#37 - GOAT peaks project (2019)

[LA Bird]

1) Michael Jordan 1990-91
2) LeBron James 2012-13
3) Wilt Chamberlain 1966-67
4) Shaquille O'Neal 1999-00
5) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 1976-77
6) Tim Duncan 2002-03
7) Larry Bird 1985-86
8) Bill Russell 1963-64
9) Hakeem Olajuwon 1993-94
10) Magic Johnson 1986-87
11) Kevin Garnett 2003-04
12) Julius Erving 1975-76
13) Bill Walton 1976-77
14) Oscar Robertson 1963-64
15) Stephen Curry 2015-16
16) Dwyane Wade 2008-09
17) Jerry West 1965-66
18) David Robinson 1994-95
19) Dirk Nowitzki 2010-11
20) Kobe Bryant 2007-08
21) Tracy McGrady 2002-03
22) Moses Malone 1982-83
23) Patrick Ewing 1989-90
24) Kevin Durant 2013-14
25) Russell Westbrook 2016-17
26) Charles Barkley 1992-93
27) Kawhi Leonard 2018-19
28) Chris Paul 2007-08
29) George Mikan 1948-49
30) Steve Nash 2004-05
31) Giannis Antetokounmpo 2018-19
32) Karl Malone 1996-97
33) Dwight Howard 2010-11
34) Artis Gilmore 1974-75
35) James Harden 2018-19
36) Willis Reed 1968-69

Please include at least 1 sentence of reasoning for each of your 3 picks. A simple list of names will not be counted.

Deadline: 11am November 12 Eastern Time
Let's try to have more than 4 votes this time...

The Voting System:

Everyone gives their 1st choice (4.5 points), 2nd choice (3 points), and 3rd choice (2 points). Highest point-total wins the round.
You can use your 3 choices to vote for more than 1 season of the same player (if you think that the best 3 seasons among the players left belong all to the same player, nothing is stopping you from using all you 3 choices on that player), but you can't continue voting for other seasons of that player once he wins and gets his spot. The final list will be 1 season per player.

Thank you for your participation!

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[penbeast0]

Barry 75, scorer on a dominant playoff run
Frazier 73, orchestrated one of the most team oriented teams of all time
Pettit 58, possibly the greatest 4th quarter Finals performance of all time to carry St Louis past the Celtics (Russell injured or it would be higher)

[liamliam1234]

Maybe nomorerings decided to dip as soon as Harden was admitted.

But LA, if the votes are too few, you know you can make votes of your own; you might not have the time to make them as detailed as you want, but the votes still go a long way.

It is funny, penbeast and I now agree on who the next three admitted players should be, but his insistence on voting first and foremost for their championship seasons means our votes will not work in tandem.

[penbeast0]

Maybe nomorerings decided to dip as soon as Harden was admitted.

But LA, if the votes are too few, you know you can make votes of your own; you might not have the time to make them as detailed as you want, but the votes still go a long way.

It is funny, penbeast and I now agree on who the next three admitted players should be, but his insistence on voting first and foremost for their championship seasons means our votes will not work in tandem.

I put a lot of value on championships it is true.

[trex_8063]

1st ballot - '18 Anthony Davis
Excellent and versatile two-way player, statistical giant in both rs and playoffs, solid(ish) impact metrics. Had initially voted for '15 version, but pursuant to discussion noted below in post #9, have switched to '18 version.


2nd ballot - '61 Elgin Baylor
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. And at any rate '61 Baylor was significantly above league avg efficiency (especially in the playoffs, where he shot a TS% that would be decent even by today's standards, despite lack of 3pt line, decent spacing, or restrictions on hand-checking). Any way you slice it, 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 of the perimeter players voted in recently (e.g. Nash or 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 semi-respectable 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 another thread), as far as it can be applied specifically to '61:

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 Baylor, 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).


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.

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….

Correctly utilized, I think Baylor could be the best SF of the recent era not named Lebron or Kevin Durant:
1) a scorer capable of maybe 21-22 ppg at around 58% TS on a talent-laden team, or 27+ ppg on ~56% TS if shouldering bigger usage; basically a Carmelo level scorer....
2) but a better playmaker than Melo (very underrated aspect of Baylor's game)
3) a neutral [to maybe small positive??] level defender
4) and possibly the GOAT rebounding SF outside of Shawn Marion (roughly equal to peak Lebron in this regard).
To qualify this last, I'm going to bring up a [url=viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1412184#start_here]CavaliersFTW's thread[/url]:

Also note Baylor's reb/100 possession numbers in '61: 17.75.
Compare this to some other notables (mostly centers: including Wilt and Russell) in '61:
Wilt Chamberlain '61 - 20.7
Bill Russell '61 - 19.3
Walter Dukes '61 - 19.2
Bob Pettit '61 - 18.9
Wayne Embry '61 - 15.1
Bailey Howell '61 - 14.3
And here are a few other notables from shortly after '61:
Walt Bellamy '62 - 17.5
Jerry Lucas---renowned as one of the greatest rebounders or all-time---though not around in '61, in the mid-60's ('64-'67) averaged between 17.4 to 19.1 rebs/100 possessions
Gus Johnson only had one year with a reb/100 avg >17.75 (18.3 in '71; he otherwise ranged between 12.7 to 16.6)
Dave DeBusschere ranged between 11.8 to 14.3 rebs/100 possessions during his career.
BOTTOM LINE: Baylor's rebounding was no joke. He is elite in an all-time sense for his position.



3rd ballot - '75 Bob McAdoo
For McAdoo, I’ll copy some comments I’d made in an old thread regarding McAdoo vs Kareem in ‘75:

Spoiler:

On McAdoo > Kareem....
tbh, I didn't expect to feel this way going into my evaluations (and I can't say that I feel strongly about this one); but McAdoo had a remarkable season. If we look at it in broad strokes "all-inclusive" type metrics, it looks reasonably close, with a small edge to Kareem:
McAdoo: 25.76 PER, .242 WS/48, +4.7 BPM in 43.2 mpg.
Kareem: 26.36 PER, .225 WS/48, +8.0 BPM in 42.3 mpg.

Kareem has a solid edge in BPM, while McAdoo holds a very small edge in WS/48. PER is a wash: Kareem has a near-negligible edge which is rendered [imo] fully negligible when we consider McAdoo's near-negligible edge in mpg. PIPM (which attempts to mimic an impact metric, though is ultimately mostly box-based) has Kareem as a +5.3 and McAdoo at +4.6.

So again, it's fairly close, with a small edge overall to Kareem. But then I note Kareem missed 17 games (while McAdoo missed none). I started to question whether Kareem's modest statistical edge offsets the durability "there-for-you-every-night" consideration in Bob's favour. Note, for instance, some cumulative metrics......
VORP (basically the cumulative form of BPM) has just a small edge for Kareem: 6.95 vs 6.02 for McAdoo.
WS has a pretty sizable edge in McAdoo's favour: 17.81 for McAdoo vs just 12.89 for Kareem. The difference between them is larger than the full-season total of any of Kareem's teammates except for Bob Dandridge, and any of McAdoo's teammates except for Randy Smith or Jim McMillan.
Any PER or PIPM-based "wins added" metric would have McAdoo at least negligibly ahead, too.

So Kareem certainly can't run away with this one. If we kind of break things down by performance in various areas.....
I definitely think Kareem was the better and more adept passer/playmaker. Most of his passes were out of double-teams or hitting cutters from the post; saw the occasional play-making from the high-post. While my eye-test on McAdoo is more limited, I certainly never saw anything to make me think he's Kareem's equal there; and the assist numbers sort of back up that assumption (4.1 to 2.2 edge to Kareem).

Rebounding is a near-wash, slight edge to Kareem (if look at pace-adjusted) in individual rebounds (although McAdoo ahead in rpg); Milwaukee was the better defensive rebounding team, while Buffalo was better at offensive rebounding (McAdoo at the helm of that, too).

Defensively, I'd have to go with Kareem too [off the cuff], although I do think prime McAdoo is often underrated in this regard. He did avg 2.1 bpg that year and the Braves were 5th of 18 in opp eFG%. Overall the Bucks were a the exact same rDRTG (+0.1) as the Braves, despite Kareem having Bob Dandridge (good defensive reputation, though I have no eye-test specifically on '75) as a teammate. So it's hard to say how say how much of a defensive edge Kareem has in this particular year, although the Bucks were good in the things a big can most influence.

Scoring is a solid edge to McAdoo in this particular year, though. McAdoo is going for 34.5 ppg @ 56.9% TS, while Kareem is 30.0 ppg @ 55.0% TS; and McAdoo does so while certainly stretching the floor to a greater degree than Kareem. And one cannot claim it didn't have tangible team offensive results, given the McAdoo/Smith Braves were a +2.1 rORTG (vs +0.3 rORTG for Kareem and Dandridge in Milwaukee).
Overall the Braves won 49 games while the Bucks won 38 (although they're a little better than this as per SRS). The Braves had more roster consistency and a little better depth in general, but still......the Bucks were only on pace for ~44 wins even in the games Kareem played in. So they don't appear far off in overall impact.

I would say Kareem was a little better in the games he played in......but only a little better. And for me, it just wasn't be quite enough to offset those 17 missed games. So I've sided with McAdoo ever so slightly for this year.

For that matter, I think Erving and Gilmore are very close to them for this year as well.

I’ll also note my study on Scaled rs PER and WS/48, where ‘75 McAdoo’s PER comes in 46th all-time, 2nd to only Kareem specifically in the year ‘75. His playoff scaled PER is also top 100 all-time. And his scaled rs WS/48 is 28th all-time.

[LA Bird]

Copy pasting E-Balla and trex_8063's writeups...

1. 1999 Alonzo Mourning

Spoiler:

I've been alluding to how great and underrated Zo is but I haven't made a full post on it yet. It's pretty odd that looking around you can find write ups either here or from blogs about other players. There's nothing on Zo. I mean articles from professionals from back in the day exist but for some reason I can't find any breakdowns on Zo which is a shame because his impact was tremendous and at his peak he was on the same level as young Duncan, arguably better than Malone who barely won MVP over him, and was comparable to Shaq at the time (who played no defense).

Offensively Zo had a basic post game, and a pretty reliable jumper out to 15 feet (it was shaky outside of that). That's basically all (of course he had the signature Georgetown running hook like Ewing did but it was meh). Most of his points were gained due to his immense physical advantages. His turnaround was money because of the speed of his spin, he got deep position easily with his strength and finished strong, and his faceup drives worked because he had a jumper you had to play while having one of the best first steps for any C ever (Dwight comes to mind as faster). Zo also wanted it, and he played like it. Got him to the line often and got him a decent amount of putbacks. He was undersized but I think that played to his advantage more especially in the post Shaq era. He was in a league environment where teams kept a big plodder on the floor or on the roster and when matched up with one he was unstoppable. He didn't even need his jumper against some of the bigger guys in league history.

Watch on YouTube

His handles weren't great, he wasn't a great mover laterally, he didn't have spin moves or a strong drop step, but he still managed to be a 19-23 ppg scorer on between +5-7 rTS% each of the first 8 years of his career and a 20 ppg on 55 TS% guy in the playoffs.

He didn't pass well at all but Miami in both 98 and 99 had a +2.5ish offense. They had a +2.4 offense in 98 against NY and a +0.9 in 99 against them (that's slight underrated because NY's defense came alive in the playoffs). All in all Zo wasn't great but he was definitely a good enough first option to give you a top 10 offense that would hold in the playoffs against some tough ass squads in tough ass series (arguably the toughest series' ever) if he was the centerpiece with a very good PG and decent third scorer (Tim and Mash).

Overall he averaged 20.1/11.0/1.6 with 3.9 bpg on +5.3 rTS% with a 107 ORTG in the regular season and 21.6/8.2/0.8 with 2.8 blocks and 1.6 steals per game on 57.1 TS% (+8.3 rTS%) with a 106 ORTG (+8 rORTG).

Defensively he's on the shortlist of the GOATs. He was DPOY back to back in 99 and 2000 and watching him it's obvious why. He was someone that chased shots but didn't seem to foul because his jump speed was so fast. Next to Bill Russell he's the most effective shot blocker ever. One thing I always noticed watching Zo is he kept the ball inbounds. If his back was to the basket he went straight up and only flicked his wrist. If he was behind the play he pinned it on the backboard. Either way he always found a way to keep it in play and I'm taking him as the best rim protector ever next to Deke. In this clip you can see exactly how fast he gets off the floor and how effortless it is for him.

Watch on YouTube

His only weakness was his lack of height. Unlike Ben Wallace who seemed to be able to overcome his height issues Zo was not a great man defender at all. Usually this isn't an issue but Zo played at the same time as numbers 4, 9, 18, and 23 on this list. The 4 guys with the highest single season PPG totals for any true C outside of Wilt and Kareem. In these clips you can see how Shaq dominates him at both player's arguable peaks.

Watch on YouTube

Hakeem (who was also undersized - he was listed at 7 feet but is barely taller than Dwight Howard who is 6-9 barefoot and 6-10 in sneakers) is the only one of those centers Zo played well and that's because with his speed and power he was the perfect counter to him. I'd argue no one ever played Hakeem as well as Zo did in the few times I've seen a game featuring the two. Overall he's a 10/10 rim defender, 10/10 help defender, and maybe a 7/10 man defender that still led -4 to -6 defenses at his best.

As far as the season goes it was a lockout but Miami won 33 of the 50 games, going 1-3 without Zo, and lost in a major first round upset to the eventual NBA Finalists while they still had their best player (because Ewing got hurt and they still made the Finals without him). I think that result is why this year is overlooked because Zo played amazing in that series while his team collapsed.

Zo averaged 21.6 ppg on 57.1 TS% like mentioned before but his team? Outside of him they scored 57.4 ppg on 47 TS%. Tim Hardaway went from averaging 17.4 ppg and 7.2 apg on 51.1 TS% with a 13.8 TOV% and 105 ORTG to 9.0 ppg and 6.4 apg on 35.7 TS% with a 22.2 TOV% and 74 ORTG in the series against NY. Without Zo dominating NY sweeps them instead of needing a lucky bounce on an H20 floater to win.

As far as his impact goes I'm not going to dig for the raw +/- numbers (screw NBA.com for ever taking them down) but Zo led the league in RAPM and his yearly finishes from 97 to 99 are:

97 - 7 (this is NPI)
98 - 2 (3rd in NPI)
99 - 1 (2nd in NPI)

TL;DR: Impact stats paint him as the impactful player of that 3 year stretch.

Basically we have it all here, just not the reputation, and that's something recent because in 99 he was runner up to MVP and in 2000 he was 3rd in MVP voting to Shaq and KG. The numbers hold up, the playoff performance holds up, the team strength success holds up (not in 99 specifically but form 97-00), the impact holds up. If it wasn't for his game being limited compared to the other star Cs of his time and him losing head to head matchups against all of them constantly (besides Hakeem) he'd be seen as on their level pretty clearly. As it is he's a half step behind them as the next best great true C if you ask me.

EDIT: And I forgot to mention Zo's impact as a leader. I'm not the biggest intangibles guy unless it bleeds on the floor and boy did it when Zo was out there. He's one of the toughest players ever (he would fight you if he needed to as JVG found out in 98), one of the most well respected players ever (so respected people forget what he did to the Raps to get back to Miami and just like him going back to Miami), and one of the players that played hardest in league history. If I made a short list of players with the most contagious energy in the floor Zo would probably be right under Magic, KG, and Westbrook as far as guys worthy of this list go. He always seemed to lead through big plays, big celebrations, and a crowd/team that exploded when he was ready for them to. I think it's a big part of why that Heat team was so successful and of course we all know while Wade was the best player on the 06 Heat and Zo didn't even start he was the soul of the team turning around each game when he hit the floor.

2. 1975 Bob McAdoo

Spoiler:

Buffalo won 49 games and was 5th in SRS in 75. McAdoo [led] the 4th (+2.1) [ranked offense]. McAdoo just so happened to play in the East (where 49 wins got them the 3rd seed and a matchup with Washington in their only round).

McAdoo was the follow up to Dolph Schayes (who was a 90% freethrow shooter in the 60s... insane) and the 2nd great shooting big man. Seriously this is his 50 point game 4 against Washington the day he was announced MVP and he only scores off 8 combined dunks/layups (I'm counting shot attempts he was fouled on too).

Watch on YouTube

Most of his jumpers were either contested turnarounds or out near the 3 point line (21+ feet out). McAdoo was basically Dirk before Dirk and when watching him play it's not hard to imagine him being as accomplished as Dirk if he played in a league more suited to outside play. He could handle the ball but it wasn't until 76 he became a better ball handler and playmaker but his jumper never fell as much as in 75 so he was never as effective overall. Defensively he was a quick guy with the ability to hit the boards hard and decent shot blocking ability. He's a natural PF but played C and was able to hold his own leading Buffalo to an average defense.

[In the playoffs] McAdoo scored 34+ in all 7 games against Washington's #1 defense averaging 37.4 ppg on 53 TS% while leading a +5.6 offense. Meanwhile the Braves defense played bad, but not horrible so I don't have a reason to believe McAdoo played bad on that end in a series where he averaged 2.7 bpg, 9.9 DRBs a night, and 0.9 spg. They had no business going to 7 but they did and they did it with Randy Smith and Jim McMillan being the only other above averaged players on the team.

3. 1961 Elgin Baylor

Spoiler:

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. And at any rate '61 Baylor was significantly above league avg efficiency (especially in the playoffs, where he shot a TS% that would be decent even by today's standards, despite lack of 3pt line, decent spacing, or restrictions on hand-checking). Any way you slice it, 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 of the perimeter players voted in recently (e.g. Nash or 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 semi-respectable 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 another thread), as far as it can be applied specifically to '61:
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 Baylor, 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).


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.

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….

Correctly utilized, I think Baylor could be the best SF of the recent era not named Lebron or Kevin Durant:
1) a scorer capable of maybe 21-22 ppg at around 58% TS on a talent-laden team, or 27+ ppg on ~56% TS if shouldering bigger usage; basically a Carmelo level scorer....
2) but a better playmaker than Melo (very underrated aspect of Baylor's game)
3) a neutral [to maybe small positive??] level defender
4) and possibly the GOAT rebounding SF outside of Shawn Marion (roughly equal to peak Lebron in this regard).
To qualify this last, I'm going to bring up a [url=viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1412184#start_here]CavaliersFTW's thread[/url]:

Also note Baylor's reb/100 possession numbers in '61: 17.75.
Compare this to some other notables (mostly centers: including Wilt and Russell) in '61:
Wilt Chamberlain '61 - 20.7
Bill Russell '61 - 19.3
Walter Dukes '61 - 19.2
Bob Pettit '61 - 18.9
Wayne Embry '61 - 15.1
Bailey Howell '61 - 14.3
And here are a few other notables from shortly after '61:
Walt Bellamy '62 - 17.5
Jerry Lucas---renowned as one of the greatest rebounders or all-time---though not around in '61, in the mid-60's ('64-'67) averaged between 17.4 to 19.1 rebs/100 possessions
Gus Johnson only had one year with a reb/100 avg >17.75 (18.3 in '71; he otherwise ranged between 12.7 to 16.6)
Dave DeBusschere ranged between 11.8 to 14.3 rebs/100 possessions during his career.
BOTTOM LINE: Baylor's rebounding was no joke. He is elite in an all-time sense for his position.

Might change Baylor to Draymond at #3 if I have time to do my own writeup on him later.

[liamliam1234]

1. 1972 Walt Frazier
His best playoffs and regular season, with incredible team results in both considering Reed’s absence. Comparisons with Chris Paul colour my vote here. One of the league’s best perimetre defenders and passers, with superb scoring as well. Playoff elevator capable of leading his team to a title, as evidenced by what happened as soon as Reed returned the following year (frustrating that Frazier missed out on Finals MVP, but it happens).

2. 1975 Rick Barry
Bona fides are obvious: stupendous regular season with an excellent postseason (http://bkref.com/tiny/2mQYq) ending in a championship victory. Immense offensive burden; probably one of the highest marks on the entire list. And contrary to most instances of players hard-carrying the team’s offence, Barry managed to captain the league’s best offence. Now, that dipped in the postseason — he is not Nash — but that is not prohibitive considering the usual results for those types of teams structures. I cited Rose and Iverson as blue-collar comparisons, but 2017 Westbrook is probably a better match. Moreover, if anything the postseason offensive results look more like a fluke in light of Golden State’s strong offensive performances in the subsequent two years. I like Frazier more for his two-way impact — although in this year Barry was no slouch — but in terms of leading a mediocre team to success, Barry is pretty close.

3. 1973 Walt Frazier
Feeling a bit underwhelmed by some of the other candidates, so will go with Walt’s next-best year, where he led his team to a title and captained an even better postseason offence.

Hang-up with Baylor is his team’s poor offensive results. But I could be swayed, because the comparison between him and Pettit is very close. Hang up with Pettit is his numbers are not especially eye-popping, lol, and he played next to an under-appreciated and highly capable second option. Also considering Mourning and Lanier. Poor postseason defensive metrics of Lanier bother me, but the box score metrics are good, and team offensive results are great without a clear draw from any other player.

[No-more-rings]

1st ballot - '15 Anthony Davis
Excellent two-way player, led a mediocre cast to 45 wins and playoff berth in a tough conference. Got swept by a vastly superior team in the playoffs, but he put up monster numbers, keeping them competitive in 2-3 of the games. Worth noting also that he led the entire league in PER in both the rs and the playoffs.

I can’t help but feel you are picking 15’ over 17’ and 18’ due to pretty much exclusively advanced stats when he was clearly a better player in 2017 and 2018.

For starters, he was clearly better defensively by eye test in those years, played more games in both years 75 to 68. His on/off was pretty close in all 3 years, but I don’t think using PER is a good argument when he maintained similar efficiency with clearly higher volume in those later years. And using 4 playoff games doesn’t really seem to prove anything. Davis’s 31.5/11 on 61.3 ts% are probably some of the most overrated numbers from a series that i can recall. Not saying he didn’t perform well, but the Pelicans had no reasonable shot at the series, and i recall at least 1-2 of those games where he used garbage time to get some of those stats. Like the defensive attention he received wasn’t remotely close to what he got when he played the Warriors again in 2018.

In 2018 he averaged similar production over a larger sample in the playoffs.

So what’s Davis’s argument for 15’ over 18’ aside from PER and BPM or whatever?

[trex_8063]

1st ballot - '15 Anthony Davis
Excellent two-way player, led a mediocre cast to 45 wins and playoff berth in a tough conference. Got swept by a vastly superior team in the playoffs, but he put up monster numbers, keeping them competitive in 2-3 of the games. Worth noting also that he led the entire league in PER in both the rs and the playoffs.

I can’t help but feel you are picking 15’ over 17’ and 18’ due to pretty much exclusively advanced stats when he was clearly a better player in 2017 and 2018.

For starters, he was clearly better defensively by eye test in those years, played more games in both years 75 to 68. His on/off was pretty close in all 3 years, but I don’t think using PER is a good argument when he maintained similar efficiency with clearly higher volume in those later years. And using 4 playoff games doesn’t really seem to prove anything. Davis’s 31.5/11 on 61.3 ts% are probably some of the most overrated numbers from a series that i can recall. Not saying he didn’t perform well, but the Pelicans had no reasonable shot at the series, and i recall at least 1-2 of those games where he used garbage time to get some of those stats. Like the defensive attention he received wasn’t remotely close to what he got when he played the Warriors again in 2018.

In 2018 he averaged similar production over a larger sample in the playoffs.

So what’s Davis’s argument for 15’ over 18’ aside from PER and BPM or whatever?

Fair enough on the comments. It was largely a numbers-based decision to favour '15, though I could be convinced to switch to '18, which was the other big contender imo for AD.
'17 is imo a small step below either. There were some elements he'd added to his game since '15 [such as 3pt range], but the trey wasn't really falling for him that year (finishing at the rim was down marginally, too) and consequently has his lowest shooting efficiency since his rookie year, and was also sort of sloppy [relatively] with the ball (having his worst turnover economy since his rookie year, too). I don't necessarily mean to be too dictated by the numbers, but his box-based metrics are frankly TOO far removed from either '15 or '18 to give this year real serious consideration, especially while noting his RAPM is also a small step below that of '15 or '18, and the Pels win 11 fewer games than in '15 [with a fairly similar-strength cast].

It was my impression that his defense had matured a little in '18 relative to '15, while more or less being the same player otherwise (except he now has an outside shot, too); he also had his best FT-shooting year to date. So from those standpoints, I suppose I should be taking '18.
However, while it's merely semantics, the wording above seems to imply a pretty notable increase in volume, when in fact his scoring volume went up only slightly (the major difference was that the Pels' pace changed from 91.4 in '15 to 100.5 in '18). And while I suppose his efficiency is [roughly] "similar", if we want to get really precise, one could truthfully say it got a little worse: his rTS% in '18 is -0.1% relative to '15, while also having a clearly lesser turnover economy (modified TOV% of 5.08% [best of his career] in '15 vs 6.97% in '18).
I can't quite place my finger on the reason why some of these things should be notably better in '15, if we take as a given that he was a better player in '18. More defensive pressure? I don't remember well enough to say. He did have a slightly better cast in '18, which one would think could relieve him of some pressure. Or was his broadening skill-set "getting ahead of" his decision-making capabilities? idk....

The Pels achieved a slightly greater team success in '18, but again: slightly better cast too.
So I still think it's a close debate. The few additional missed games in '15 is a consideration though, and could function as a tie-breaker. idk, I may end up switching to '18 before the deadline.

[liamliam1234]

Will echo that I think 2018 Davis should be weighted over 2015.

Similarly (but not to the same extent), I am a little confused by the case for 1999 Mourning over 2000 Mourning. Regular season is basically even, and the 2000 playoffs seem reasonably more impressive under a larger sample.

I am also sincerely baffled that the Howard voters have apparently abandoned Mourning. I mean, I think Mourning was better, but even casting that aside I am not seeing the case that they would not be approximately neck-and-neck given their similar roles.

[cecilthesheep]

Will echo that I think 2018 Davis should be weighted over 2015.

Similarly (but not to the same extent), I am a little confused by the case for 1999 Mourning over 2000 Mourning. Regular season is basically even, and the 2000 playoffs seem reasonably more impressive under a larger sample.

I am also sincerely baffled that the Howard voters have apparently abandoned Mourning. I mean, I think Mourning was better, but even casting that aside I am not seeing the case that they would not be approximately neck-and-neck given their similar roles.

Howard was a terror as a lob threat, finisher, and offensive rebounder. Mourning was fine at those things but I don't think he had the impact Howard did. I think they're about equally good defenders but i'd rather have Howard on offense in most contexts.

It's kind of similar to the Howard/Reed discussion, but Mourning wasn't nearly as good offensively as Reed imo

[liamliam1234]

But impact statistics do not back up that conclusion. Especially not in the playoffs.

[trex_8063]

But impact statistics do not back up that conclusion. Especially not in the playoffs.

It's not that far off in scaled terms. To get a rough idea of scaled RAPM we can look at league rank: in PI Mourning was #1 in '99, #10 in '00. Howard was #5 in '10, #8 in '11. So Mourning really isn't terribly far ahead, on average.

And the next thing to consider is that while RAPM attempts to parse out each individual's contribution (good or bad) to the team result, it is imperfect in this endeavor. So a star player could conceivably "look better" if the guys who take the floor every time he sits are not very good: like Mark Strickland, Duane Causewell, or a 37-year-old Otis Thorpe (the primary back-up centers for the Heat in '99 and '00).
This versus Marcin Gortat (a very good back-up center), who was the almost-exclusive sub for Howard thru most of '09-'11 [until about midway thru the '11 season (at which point there was Earl Clark who, yeah, was fairly bad)].

EDIT: That said, I agree Mourning needs to be getting serious consideration soon/now.

[Odinn21]

I'm yet to come up with a proper 3 names. But I'm curious about something else, this project is nearing to be completed assuming we'll stop at 40, would anyone be interested in 'playoffs only' goat peaks project? But not for long though, something like top 20 or 25 at most.

[LA Bird]

Similarly (but not to the same extent), I am a little confused by the case for 1999 Mourning over 2000 Mourning. Regular season is basically even, and the 2000 playoffs seem reasonably more impressive under a larger sample.

Team performance and Mourning's individual +/- numbers both point to 99 being better than 00.
1999: +10.9 on court net (#1 defense, #3 offense). #1 in PI RAPM, +16 on/off net (defense around -11, all time level stuff)
2000: +5.1 on court net. #10 in PI RAPM, +5 on/off net (defense around -2)

And his 2000 playoffs is not reasonably more impressive than 1999. Knicks postseason defense was much stronger in 99 and Mourning arguably played better in that series than he did the following year against the same but weaker opponent.

I'm yet to come up with a proper 3 names. But I'm curious about something else, this project is nearing to be completed assuming we'll stop at 40, would anyone be interested in 'playoffs only' goat peaks project? But not for long though, something like top 20 or 25 at most.

I personally think leaving this project up and ranking the less discussed players would be more interesting than starting another very similar project where we will see much of the same arguments already posted here. Except for the players who didn't win titles at their peak (namely Garnett and Robinson), I think a top 20 playoffs only peak list would look pretty much the same as what we already have.

[trex_8063]

Since it was almost a wash for me anyway, I've bowed to collective wisdom and changed my 1st ballot vote to the '18 version of AD.

With so many of his contemporaries already in: Westbrook at #25, Kawhi #27, Giannis #31, Harden #35......seriously how far behind can Davis reasonably be?

[WarriorGM]

Since it was almost a wash for me anyway, I've bowed to collective wisdom and changed my 1st ballot vote to the '18 version of AD.

With so many of his contemporaries already in: Westbrook at #25, Kawhi #27, Giannis #31, Harden #35......seriously how far behind can Davis reasonably be?

This looks like a fallacy to me. It's a peaks project he could be in the 50s or more. I'm surprised anyone is mentioning Davis when we haven't gotten any votes for King, Gervin, Miller, Hondo, TMac, etc., especially with how voters here lavish praise on players outside of this generation in its top 10.

[cecilthesheep]

Since it was almost a wash for me anyway, I've bowed to collective wisdom and changed my 1st ballot vote to the '18 version of AD.

With so many of his contemporaries already in: Westbrook at #25, Kawhi #27, Giannis #31, Harden #35......seriously how far behind can Davis reasonably be?

This looks like a fallacy to me. It's a peaks project he could be in the 50s or more. I'm surprised anyone is mentioning Davis when we haven't gotten any votes for King, Gervin, Miller, Hondo, TMac, etc., especially with how voters here lavish praise on players outside of this generation in its top 10.

TMac is number 21 lol

I might be about to start voting for Miller, actually

[cecilthesheep]

I'm yet to come up with a proper 3 names. But I'm curious about something else, this project is nearing to be completed assuming we'll stop at 40, would anyone be interested in 'playoffs only' goat peaks project? But not for long though, something like top 20 or 25 at most.

Yes, that sounds like fun. Way more subjective even than this, probably with a way higher value on rings, but i'd be down

[Odinn21]

I personally think leaving this project up and ranking the less discussed players would be more interesting than starting another very similar project where we will see much of the same arguments already posted here. Except for the players who didn't win titles at their peak (namely Garnett and Robinson), I think a top 20 playoffs only peak list would look pretty much the same as what we already have.

Well, that list would have the same names probably but I believe the chosen season, the ranking and the arguments would also be different.

I don't think many would pick 2012, 2016, 2017 and 2009 playoffs LeBron over 2013 playoffs LeBron. There's a good chance I'd pick 1984 playoffs Bird over 1986 playoffs Bird.
For example Shaq's 2000 playoffs performance would dropped down below Timmy's 2003 playoffs performance. Or someone would argue back with Webber's and Nowitzki's injuries, I don't know.
We get to examine and talk about the playoff competition way, way more. (This, viewtopic.php?p=79457856#p79457856 , was what inspired me about this topic.)

I get what you are saying, being repetitive with these names. But there's also more to it.