RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #30

[pandrade83]

This is disrespectful post without any piece of knowledge.

1950s players were pro basketball players and NBA wasn't the first pro league in USA. Stop with that nonsense.

1960s isn't a decade with "4 outlier talents far better than everyone else, plus a 5th guy allowed to volume shoot way above his station". If you really believe that, you don't know much about 1960s NBA. You forgot even one player who is already voted (Bob Pettit).

Your amount of hate on Elgin Baylor is also not fair. He was great player and was actually one of the best players in the league until injuries. You are talking only about his post prime years (1965-70) but he was still decent and his 1959-64 seasons are on all-time great level. He was much more than just a volume scorer and you call him like you'd talk about Allen Iverson. He was above average defender, GOAT rebounder for SF position, excellent passer, great player in transition. He had questionable shot selection but he's not the only all-time great with that problem.

While acknowledging that the 1950's players were pro basketball players, I struggle to envision your typical team from the 1st half of the decade - after adjusting for nutritional benefits - thriving in say, the ACC. The league was not really integrated at all.

Adjusting for population growth, that era would be the equivalent of creating a 16 team league without African-American or foreign players. That league would not be very good at all. Someone like Cousy - who never made it so far as a Finals - but was still one of the very best players - would be equivalent of Reddick or Korver. There's not even enough white American born players in the league today to populate all of the starting lineups.

Thinking about the original quote regarding the 60's - we've already captured the Big 4 very highly. Baylor is polarizing, but I think he will get in around 35 +/- 2 or 3 spots - just because attrition will whittle away other competitors, everyone left has at least 1 or 2 warts that will turn people off and there's enough existing support for Baylor in general, even though I've already mentioned I won't be part of that support. So, let's set him aside.

If you think we're disregarding the 60's, what players are we overlooking and why should those guys be listed over some people who are being discussed?

[Fundamentals21]

Can anyone answer why Artis Gilmore dropped off in the NBA? There is a clear statistical difference in terms of dominance. Injuries, stylistic adjustment, etc. ?

[penbeast0]

To the part in bold:
You would take Moncrief's five best over McGrady's? Tbh I can't see that at all. McGrady's 03 season is tied with Michael Jordan for the GOAT offensive season OF ALL TIME according to OBPM.
In General:
Given the guys you mentioned here like Reggie, Sam Jones, Moncrief, and Ray don't you think it's appropriate to at least give T-Mac a mention. Definitely not saying he should be considered here because he shouldn't but I think an argument for McGrady can be made for over these guys (and I support that argument). Just curious of your thoughts on this. To be fair McGrady is my favorite player of all-time so I probably let my emotions get the best of my reasoning a little bit when discussing him, but I don't think it's unreasonable to mention him in the same tier as those you mentioned above.

I would take any of Moncrief's top seasons over any season of TMac except '03. I admittedly care a lot about efficiency, defense, and leadership (Sid's strength) and less about volume scoring (TMac's strength) than most posters. I think Sid's 5 year peak is neck and neck with Wade's (again, from prior threads, not a popular idea) but then I am more impressed with Moncrief than most having seen him play a lot.

TMac's potential value is very high and he should be in the discussion with those guys but to me, a bit behind them. Biggest issue I had with TMac was that it seemed he saved his great performances (and he had some truly great ones) for times when he had clear and undisputed primacy (03, the stretches where Yao was injured, etc.) and didn't seem to ever truly blend his game into his team schemes. To me he's one of those players that doesn't quite live up to their numbers and accolades where Moncrief, to me, is one whose influence exceeds his numbers and accolades and his numbers and accolades are pretty impressive on their own.

[Fundamentals21]

Dwight's a really weak candidate in my eyes. Top 50 most likely but he legitimately created problems for his teams once we entered superstardom. The chemistry issues don't end starting from the 2010's and were consistent with Magic, Lakers (This was comically bad), Rockets, even Hawks. He still thinks he deserves to have the ball more. Never matured out of it and it looks unlikely you will have more than a 2 year span where Dwight isn't complaining if things aren't going perfectly.

[70sFan]

While acknowledging that the 1950's players were pro basketball players, I struggle to envision your typical team from the 1st half of the decade - after adjusting for nutritional benefits - thriving in say, the ACC. The league was not really integrated at all.

Adjusting for population growth, that era would be the equivalent of creating a 16 team league without African-American or foreign players. That league would not be very good at all. Someone like Cousy - who never made it so far as a Finals - but was still one of the very best players - would be equivalent of Reddick or Korver. There's not even enough white American born players in the league today to populate all of the starting lineups.

Thinking about the original quote regarding the 60's - we've already captured the Big 4 very highly. Baylor is polarizing, but I think he will get in around 35 +/- 2 or 3 spots - just because attrition will whittle away other competitors, everyone left has at least 1 or 2 warts that will turn people off and there's enough existing support for Baylor in general, even though I've already mentioned I won't be part of that support. So, let's set him aside.

If you think we're disregarding the 60's, what players are we overlooking and why should those guys be listed over some people who are being discussed?

I didn't see even one mention of Paul Arizin. Dolph Schayes also needs recognition before guys like Amare or Webber. Rick Barry, John Havlicek and Elgin Baylor lost to Curry who had 4 years prime.

I don't mean that we have to have more players from 1960s in top 30. Although Barry, Havlicek and Baylor are legit top 30-40 players, I can live with them outside of top 30. Problem is that many people underrate players from 1960s outside of holly 4 (Wilt, Bill, Jerry and Oscar). Even though they were the greatest, we had plenty of talent in 1950s and 1960s - Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Paul Arizin, Dolph Schayes, Nate Thurmond are all legit top 50 players. I hope they will make it before guys like Harden or Westbrook.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Walt “Clyde” Frazier

Vote 2 - Clyde Drexler

[Heh, look at that — 2 Clydes]

Frazier in the Finals

70 (7 games): ~17.6 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 10 APG, 54% FG, 76% FT, 5.9 FTAs per game

(yes, i'm aware of the potentially faulty assist count in game 7…)

72 (5 games): ~23 PPG, 8 RPG, 8 APG, 59% FG, 70% FT, 5.4 FTAs per game

73 (5 games): ~16.6 PPG, 7 RPG, 5 APG, 48% FG, 65% FT, 4 FTAs per game

While the knicks would lose in 5 games to the lakers in 72, this was without reed, so they didn't have much of a chance. That said, Clyde stepped up in his absence as evidenced by his impressive all around play. Overall, he was a great performer in the finals. He really had a solid case for finals MVP in 73, but the "big bias" of the time essentially put reed over the top. In addition, his historic game 7 in the 70 finals put the knicks over the top, some of which can be watched here:

Watch on YouTube

It's also worth noting the knicks nearly went to 4 finals in a row if not for a 2 pt game 7 loss to the bullets in the 71 ECF. Frazier led some truly great teams during that stretch.

Frazier embodied just about all you could ask from a star player. He was a versatile playmaker with great decision making, rarely deterred by defensive pressure. On the other side of the ball, he's widely considered one of the best defensive guards of all time. He had the unique ability to lull a player into an "easy" drive to the basket, and then tapping the ball from behind for a steal and fast break bucket. He was also great in passing lanes, and had the size and speed to guard both the 1 and 2.

From a more intangible standpoint, clyde fit in seamlessly with one of the most balanced scoring teams in NBA history. Team chemistry was huge, and he valued the importance of his teammates highly. Per Page 2 interview via ESPN:

The story of that night is that Reed's presence really inspired your team and really rattled the Lakers …

Frazier: Oh, unequivocally. If Willis didn't come out, I would not have had that game.

Is that right?

Frazier: Absolutely. He gave us the confidence we needed. The crowd ... the crowd propelled us to that win, man. They never shut up. They had us doing things we never thought we could do.

The knicks routinely ran an "option-less" offense, where "hit the open man" was the basic game plan. Clyde would further his ability to adapt to playing with other star players when his conference rival Earl Monroe was traded to NY. 2 of the best guards in the game with only 1 ball to go around were expected to clash, but instead their styles of play complemented each other quite well.

Albert pointed out that Frazier, too, had to make accommodations. ''They both subjugated their game,'' he said. But, after playing so intensely against one another, Albert said: ''They both were so in tune with one another and what needed to be done. So it worked.''

- - - - -

But for basketball fans, Monroe's career was a tutorial in winning. ''By enthusiastically adopting the Knicks' philosophy,'' Bradley said, ''Earl helped to show that no one can accomplish alone as much as all of us can accomplish together.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/sports/backtalk-when-stars-collide-in-new-york.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A9%22%7D

[Doctor MJ]

I see a lot of players who didn't do a whole lot more than miller however who got selected as reserves over him.

WS is an interesting miller stat. A lot of really good but never great year and he remained really solid for a long long time. Meanwhile VORP which i use a proxy for "GREAT" seasons, isn't that excited by him. PER which I"d think would love the 3's and low turnovers, doesn't get excited either.

It's a fair point about off ball impact, but if we're talking Miller why not Ray Allen here? I'd argue a part of Miller's WS success was being on one of the better teams in the league. Allen didn't get that, but if off ball spacing and shooting are to be discuss, then Ray Allen should be front and center.

I mean, name me the year and I can pretty much tell you what people were thinking, not because I'm so smart, but because the "all-star equation" is so well established. Guys like Reggie have always been "if there's a slot left over" type guys who tend to get in based on the standing of their team.

Re: VORP. I'm not really a fan of VORP, though I'll concede that you can definitely argue it's better than WS. It's certainly more sophisticated in its creation than WS, but it's not entirely an improvement. Some players to me get vastly underrated by the stat for predictable reasons. Steve Nash for example is said by VORP/BPM to be almost as damaging on defense as he is helpful on offense, and that's just ridiculous. Clearly what's happening is that they are judging defenders based on the box score, and the box score is ball-oriented. A defender like Nash who knows that's not his game just focuses on playing his role within the scheme making very, very few errors, and oftentimes it makes him actually better than average on defense (not to say he couldn't be exploited by specific matchups, but VORP/BPM isn't knocking him based on those matchups.)

Really though my frustration with VORP is that it was obsolete when it came out. We had quite clearly progressed to a point where statistical +/- (such as VORP/BPM) was the future...but only when it was based off of player tracking data. The world didn't need another box score stat, and yet it got promoted as if it was a true advancement. That's a bias I have. You can do quality analysis with these stats once you understand their weakness, it's just that those who understood box score weakness already had compensated for the weaknesses of WS so they didn't really need BPM, and those who didn't understand that weakness would inevitably use it problematically.

Re: PER. This stat overrates volume scoring systematically. If you look at the formula and add things up you'll see that a guy can actually chuck quite inefficiently and still improve his PER. PER was actually a GREAT stat for its time and was among the first to start factoring in efficiency, which was why it had Efficiency in the name, but it still very much underrated the value of efficiency among volume scorers (and it was all over the map when it came to fringe players off the bench).

Re: Why not Ray Allen? Great thing to bring up. He's basically the next best thing to Reggie. He just wasn't anywhere near as savvy as Reggie was. Ray couldn't really draw fouls that well, where Reggie was a master, plus Ray didn't have that miraculous ability to crank up his volume scoring in crunch time.

Now, it's tricky because Ray is far more proven than Reggie as an on-ball threat, which is why he got bigger volume numbers than Ray in Seattle...but Seattle was not when Ray was at his most effective. Ray is a lock for my Top 50 specifically because of his time as an off-ball player in Milwaukee and Boston. He's on the Mount Rushmore of all-time NBA off-ball shooting threats, and he's really not anywhere near that much on outlier in other roles.

As we're into the career stats discussion and increasingly I expect this to be a factor this isn't a bad time to go here.

WS fails for me in that it over values players who just hang around as quality but not great players and under values great players. VORP imo got the scaling right for us to judge the all time great players better. Both formulas having plenty of faults which should be addressed separately. I did a quick test by reducing WS/48 down by 0.08333 (i will call it starter minute replacement player as that scales to a 20 win season with 5 players producing that). I didn't have a full data set but we moved Miller down about 4-5 spots (NBA data only). The updated list looks better imo, players like Wade shot up which sounds right to me. To be honest I think it's still under valuing peak level play, if I play more I'll make a post elsewhere iwth results, but I'd have to add in a few more years of data.

Now back to Miller, do we have data on him turning up scoring in crunch time? I know we have some playoff games and some huge moments, but was it really consistent? I'd love to see both players crunch time play if we have that. I've always felt Allen was just a bit better peak and while he dropped off a bit faster, longevity was close enough to take Allen. It's also hard as I think Miller was just a much better team around him overall.

Your point about WS not having any claim to scaling with impact is certainly correct. In theory BPM should be better on that front.

Regarding data. I don't have the type of data we're use to having for more recent players. 82games has something from '03-04 that had the highest clutch eFG, but sample is not enough to really take seriously.

You can just look at bkref though and see that his numbers typically got better in the playoffs which is a pretty unusual thing.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Doctor MJ]

I do see some recency bias - not by percentages, but just by players voted in. CP3, Nash, Ewing, Wade over Hondo/Cousy/Baylor seems strange.

Cousy is what - 10x first team all NBA, multiple time champion, regular season MVP, all-star game MVP, etc... with a huge impact on the entire league (forget only his team). What more does he need? Ewing only made one all-nba 1st team.

Pick: Cousy
Alt: Hondo
HM: Baylor

Cousy was a guy who chucked inefficiently relative to his teammates who is supposed to be a legend because he was a great floor general. He was overrated in his day because people didn't have the basis to really understand how far from optimal he was, and meanwhile his teammate Bill Sharman was underrated, and Bill Russell was underrated as well until Cousy retired and the team rose further with that lead weight removed.

I like Hondo, but he's not a guy you want volume scoring for you and it is his scoring peak that convinces many that he was something more than he was.

Baylor was someone who only had a few years before he was next to a teammate who was much better than him, and since Baylor never adjusted his play he held the team back by a good amount compared to what he could have accomplished. Like Cousy, it's a double whammy because he got big stats because of his sub-optimal approach, and this then led him to get accolades from the naive journalists of the time.

Last: I understand it seems the height of moxie to proclaim people at the time as naive but do people clear I'm not dismissing them outright, I'm specifically saying that they lacked an understanding of the diminishing returns of inefficient volume scoring, which should not be controversial because many journalists still don't understand this.

To me personally, it doesn't seem fair to penalize players for something no one - coaches, players, or journalists - knew at the time. It's kind of like saying Einstein was "better" than Newton because gravity was something he didn't struggle to solve and easily moved beyond. It's a valid perspective, but it's not mine.

Actually it's like Einstein deserves more credit than his contemporaries because he saw things clearly, because the point is that other players were playing right. Not all of them, not most of them, but Russell, Oscar, and West in many ways played like modern players simply because they had a feel for what worked on the floor, and that's why they deserve such high praise.

I wouldn't dream of knocking Baylor relative to the guys of today who don't get it, but I'm not going round up Baylors actual impact because of his blindness when he had a teammate next to him every damn game who saw things clearly.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[trex_8063]

.

.

Actually it's like Einstein deserves more credit than his contemporaries because he saw things clearly, because the point is that other players were playing right. Not all of them, not most of them, but Russell, Oscar, and West in many ways played like modern players simply because they had a feel for what worked on the floor, and that's why they deserve such high praise.

I wouldn't dream of knocking Baylor relative to the guys of today who don't get it, but I'm not going round up Baylors actual impact because of his blindness when he had a teammate next to him every damn game who saw things clearly.

If I may, it seems as though you're saying it's OK to blame Baylor for being unaware of a problem that almost no one else at the time was aware of, and justifying that by noting a mere handful of the super-elite players who seemed to see the game more clearly.

otoh, I would argue the blame doesn't rest entirely on Baylor for playing as he did. Where is coaching/management's responsibility? Could they not pressure him to alter his play if it was hurting the team?

What about Jerry West himself? West is the guy bringing the ball up. West is the guy initiating the offense. And West is the guy who could score more efficiently AND who did so while rarely being assisted (majority of his shots appear to be off the dribble). If his understanding of what works in basketball was so superior and his understanding of how to play "right" was so much higher than Baylor's......why didn't he----again, given he was the floor general----simply stop deferring to Baylor so often? Instead of passing off, he could have just taken those shots himself, no?

Outside of Baylor himself, no one on the court had more ability to limit Baylor's volume than Jerry West.

So are we suggesting that West had knowledge that Baylor's style of play and shot selection wasn't what was best for the team, but opted to do nothing about it [perhaps didn't want to ruffle any feathers]? Or did he, like Baylor and pretty much everyone else at the time, not truly recognize it as a problem?

'Cause it's one or the other. And I can't see laying so much of this criticism on Baylor, while completely absolving the initiator of the offense (and the coaching) of all responsibility.

[Senior]

Transplanting this here.....

Would "players worth discussing on this all-time list" work better? It's true we've got the Robert Horrys going around for the $ but do you disagree that the superstars are almost always gunning for the title?

I do disagree with the bolded part, yes. Without quibbling on definition of "superstar", if I can just refer to players who are "more than mere role players".....

Joe Johnson jumped ship from PHX rather than play 2nd (or 3rd) fiddle with Nash---imo clearly passing up on his best opportunity for a ring----because it was more important to him at the time to be "the man" on his own team.

Kyrie Irving wants to get out from underneath Lebron's shadow presently. Now as it turns out, it's looking like he might end up in San Antonio, where he'll likely have a BETTER chance to contend; however, he didn't have SA sending him love letters when he requested a trade. And knowing that Golden State is one place he would absolutely NOT end up at (there's no way they'd look to mess up what they have to try and make room for Kyrie), can we say that throwing a dart at the other 28 teams in the league provides a better chance to contend than staying on with Lebron and Love? I don't think so, personally.

I see the vast majority of stars NOT caving on their personal salaries, even when doing so would give them a better chance of contending.


And then there are the countless examples of things stars have done which were detrimental to their chances for a title, whether it was "intentional" or not.....

Adrian Dantley had difficulty meshing on a winner, difficulty sharing the ball and deferring on offense.....and he got pushed off of a contender Detroit team as a result.

Kobe and Shaq couldn't work out their differences and broke up a proven contender recipe (perhaps squandered one of the years they WERE together, too).

Dennis Rodman self-destructed on the Spurs in '95 in the WCF, when they had a good chance to contend for a title.

DeMarcus Cousins will not be a relevant winner until he can stop being a sullen jerk and gives consistent effort on defense---(Disclaimer: I am NOT saying those Kings teams would have automatically been winners or contenders if he'd done that)----but so far he shows no indication to do those things.

Charles Barkley likely could have had better chances if he'd taken better care of himself (his weight); Shaq too, for that matter.

Larry Bird implies in one of his biographies that Cedric Maxwell showed little interest in repeating as a contender and much more interest in getting the deal/salary he was after.


Anyway, I'm sure we can come up with many others, but you get the idea. So no, I do not agree that everything players do they do with the intention of winning a title in mind. I see them very regularly doing things that damage their chances on the basis of selfishness, egotism, laziness, or other human frailties.

*shrug*

Okay, you're right. There's plenty of guys that didn't act in their best interest of winning and it cost all of them contention or titles. Neither of us are giving them any points, and we're going to punish them accordingly. Titles supersede pretty much all of the non-money/prestige accolades anyway such as RS wins, consistency, etc and it's not as if I've evaluating titles as a standalone accolade anyway. The alphas (such as Curry from the last thread) could do things that Stockton and Pippen simply could not, and that's why Curry was the centerpiece of 2 titles and those two weren't.

[trex_8063]

Some good discussion so far on Baylor and era considerations, Reggie Miller, etc.
As far as the vote, thru post #50:

Scottie Pippen - 2 (2klegend, LABird)
Clyde Drexler - 2 (JordansBulls, pandrade83)
John Havlicek - 1 (scabbarista)
Walt Frazier - 1 (Clyde Frazier--->shameless namesake homer )
Bob Cousy - 1 (euroleague)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Fundamentals21]

This is some insane strength.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Solid stuff from Brown at ESPN.

One thing Gilmore should never be considered second in is shot-blocking. Rick Barry claims that Gilmore is the greatest shot-blocker he ever played against. And remember, Barry played against all the great shot blockers expect for probably Bill Russell. He's played against Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabaar, you name it. So for him to say that really means something.

But beyond the court and the locker room, Gilmore is just a great human being. If you asked anyone who played with him or against him, they would tell you he's a wonderful guy. He was a great teammate and was very accountable for his professional job. In my two years coaching him, he was never fined for being late.

http://www.espn.com/nba/halloffame11/story/_/page/110811-Gilmore/artis-gilmore-entering-hall-fame

Seven feet of Dolomite, 240 pounds of intimidation, Gilmore was cut from the cloth of Wilt. A 32-inch waist, 27-inch things. The NBA’s all-time leader in field-goal percentage (.599), Artis took it to the rack, and he took it strong. No one stepped in front of the A-Train. Gilmore was an 11-time All-Star. He was the ABA’s MVP and Rookie of the Year in ’72, and the MVP of the ’75 ABA Finals. Artis Gilmore was the NBA’s first pick in the ABA dispersal draft – not Moses.

Some more stuff from SLAM:

http://www.slamonline.com/nba/original-old-school-unhappy-gilmore/#7LW1YuGPLSPlZCJJ.97

Issel, Gilmore and Louie Dampier comprised the nucleus, and all three are in the Hall of Fame. It’s not at all crazy to think they would have dispatched the ’75 Warriors, who weren’t exactly the ’95-96 Bulls.

“We won [the finals] in five games, and [playing Golden State] would have been another five-game series,” Issel says.

More here: http://www.slamonline.com/the-magazine/features/kentucky-colonels-salute/#ioOGCXj4mgyZFfKC.99

More I find out about Gilmore, the better it gets. Wished he had more time with Spurs. But really this dude appears to have similar physical tools from Wilt, had a great personality, the numbers, etc. He did regress numbers some when he came to the NBA, so that is a bit suspect. Otherwise very clearly one of the most interesting players in the 30's. His true potential is somewhat of a mystery to me.

[pandrade83]

This is some insane strength.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Solid stuff from Brown at ESPN.

One thing Gilmore should never be considered second in is shot-blocking. Rick Barry claims that Gilmore is the greatest shot-blocker he ever played against. And remember, Barry played against all the great shot blockers expect for probably Bill Russell. He's played against Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabaar, you name it. So for him to say that really means something.

But beyond the court and the locker room, Gilmore is just a great human being. If you asked anyone who played with him or against him, they would tell you he's a wonderful guy. He was a great teammate and was very accountable for his professional job. In my two years coaching him, he was never fined for being late.

http://www.espn.com/nba/halloffame11/story/_/page/110811-Gilmore/artis-gilmore-entering-hall-fame

Seven feet of Dolomite, 240 pounds of intimidation, Gilmore was cut from the cloth of Wilt. A 32-inch waist, 27-inch things. The NBA’s all-time leader in field-goal percentage (.599), Artis took it to the rack, and he took it strong. No one stepped in front of the A-Train. Gilmore was an 11-time All-Star. He was the ABA’s MVP and Rookie of the Year in ’72, and the MVP of the ’75 ABA Finals. Artis Gilmore was the NBA’s first pick in the ABA dispersal draft – not Moses.

Some more stuff from SLAM:

http://www.slamonline.com/nba/original-old-school-unhappy-gilmore/#7LW1YuGPLSPlZCJJ.97

Issel, Gilmore and Louie Dampier comprised the nucleus, and all three are in the Hall of Fame. It’s not at all crazy to think they would have dispatched the ’75 Warriors, who weren’t exactly the ’95-96 Bulls.

“We won [the finals] in five games, and [playing Golden State] would have been another five-game series,” Issel says.

More here: http://www.slamonline.com/the-magazine/features/kentucky-colonels-salute/#ioOGCXj4mgyZFfKC.99

More I find out about Gilmore, the better it gets. Wished he had more time with Spurs. But really this dude appears to have similar physical tools from Wilt, had a great personality, the numbers, etc. He did regress numbers some when he came to the NBA, so that is a bit suspect. Otherwise very clearly one of the most interesting players in the 30's. His true potential is somewhat of a mystery to me.

Building upon this:

-From '72 to '76 the ABA & NBA should be considered equals. The games between the two were a very narrow split - 79 to 76 in favor of ABA.
-Gilmore appeared to be on a steady decline basically from the get-go - that's why his NBA impact seems more questionable. But he did anchor a Top 2 defense through '77 - and Top 1 most years.
-His Ten Year prime was 21-15-3 blocks on 60% TS. That's damn impressive.
-Highest in Win Shares by far of anyone left
-7th highest in VORP left - those ahead of him - Kidd, Drexler, Pippen, Reggie, Payton, Pierce.

I didn't vote for him - but he's 5th on my list at this point.

[Hornet Mania]

The arguments against Baylor have been excellent, so it's tough for me to stick with him as my top vote. Pippen was an all-time glue guy, a top-tier perimeter defender and a very good offensive player. If Jordan was the engine to the Bulls dynasty Pippen was the grease, he made everything easier for his teammates and played a winning style of basketball.

30. Scottie Pippen
Alt vote: Elgin Baylor

[penbeast0]

...

Seven feet of Dolomite, 240 pounds of intimidation, Gilmore was cut from the cloth of Wilt. A 32-inch waist, 27-inch things. The NBA’s all-time leader in field-goal percentage (.599), Artis took it to the rack, and he took it strong. No one stepped in front of the A-Train. Gilmore was an 11-time All-Star. He was the ABA’s MVP and Rookie of the Year in ’72, and the MVP of the ’75 ABA Finals. Artis Gilmore was the NBA’s first pick in the ABA dispersal draft – not Moses.

Some more stuff from SLAM:

http://www.slamonline.com/nba/original-old-school-unhappy-gilmore/#7LW1YuGPLSPlZCJJ.97

(see bold) I sure hope that's a typo!

[penbeast0]

I think Elgin and Barry are other contenders for me at this spot at the SF position. I give the advantage to Baylor because I think he was a better player, though I'm open to learning more about each.

When those around the Warriors of the mid-70s talk about how the team was structured when they had great success, they talk about how Barry set the tone. He was the explicit and implicit leader. He was the primary decision maker on the court with the ball and with his mouth. He taught the other guys how to think out there.

I don't think Baylor was capable of such a role, and I believe such a role is more impressive than anything Baylor did.

When I heard Barry talk about his 75 title he said, (I'm paraphrasing from memory but he was this blunt and this dismissive), "I won that title with a bunch of guys that weren't championship level talent." Maybe he was right but even Michael Jordan with his talk about "my supporting cast" never turned me off as quickly and thoroughly as listening to Rick Barry pat himself on the back.

His other championship team (ABA 69), they won the title with Barry injured and not playing but Doug Moe and Larry Brown took that team all the way without him. I wish they had asked him about that to see if he would give his teammates then any credit or dismiss the ABA the way he blew off Virginia when the Caps moved to Richmond.

[Doctor MJ]

.

.

Actually it's like Einstein deserves more credit than his contemporaries because he saw things clearly, because the point is that other players were playing right. Not all of them, not most of them, but Russell, Oscar, and West in many ways played like modern players simply because they had a feel for what worked on the floor, and that's why they deserve such high praise.

I wouldn't dream of knocking Baylor relative to the guys of today who don't get it, but I'm not going round up Baylors actual impact because of his blindness when he had a teammate next to him every damn game who saw things clearly.

If I may, it seems as though you're saying it's OK to blame Baylor for being unaware of a problem that almost no one else at the time was aware of, and justifying that by noting a mere handful of the super-elite players who seemed to see the game more clearly.

otoh, I would argue the blame doesn't rest entirely on Baylor for playing as he did. Where is coaching/management's responsibility? Could they not pressure him to alter his play if it was hurting the team?

What about Jerry West himself? West is the guy bringing the ball up. West is the guy initiating the offense. And West is the guy who could score more efficiently AND who did so while rarely being assisted (majority of his shots appear to be off the dribble). If his understanding of what works in basketball was so superior and his understanding of how to play "right" was so much higher than Baylor's......why didn't he----again, given he was the floor general----simply stop deferring to Baylor so often? Instead of passing off, he could have just taken those shots himself, no?

Outside of Baylor himself, no one on the court had more ability to limit Baylor's volume than Jerry West.

So are we suggesting that West had knowledge that Baylor's style of play and shot selection wasn't what was best for the team, but opted to do nothing about it [perhaps didn't want to ruffle any feathers]? Or did he, like Baylor and pretty much everyone else at the time, not truly recognize it as a problem?

'Cause it's one or the other. And I can't see laying so much of this criticism on Baylor, while completely absolving the initiator of the offense (and the coaching) of all responsibility.

If by "super-elite" you mean "really, really special players worth talking about high up on a GOAT list", that actually sounds about right doesn't it?

Look, fundamentally here, people should give a damn if one player wasn't actually contributing the value people thought he was regardless of whether his low BBIQ is to blame, and the very idea that we would try to blame it on a teammate that was ACTUALLY effectively is just absurd.. The idea that we should compensate for it implicitly assumed that volume stat production is what's real and it's up to coaches to simply aim the weapon better and everything will be fine.

Here, as is often the case, people need to remember Wilt. Wilt was more valuable playing NOT as a volume scorer, and it ain't close...and that means if makes no sense at all to try to rate Wilt on a foundation of how many points he was racking up in earlier years. It was fool's gold. It was something being achieved by producing tons and tons of waste, which were apparently what Wilt needed in order to pull that off.

This is not to say I don't think about players transported into future eras and care about the fact that they might be able to do better. I absolutely do transports like that, and in the right comparison they might make a great difference with someone like Baylor. In a case where, say, we have a guy who was known to be a knucklehead but still played as an efficient volume shooter because of his coach, an argument for Baylor could certainly be made.

One last note:

I think it's very dangerous to try to divide credit (or blame) between player and coach. The coach operates through the players, he's not competing with them for impact. As such, when people knock a guy as a "system player" simply because the coach was smart enough to use him properly, that just doesn't make sense. They both deserve credit.

And yes, Laker coaches deserve blame for letting Baylor play like he did to some degree, but it takes no blame away from Baylor since he's a player and not a coach. Moreover, there is the matter that Baylor was FAR more powerful than the coaches were and clearly liked playing with the primacy he did.

[Doctor MJ]

I think Elgin and Barry are other contenders for me at this spot at the SF position. I give the advantage to Baylor because I think he was a better player, though I'm open to learning more about each.

When those around the Warriors of the mid-70s talk about how the team was structured when they had great success, they talk about how Barry set the tone. He was the explicit and implicit leader. He was the primary decision maker on the court with the ball and with his mouth. He taught the other guys how to think out there.

I don't think Baylor was capable of such a role, and I believe such a role is more impressive than anything Baylor did.

When I heard Barry talk about his 75 title he said, (I'm paraphrasing from memory but he was this blunt and this dismissive), "I won that title with a bunch of guys that weren't championship level talent." Maybe he was right but even Michael Jordan with his talk about "my supporting cast" never turned me off as quickly and thoroughly as listening to Rick Barry pat himself on the back.

His other championship team (ABA 69), they won the title with Barry injured and not playing but Doug Moe and Larry Brown took that team all the way without him. I wish they had asked him about that to see if he would give his teammates then any credit or dismiss the ABA the way he blew off Virginia when the Caps moved to Richmond.

Barry's a douche. No doubt about it.

To be clear though, I'm not making a generic statement about a weak supporting cast. I'm literally saying the team was platooned around him. He played FAR more than anyone else and did so as the undisputed leader in a way that resembles Wilt or Russell.

I think the next year proved it wasn't necessary to limit the minutes of other teammates, but that doesn't kill off the accomplishment for Barry for me. When a guy is that much the one who everything went through, and great things happened, that guy has to deserve a lot of credit, douche or no douche.

[dhsilv2]

This is some insane strength.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Solid stuff from Brown at ESPN.

One thing Gilmore should never be considered second in is shot-blocking. Rick Barry claims that Gilmore is the greatest shot-blocker he ever played against. And remember, Barry played against all the great shot blockers expect for probably Bill Russell. He's played against Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabaar, you name it. So for him to say that really means something.

But beyond the court and the locker room, Gilmore is just a great human being. If you asked anyone who played with him or against him, they would tell you he's a wonderful guy. He was a great teammate and was very accountable for his professional job. In my two years coaching him, he was never fined for being late.

http://www.espn.com/nba/halloffame11/story/_/page/110811-Gilmore/artis-gilmore-entering-hall-fame

Seven feet of Dolomite, 240 pounds of intimidation, Gilmore was cut from the cloth of Wilt. A 32-inch waist, 27-inch things. The NBA’s all-time leader in field-goal percentage (.599), Artis took it to the rack, and he took it strong. No one stepped in front of the A-Train. Gilmore was an 11-time All-Star. He was the ABA’s MVP and Rookie of the Year in ’72, and the MVP of the ’75 ABA Finals. Artis Gilmore was the NBA’s first pick in the ABA dispersal draft – not Moses.

Some more stuff from SLAM:

http://www.slamonline.com/nba/original-old-school-unhappy-gilmore/#7LW1YuGPLSPlZCJJ.97

Issel, Gilmore and Louie Dampier comprised the nucleus, and all three are in the Hall of Fame. It’s not at all crazy to think they would have dispatched the ’75 Warriors, who weren’t exactly the ’95-96 Bulls.

“We won [the finals] in five games, and [playing Golden State] would have been another five-game series,” Issel says.

More here: http://www.slamonline.com/the-magazine/features/kentucky-colonels-salute/#ioOGCXj4mgyZFfKC.99

More I find out about Gilmore, the better it gets. Wished he had more time with Spurs. But really this dude appears to have similar physical tools from Wilt, had a great personality, the numbers, etc. He did regress numbers some when he came to the NBA, so that is a bit suspect. Otherwise very clearly one of the most interesting players in the 30's. His true potential is somewhat of a mystery to me.

The little I've seen of him, he's a center who I *think* would translate a lot better to today's game than many others. Looks to be a guy who would be more of a threat on a pick and role than in the post for example. I haven't seen enough to make a strong statement there, just an ill informed observation.

Definitely a guy I expect I won't be voting for as he'll get in before I'll be ready to vote for him, but one I won't object with.

[Fundamentals21]

Building upon this:

-From '72 to '76 the ABA & NBA should be considered equals. The games between the two were a very narrow split - 79 to 76 in favor of ABA.
-Gilmore appeared to be on a steady decline basically from the get-go - that's why his NBA impact seems more questionable. But he did anchor a Top 2 defense through '77 - and Top 1 most years.
-His Ten Year prime was 21-15-3 blocks on 60% TS. That's damn impressive.
-Highest in Win Shares by far of anyone left
-7th highest in VORP left - those ahead of him - Kidd, Drexler, Pippen, Reggie, Payton, Pierce.

I didn't vote for him - but he's 5th on my list at this point.

Yes, and add on to this a really, really long prime with a body that sustained the physical play of that era. 672 straight games? Really? Star from his rookie year, right off the bat all the way to ~86. That's 14 years. 14 years! W/S is also a good argument. Some of Ewing's peak W/S 48 is basically prime Gilmore level.

I am actually really impressed after all the reading. There are a lot of uncertainties, but on the positive side if you're sold, you could easily make a case for him in the mid to late 20's next to Ewing.