RealGM

In this hypothetical situation pretend that Havlicek is drafted by LA in 1958 while Baylor is drafted to Boston in 1962.

I say personally that Havlicek alongside West would win at least 2 to 3 rings during those 13 years as they would have been one of the GOAT two-way duos in NBA history.

An interesting proposition. They lose a lot of volume scoring, and Hondo wasn't meaningfully more efficient despite shooting quite a bit less (his career-high season is only a little above Baylor's career-average in terms of volume). Like, a lot. Gain on D. Lose heavily on the glass. There's some question of how fast Hondo develops if he's thrust into a more consequential role right away, or if we're waiting until 66 or 68 for him to start shouldering starter's minutes. Until 1970 to see him start contributing more as a major playmaker. Havlicek was really good, and his D and passing are (at least eventually) major upgrades, but there's a considerable loss of scoring threat which makes me hesitate.

I don't know that Hondo would have been a lot better a choice than Baylor. That said, there are a couple of seasons where Hondo's health alone would have been interesting, be it from military obligation or injuries and stuff, so that's worth considering. I'm reasonably sure Baylor would have been worse for Boston, but I'm not so sure Havlicek would have been better for LA.

I think Baylor's extra volume and rebounding match up well to Havlicek's better defense otherwise; especially on an LA team that was never particularly big or strong until they got Wilt. Not just their mediocre centers but Rudy LaRusso was a nice player but not a great rebounder either; though he could stretch the floor to give Baylor (and West) more room inside.

The only other thing that might matter is that Havlicek had a longer career with his strongest years coming toward the end. Havlicek took a jump in efficiency in 1970 after Russell's retirement; with him coming into the league when Baylor did, that puts his peak years from 66-70 plus a strong post 70 career which cover the Chamberlain years where he's a better fit with Wilt than Baylor so he might get an extra ring in 69 or later.

Now, on the other hand, it's hard to imagine Boston doing better than they did with Havlicek. So no extra rings for Baylor, his big injury year is 65 which under this scenario moves to 69 when Russell had the weakest team around him already and LA was already a heavy favorite. That is unlikely to happen with a team built around Russell and Baylor when Baylor goes down with injury. So at least 1 less ring; Baylor wouldn't be in the league yet when facing Pettit, he'd have to be the difference in 67 to make it up when Philly was one of the ATG teams in NBA history.

penbeast0 wrote:I think Baylor's extra volume and rebounding match up well to Havlicek's better defense otherwise; especially on an LA team that was never particularly big or strong until they got Wilt. Not just their mediocre centers but Rudy LaRusso was a nice player but not a great rebounder either; though he could stretch the floor to give Baylor (and West) more room inside.

This is sort of what I'm after. Baylor was 3rd or 4th in the league in RPG from 59-61. 5th, 9th, 9th, 15th, 9th, 9th from 63-68.

A lot of it is is rooted in MPG, of course; 2nd, 4th and 4th 59-61. 4th, 7th and 6th from 64-65, then 9th, 6th and 11th from 67-69, but you get the picture. Availability was good enough and he logged a ton of minutes. Team was 4th (of 8), 8/8, 7/8 on O from 59-61. 3/9 in 62, 4/9, 2/9 in 64 as Baylor's volume scoring came down. This is the first hint for anyone doing a peripheral scan that maybe having him shoot all that much was a bad idea, really. 2/9 in 65, 1st in 66 with Baylor averaging 16.6 over 65 games. 5/10 in 67 with him logging 38.7 over 70 games at 26.6 ppg, 1st of 12 in 68 (Baylor 77 GP, 39.3 mpg, 26.0 ppg, 50.5% TS, which was the 2nd-highest of his career at that point), 2/14 in 69, 8/14 in 70 (Baylor played 54 games, logged a 53.7% TS on 24 ppg), 4/17 in 71, 1/17 in 72 en route to the title. Baylor played 9 RS games that year and none in the playoffs.

So there's definitely space to ponder if Baylor's volume scoring was worth it. He's sort of like a crappier version of Wilt in-era, in the sense that everyone loves high-volume PPG, and the efficiency doesn't stun compared to more contemporary league environments. His TS+ has a rough arc of decline as his career went on, but there are some injuries to consider. 107, 106 and 106 over his first three seasons. 103, 105, 100, 97, 94, 100, 101, 102, 105 (54 GP), 92, 97 (2 and 9 GP). Looking at rTS, he was only ever worse than league average 65-67 among years that counted (his last two seasons as well, but again, 2 and 9 GP). Was he efficient? No, he was a mediocre scorer as the league environment matured in terms of efficiency, even as his volume started to come down. And his best season, his rookie year, was only +3.1% rTS, which is good but not stunning.



Tough call. I am not traditionally very high on Baylor. I think he epitomizes "volume over substance" for me as a scorer, though obviously he was a prototype who served as an inspiration to many later players. And of course the league was very physical in the paint, not that well spaced out, and he drew like it was the late 90s or early 2000s, which is to say reasonably well, all things considered. He didn't scale well as the league evolved, but he was aging and accruing injuries with a style that really leaned on athleticism that might have aged more gracefully later on, and certainly would have benefited from a more open environment. I dunno.

Having said all that, there's definitely room to consider the idea that Hondo shooting less, defending better and passing more might have been the ticket to potentially a little earlier contention. Certainly taking him off of Boston would have been nice, anyway, heh.

Havlicek shoot poorly for the 1st half of his career.
Baylor shot even worse than Havlicek but I prefer Baylor as a first option.
We were getting ready to see Baylor, West, Chamberlain and I think Goodrich as well when Baylor got injured and his career ended.
Havlicek was very durable and played more years. Does Havlicek keep playing for the Lakers after Baylor retires?

Unless Havicek plays after Baylor retures I don't see Havlicek getting rings on the Baylor teams.

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:Havlicek shoot poorly for the 1st half of his career.
Baylor shot even worse than Havlicek but I prefer Baylor as a first option.

Baylor was more efficient scorer than Havlicek, in terms of peak, prime and career.

I think the Lakers go back to back with Havlicek in 1969 and 1970.

West, Havlicek and Wilt would have locked teams down on defence.


And it's not as if West and Wilt couldn't adjust to playing with a gunner as they did so with Goodrich in 1972 and 1973 to great success.

70sFan wrote:

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:Havlicek shoot poorly for the 1st half of his career.
Baylor shot even worse than Havlicek but I prefer Baylor as a first option.

Baylor was more efficient scorer than Havlicek, in terms of peak, prime and career.

I just checked, Same TS% as Havlicek, Iverson like except Baylor's teamates shot worse than Iverso's teamates and there is a context for the innefiecency of Baylor, Havilicek and Iverson.

coastalmarker99 wrote:I think the Lakers go back to back with Havlicek in 1969 and 1970.

West, Havlicek and Wilt would have locked teams down on defence.


And it's not as if West and Wilt couldn't adjust to playing with a gunner as they did so with Goodrich in 1972 and 1973 to great success.

Celtics needed a Bail out guy to shoot from the outside. With West and Chamberlain the Lakers did not need that as much.
Baily Howell and Sam Jones were the Celtics efficient scorers but they coukd not score like West and Chamberlain. I think Havilcek would have shot less on the Lakers than he did with the Celtics.

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:

70sFan wrote:

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:Havlicek shoot poorly for the 1st half of his career.
Baylor shot even worse than Havlicek but I prefer Baylor as a first option.

Baylor was more efficient scorer than Havlicek, in terms of peak, prime and career.

I just checked, Same TS% as Havlicek, Iverson like except Baylor's teamates shot worse than Iverso's teamates and there is a context for the innefiecency of Baylor, Havilicek and Iverson.

Baylor played in significantly less efficient era, relative efficiency is very important.

70sFan wrote:

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:

70sFan wrote:Baylor was more efficient scorer than Havlicek, in terms of peak, prime and career.

I just checked, Same TS% as Havlicek, Iverson like except Baylor's teamates shot worse than Iverso's teamates and there is a context for the innefiecency of Baylor, Havilicek and Iverson.

Baylor played in significantly less efficient era, relative efficiency is very important.

I've already thrown up Baylor's rTS. Here it is again, alongside Hondo's:



Just for context, Baylor averaged 49.1 against 48.6 for an average rTS of +0.5% in his own career environment.

Hondo averaged 49.1 against 49.8, for an average rTS of -0.8% in his career.

Baylor, while his career overlapped with Hondo, averaged 49.1 vs 49.4, or -0.3%. During the same stretch (63-72), Hondo averaged 48.4% vs 49.4% for -1.0%. And of course, this includes Baylor's last two seasons without weighting them (2 and 9 games played). Without those, he averaged 49.5 vs 49.2 for +0.3% from 63-70. In that stretch, Hondo averaged 47.6 vs 49.2 for -1.6%.

Food for thought.

tsherkin wrote:

70sFan wrote:

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:
I just checked, Same TS% as Havlicek, Iverson like except Baylor's teamates shot worse than Iverso's teamates and there is a context for the innefiecency of Baylor, Havilicek and Iverson.

Baylor played in significantly less efficient era, relative efficiency is very important.

I've already thrown up Baylor's rTS. Here it is again, alongside Hondo's:



Just for context, Baylor averaged 49.1 against 48.6 for an average rTS of +0.5% in his own career environment.

Hondo averaged 49.1 against 49.8, for an average rTS of -0.8% in his career.

Baylor, while his career overlapped with Hondo, averaged 49.1 vs 49.4, or -0.3%. During the same stretch (63-72), Hondo averaged 48.4% vs 49.4% for -1.0%. And of course, this includes Baylor's last two seasons without weighting them (2 and 9 games played). Without those, he averaged 49.5 vs 49.2 for +0.3% from 63-70. In that stretch, Hondo averaged 47.6 vs 49.2 for -1.6%.

Food for thought.

Interesting.

The league shooting gets better every year except 1 and that is the year that Baylor starts shooting worse than league average.
Lakers team looks the sane. Players are the same. Wins and losses don't change much. West and Baylor both take a little larger percentage of team shots. Wests shooting percentage goes uo and Baylor's goes down.

I cut the 1st option a break on shooting percentage. West and Baylor are both firing up shots like they are the 1st option.
There is probably a story for why Baylor shot worse than they year before. 1st guess would be that something declined in his heakth.
Whatever was going on with the one year league decline in shooting may have effected Baylor but not West.

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:The league shooting gets better every year except 1 and that is the year that Baylor starts shooting worse than league average.
Lakers team looks the sane. Players are the same. Wins and losses don't change much.

They aren't the same player, though. They produce the same issue when you use them in a volume role, of course, but Baylor tended to shoot more than Hondo as well, which wasn't a problem. And then rebounding versus defense, and passing profile are also different. Like for example, keep in mind that Baylor led the league in PER in 61 and was a .227 WS/48 guy. Numbers with their issues and imperfect analysis, to be sure, but relevant next to a guy like Hondo who reached .172 as his peak season and never exceeded a PER of 20.8, despite filling the box score. He was roughly a 28 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 7.5 apg (in 45 mpg) across 71 and 72, right? He made his bones with minutes-played, but he had a nice all-around game, though as discussed, a weaker scoring game. And naturally defense doesn't show up anywhere in those numbers, especially since we don't even have steal/block numbers from that period, limited as those are.

But yeah, they played different games. Hondo's biggest attribute was his motor, that insane endurance coupled to constant motion. They each impacted the game a little differently. Hondo's a career 20/6/4.5 PER36 guy, compared to his per-game career of 21/6/5. Baylor was a 24.5 / 12 / 4.0 guy PER36 and 27 / 13.5 / 4 per game. Again, missing efficiency, missing a per-possession type of analysis, etc. No on/off, no plus-minus type examination, sure sure, but just a rudimentary pass. For context, in those 71 and 72 seasons where Hondo was elevating his scoring volume, Boston was a 44-win team and 10/17 on O (1971) and then a 56-win team, 5/17 on O who went down 1-4 against New York (lost vs LA in the Finals) in the second round. Big improvement from Dave Cowens in his second season in 72 (like +6% FG compared to his rookie year). They went from 5th in the league to 2nd in the league in team FT%, as well, something like a team-wide +2% FT increase, and +4.5 FTA/g as well.

Anyway, hard to tell, right? Very, very different profiles as players. In my head, Havlicek works out a little nicer alongside West and probably never touches his 71/72 shooting volume because it wouldn't be necessary, so he could focus more on D, rebounding and just being a horrid pain in the other team's rear running around on O and D'g up on the other end. That probably suits the Lakers more than Baylor on the Celtics.

Havlicek plays good D. I have seen video and support the reputaion.
Baylor rebounds a lot more than Havlicek.