(same as previous thread, but with a few edits/additions)
1st vote: Elvin HayesHayes had poor shot selection, though as I've stated for others of his era (or earlier), I feel compelled to give him a
partial pass on that as his entire generation of basketballers didn't seem to recognize good shot selection.
From the games I've watched, Hayes was an excellent finisher around the rim, respectable offensive rebounder, made his FT's at a respectable rate for a big man, and was a decent outlet passer in his own right during his Bullets years (overshadowed by Unseld here).
He was always a very good rebounder and defender during his prime, and let's not forget an utter ironman: missing just 9 games in 16 seasons.
Anecdotally a poor teammate, though Owly provided some anecdotal counterpoint, suggesting Hayes may have been more misunderstood than anything:
Owly wrote:
Intangiables: Not that these were "good". But the narrative may have been one-sided. Obviously some stuff, like Fitch's comments on him in regards to Sampson, seem pretty damning. Read through year by year and besides moody and grating you also see "he is by far the most civic minded of the Bullets, eager to make public appearances, many without payment" (from 1979 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball, though that type of refrain is often repeated in the series) and he was consistently in superb shape and motivated (this is occasionally somewhat set in contrast with Unseld's apparent indifference to basketball, though obviously he gave a lot of his body, setting picks, working back from injuries) which helped allow him the longevity. There are some flattering comments from Motta, such as after his first year, saying the critics were wrong on Elvin, that he had been "easy to coach". To be clear I'm not saying he's good here (I think it may have been tough to be his teammate), just maybe not as bad as sometimes made out or, more specfically, not without positives.
His poor shot selection (and resulting mediocre shooting efficiency) hurts his WS/48
more than any other rate metric we have, and yet he's still 47th all-time in career win shares in ABA/NBA-combined history. Some stuff on apparent impact......In '68, the San Diego Rockets were 15-67 (dead last by a full 8 games to the next worst team) and -7.94 SRS (dead-last). They were the 12th-rated (of 12) team offensively and 10th of 12 defensively.
In '69 they lose Dave Gambee, John Barnhill, Jon McGlocklin, and an aging Johnny Green. Only noteworthy new acquisitions are rookies Rick Adelman and Elvin Hayes (same coach and everything).......
they improve by 22 games (to 37-45)
and 7.64 SRS pts (to -0.30, 7th of 14). Their ORtg improves by 2.2 relative to the league (now 12th of 14, as apposed to dead-last). DRtg improves by 4.7 relative to league (now 3rd of 14).
Admittedly, they never would quite get over mediocrity during Hayes's four seasons there; but that's a heck of jump from the extreme basement of the league (which I think they can mostly thank Hayes for).
In '72, the Baltimore Bullets---who had Wes Unseld, Archie Clark, Phil Chenier, and Jack Marin (all basically healthy
and in their primes), along with at least a couple decent role players in Dave Stallworth and Mike Riordan----went 38-44, -1.26 SRS (10th of 17). They were 10th of 17 offensively, 9th of 17 defensively.
In '73, they still have all of the above characters (basically all healthy except Archie Clark who misses 43 games), same coach, too; only real noteworthy new acquisitions are rookie Kevin Porter (would only play 17.1 mpg his rookie season), and Elvin Hayes........
they improve by 14 games to 52-30 and by 4.1 SRS pts to +2.84 (7th of 17). In ORtg, although their league rank fell from 10th to 12th of 17,
they actually did improve by 0.9 relative to the league average. In DRtg, they improved by 3.2 relative to league (finishing 5th of 17).
Two years later they would be in the NBA finals. Three years after that they would win the title. Hayes would lead the league in playoff WS during that title run: 20.3 PER and .169 WS/48 in playoffs that year (20.7 ppg/11.9 rpg/1.6 spg/2.0 bpg @ .509 TS% in the finals).
And although I've voiced some concerns over methodology, Hayes rates very well in Elgee's WOWY studies, too (regressed career value of +3.8, iirc).
In short, I think we're past [perhaps
well-past] the point where his negatives remove him from valid candidacy.
2nd vote: Dominique WilkinsNique is another who gets ho-hummed out of contention on the basis of pedestrian shooting efficiency. I'm going to suggest that his style (which was not long on holding the ball, and frequently attacked the rim and put pressure on the defense to rotate, etc) is the sort which can have value which is difficult to quantify.
I think one potential way is in offensive rebounding: not only perhaps occasionally in the manner that Allen Iverson can boost team ORtg (by getting shots up on the rim after he's forced the defense to rotate/help/collapse), but also by banging the glass himself (Nique has one of the best offensive rebounding rates among SF's). The Hawks were top 5 in the league in OREB% in SEVEN of Nique's nine prime seasons (full or partial) with them---top 3 three times---and were NEVER below average. One of their two worst years in this span (10th/27 in the league) was in the year where Nique missed almost half the season with injury. They were 4th/27 in '94 (when Nique was with them for about 60% of the season); fell to 14th/27 the next year without him.
He also had a VERY small turnover rate (even in light of his relatively scant playmaking). Later in his prime, he's also got the floor-spacing box checked. As mentioned above, he attacked defenses, forced a certain degree of collapse or rotation, which can help teammates out (more so if he were a better playmaker, it's true, but I still think this has benefit, again perhaps especially on the offensive rebounding).
Otherwise, from a purely individual level, he scored A LOT of points at a little bit above average efficiency, and he did a fair bit of that unassisted. I know everyone says "meh" to taking that many shots on that kind of efficiency, but when you look at some of the supporting casts below, I ask you: "
who should be taking those shots?"
And one can hardly argue with the team offensive results (again: especially in light of the supporting casts some years; see below).
The team offensive results (with Nique as the consistent centerpiece) were consistently excellent during his prime:Atlanta Hawks rORtg and league rank during Nique’s prime‘86: +0.7 rORTG (11th/23)
‘87: +4.3 rORTG (4th/23)
‘88: +3.3 rORTG (5th/23)
‘89: +4.4 rORTG (4th/25)
‘90: +4.9 rORTG (4th/27)
‘91: +3.0 rORTG (8th/27)
‘92: -0.9 rORTG (16th/27)*
*Important to note Nique missed 40 games this^^^ year. They were +0.8 rORTG in the 42 games he played, -2.6 rORTG in the 40 he missed.‘93: +1.3 rORTG (10th/27)
‘94 (Nique traded late season): +0.9 rORTG (12th/27)
And I want to point out who his primary supporting cast was,
in descending order of playing time, for that 5-year stretch in which they were >+3.0 rORTG each year.....
'87: Kevin Willis, Doc Rivers, Randy Whitman, Cliff Levingston, Tree Rollins, Jon Koncak
'88: Doc Rivers, Randy Whitman, Cliff Levingston, Kevin Willis, Tree Rollins, Antoine Carr, Spud Webb, John Battle
'89: [late prime/early post-prime] Moses Malone, Reggie Theus, Doc Rivers, Cliff Levingston, John Battle, Jon Koncak, Antoine Carr, Spud Webb
'90: Moses Malone (post-prime), Kevin Willis, Spud Webb, Cliff Levingston, Doc Rivers, John Battle
'91: Doc Rivers, Kevin Willis, Spud Webb, Jon Koncak, Moses Malone (35 yrs old, very post-prime), John Battle
Here are some general WOWY records:
Dominique Wilkins with/without records in prime‘86: 49-29 (.628) with, 1-3 (.250) without
‘87: 56-23 (.709) with, 1-2 (.333) without
‘88: 48-30 (.615) with, 2-2 (.500) without
‘89: 51-29 (.638) with, 1-1 (.500) without
‘90: 39-41 (.488) with, 2-0 without
‘91: 43-38 (.531) with, 0-1 without
‘92: 22-20 (.524) with, 16-24 (.400) without
‘93: 39-32 (.549) with, 4-7 (.364) without
‘94: 42-32 (.568) with, 4-5 (.444) without
This is still muddy, but trends are definitely emerging in the above data.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
