impactful and that playoff run speaks for itself.

Hope I have the time to get more into this later.

2nd best offensive RAPM of the databall era

bastillon wrote:

E-Balla wrote:

bastillon wrote:Kevin McHale is getting incredibly underrated, probably because of his RS stats not being very flashy. But if you look at what this guy brought to the table in the PS... and even his PS numbers are a little bit "deflated" beccause he was playing with Parish and Bird who had a lot of usage. McHale's scoring in particular seems very underrated. This is a top-6 scorer ever among bigs (Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Barkley, Dirk). Dude was a walking 25 ppg 65% TS in the PS. He was scoring against everybody. Twin Towers, Kareem, Pistons frontline, didn't matter. As a matter of fact, I believe McHale was a better scorer than Larry Bird himself. If you look at their PS production series by series, you can see that Bird is highly inconsistent meanwhile McHale always picks up the slack when Bird struggles, and handles additional usage very well.

I would even go as far as saying that McHale in 86 PS/87 RS/88 PS was on the level of peak Charles Barkley.

Well that's why h's not here yet. I was considering him but he never pieced a healthy regular season (he missed a decent amount of time in 86 and 88) with a top 30-40 all time postseason. His 87 RS is amazing but his postseason performance was only "good". Yeah you can say he was as good as Chuck but Chuck didn't have any durability issues like he did and he pieced together great seasons with great postseasons.

The guy who is getting very overrated is Frazier. He was never an MVP level player. We're talking about a guy who is a great addition to a team that's already good. But this isn't the same type of impact we would see from a guy like Jerry West or Oscar in the 70s (let alone in their primes). Frazier was good, certainly performed well in the PS, but he wasn't even close to MVP-caliber player. Those Knicks were built more like Pistons 2004.

36-45 before getting Walt, 43-39 his rookie year, 54-28 with him as the second option the next year (3rd in the NBA in assists), 60-22 in 70 (8+ SRS) and 4th in MVP voting. I'm not sure if you can call a team with the league MVP and the 4th player in MVP voting similar to the 04 Pistons. It was way more Shaq and Kobe in 01 than 04 Pistons.

Baylor is also getting very overrated. You have to look at Lakers performance with and without Baylor. He wasn't doing a lot of impact. Baylor is a case of boxscore stats overrating actual performance.

I'd actually like to see more discussion about Penny (a lot better than Frazier) and Mourning as well.

The 62 Lakers were +6.4 in SRS when Baylor played when adjusting for the games Jerry West missed. +6.8 in 65 when he played too (13 game sample without him). That's a pretty good impact even if the impact in years where he missed 1-5 games or was past his peak aren't that good.

re: McHale
I understand the sentiment but to me 14 games in the RS is not enough to make a big difference. We're talking about a guy who put up 25/9/3 at 64% TS, who is also a shotblocker, and who can guard easily 3 positions. Not only that but those stats are diminished because of Bird and Parish on the same team (McHale was easily 27-30 ppg scorer when needed, proved this many times in the PS, rebounds would be higher too if not for those 2). I just can't see someone like Frazier being anywhere near McHale's ballpark so to me 14 games in the RS don't really matter that much.

re: Frazier. Just because he was 4th in the MVP voting, doesn't mean that he was actually 4th best player in the league. Of course he was gonna get many votes when Knicks were the best team in the league by far. We're talking about a 21/8/6 guy with not much intangible impact. Frazier is good, like I said, but there are tons of PGs from the 90s who put up those stats or better. More importantly, if you look at Knicks during those years, nobody is talking about them as if they were led by 2 superstars. Yes, Reed was their clear leader, not just on the court but also in the locker room. But they were always talked about as great in teamplay, team defense, ball movement etc. It's actually pretty questionable to me whether Frazier was better than Debuschere (remember the Knicks exploded after his trade in '69).

btw. Bucks-Knicks thankgiving game from 71 RS (Knicks were defending champs, Bucks were the best team in the league after Oscar's arrival):
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_uAJlWP0lQ[/youtube]
You can see that Reed is Knicks best player. But overall construction of the team really reminds you of Pistons. Teamplay and defense.

PS. You can see just much more impactful Oscar was. Frazier's PG skills really seem lacking in comparison. He's more like a combo guard. But he's not that good at getting his teammates involved.

E-Balla wrote:I'll drop McHale because I get where you are coming from if the missed games aren't that bad to you. As far as Clyde goes I think you're underestimating his impact a lot. Yeah he wasn't West or Oscar but they were both voted in already. I'm not for him yet but I wouldn't say he's under McHale. I see him as equal with Isiah who IMO was clearly better than McHale.

trex_8063 wrote:1st ballot: Elgin Baylor '61
To some degree the volume vs. efficiency considerations of Baylor (among others from this era) should be viewed with a bit of leniency, imo, as efficiency and "finding a good shot" just wasn't on anyone's radar in the early 1960's. Any way you slice it, though, Baylor was an excellent (if not quite elite) scorer, and underrated playmaker for the SF position, as well as a GOAT-level rebounder for his position, and likely a better defender than some other perimeter players on the table presently (e.g. Nash, Harden).

Baylor '61 rs per 100 possession estimates: 31.1 pts, 17.75 reb, 4.55 ast @ +2.91% rTS. 28.2 PER, .227 WS/48 in 42.9 mpg
Baylor '61 playoff per 100 possession estimates: 32.5 pts, 13.1 reb, 3.9 ast @ +6.89% rTS (53.83% TS, which would be a little above average even by today's standards). 28.0 PER, .248 WS/48 in 45.0 mpg

Some additional stuff about prime Baylor in general (copied from prior thread):

Spoiler:

Here's some more info regarding Baylor's impact, draw your own conclusions.....

In '58 (before Baylor), the Lakers were 19-53 (.264) with an SRS of -5.78.

In '59 they obtain rookie Elgin Baylor (and he's the only relevant transaction that occurred), and improve to 33-39 (.458) and -1.42 SRS (improvement of 14 wins and +4.36 SRS). They would also make it to the finals by first defeating a -1.36 SRS Detroit team 2-1, and then defeating the +2.89 SRS defending champ St. Louis Hawks 4-2.
wrt to how that improvement was managed......
Yeah, we always tend to think of Baylor as primarily an offensive player; but there's some to suggest he had a significant impact defensively, too. His reputation is mostly as a "decent" (but not great) defender, though I wonder if perhaps his prowess on the glass reduced a lot of easy second-chance opportunities for opponents (he was 3rd in the league in rebounds right off the bat in his rookie season).
Because in terms of rORTG, the Lakers in '58 (before Baylor) were -0.8 (ranked 6th of 8), and in rDRTG were +4.5 (8th of 8, and +2.5 to the 7th place team!). In '59, their rORTG improves to +0.6 (a jump of 1.4, up to 4th of 8); but rDRTG improves to +1.7 (a big jump of 2.8, from a distant last place to 6th of 8).
The team is 33-37 (.471) with him, 0-2 without him.


In '60, an aging Vern Mikkelsen has retired, aging Larry Foust misses some games and is playing a reduced role, too. Meanwhile the offensive primacy of the wildly inefficient (even for the era) Hot Rod Hundley increases, as well as a marginally increase in role for the even worse Slick Leonard (ridiculously bad 37.3% TS.....that's even -9% relative to league avg; similar to someone shooting 44% TS or so today; you'd have to be an elite defender to get ANY playing time at all today, and no way would you be getting 28+ mpg and be 6th on the team in FGA/g.....goes to show how efficiency just wasn't on the radar yet). And they also obtained rookie Rudy LaRusso (who would eventually become a pretty good player, but is a fairly inefficient scorer in his rookie season). They also obtained the somewhat inefficient Frank Selvy as well as an aging 6'11" Ray Felix in mid-season trades.
Anyway, their rORTG falls to -3.4 (8th of 8), though their defense continues to improve to +0.1 rDRTG (4th of 8), as they finish 25-50 (-4.14 SRS).
The team is 23-47 (.329) with him, 2-3 (.400) without him.


In '61, we have the arrival of rookie Jerry West. He's not yet the player he would become, but nonetheless is the clear 2nd-best behind Baylor. This affords them to reduce the role of Hundley and Leonard in the backcourt. rORTG improves to -1.3 (7th of 8), rDRTG continues to improve to -1.2 (4th of 8).
The team is 34-39 (.466) with him, 2-4 (.333) without him.


In '62, West is now a legit superstar, too. Slick Leonard is gone, and Hundley's role is further diminished; LaRusso continues to improve and get more efficient. Non-surprisingly, the team rORTG improves to +1.4 (3rd of 9). Critics might argue Baylor missing games contributed to this improvement in rORTG, but I'm more inclined to think it's the additive effects of a) the improvements in West and LaRusso, b) the loss of Leonard, and c) the reduced role of Hundley; especially in light of the following.......
Baylor misses 32 games, not due to injury, but rather to military service: he's only able to play if he can get a weekend pass to quickly travel to the game, play, and then come back. So he likely barely gets to practice, and yet still establishes himself among the league's elite---->Per 100 possession estimates: 33.6 pts, 16.3 reb, 4.1 ast @ +1.34% rTS in a whopping 44.4 mpg.
The team is 37-11 (.771) with him, 17-15 (.531) without him. Some of his missed games may have overlapped with West's missed games, but the thing is: West only missed 5 games total that year. And NO ONE else in their main rotation missed more than 2 games all year.
They make it to the finals and take the Russell Celtics to 7 games. Baylor averages 40.6 ppg, 17.9 rpg, and 3.7 apg in the series @ 51.0% TS (+3.1 rTS). In a close game 5 victory, Baylor logs [what I think is still an NBA finals record] 61 pts (and I believe 22 reb as well).

EDIT: I'd also add this quote from The Rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor....

.....Fans specifically came to see him [Baylor]. When he was on military duty and playing sporadically, they called the box office before games to ask if he would be appearing. The Lakers front office had run figures calculating Baylor’s ability to sell tickets, and they determined that in games when he did not play, the Lakers drew an average of 2,000 fewer fans. That amounted to approximately $6,000 per game, or $200,000 over the course of a season….

Going back to our agreement that impact = goodness + fit + utilization......I don't think Baylor was utilized ideally (something that I think is unfortunately true for MANY old era players). Yet there's still several indicators of substantial impact circa his peak, especially in '62.

Correctly utilized, I think Baylor would be the best SF not named Lebron or Kevin Durant today: a roughly Carmelo Anthony level of scorer but a better playmaker, a roughly neutral level defender, and possibly the best rebounding SF outside of Shawn Marion (roughly equal to peak Lebron in this regard).


2nd ballot: James Harden '15
Will point out some of his features in comparison to Nash.
Harden's probably the best pure scorer in the league today except for a healthy Durant (better than Nash in this regard). His defense is improved to where I think we'd have to declare '15 Harden marginally better than Nash. He's also a little better rebounder, even relative to position. So is Nash's brilliance as floor-general and defense-warping playmaker enough to off-set all of that? idk, but my hunch is no, not under today's rules anyway.
Admittedly that last statement is another thing on my mind: given his style of play, I don't think there's anyone who benefits more from the no hand-checking rule than James Harden (though to be fair, Nash benefits, too). tbh, if not for that consideration, I think Harden probably should have been voted in 3-4 places ago.

Ultimately, I feel his size, durability, and combination of attack the rim (scoring in high volumes) and play-making for others puts him touch above Nash.


3rd ballot: Anthony Davis '15
Nash is an offensive genius who headed some of the greatest offensive teams of the last 25 years, posting in '07 the 2nd-best scaled PI ORAPM seen in the years '98-'00, '02-'12. He's got a case for the GOAT shooter, shooting respectively from 0-3 ft, 3-10 ft, 10-16 ft, 16-23 ft, 3pt range: 67.6%, 55.4%, 50.0%, 52.2%, and 45.5% (and that's with a smaller proportion of his treys being assisted than even '15 Curry). Also 89.9% from the FT-line. Taking what the defense would give, that's utterly insane efficiency (65.4% TS) on moderate-high volume (26.4 pts/100 poss), while racking up 16.5 ast/100 (which is +1.6 to even '15 Chris Paul).
Defensive concerns are the primary reason I don't rank him higher. Though I'll say this for him: he wasn't dumb, he did try, and he was frequently among the league leaders in charges taken (at least one season where he led the league, iirc).

Anthony Davis is one I'm thinking more on, and def believe he deserves some traction: a 6'10" guy who can shoot in the mid-range, has some handles and some isolation game, who can score fairly large volumes on elite efficiency (very elite, when you consider not only shooting efficiency, but also the extreme low turnover rate)--->and he continued to provide elite volume on elite efficiency in four playoff games against the #1 defense. He also gets you some boards, defends the pnr and on switches and also protects the rim.
idk, I may end up giving him this spot to himself. EDIT: Yeah, I think I will. MyUniBroDavis has convinced me to think more highly of his isolation game, which is enough for me.

And although I'd voted Harden comfortably ahead of Davis in the RPoY project, I've even been considering putting Davis ahead of Harden for purposes of this project. The reason is related to era portability: as I'd mentioned Harden benefits A LOT from the lack of hand-checking and the spacing in the modern game. I must admit I have some questions regarding how he would look even as recently circa-2000 (circa-1990 is even more interesting to think about). Davis, otoh, has attributes which are more conducive to other eras. For now, I'll give Davis my 3rd ballot.....but idk, I may even end up swapping them around.