RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #40 (Rick Barry)

[homecourtloss]

VOTE: Rick Barry
Alternate: Artis Gilmore
NOMINATE: Draymond Green
AltNom: Paul Pierce


I honestly might prefer Lanier to Gilmore in many ways, so positionally speaking, I like Barry more here. I think his scoring Skillset would translate into any era—I can see him playing small ball power forward in today’s game since he could rebound well

Westbrook and Dwight Howard right behind Paul Pierce.

[Doctor MJ]

I honestly might prefer Lanier to Gilmore in many ways

I'd really like to see that debate honestly. I'm set to vote for Artis, but I don't think I've actively pitted the two against each other any time recently.

Lanier's always been a box score powerhouse with a solid defensive reputation, but his limited team success - combined with that tough competition at the 5 that also plagues Gilmore - makes easy to implicitly tier-drop him. Always been a possibility, but if I recall, Lanier looks really strong by Moonbeam's RWOWY graphs.

Obviously, Gilmore's best-in-league ABA year(s) give him a feather-in-cap that Lanier doesn't have, but was it possible Lanier was just the more robust player throughout his prime? How sure are we that Bob shouldn't be getting in above Gilmore?

[iggymcfrack]

There's a bigger difference between Anthony Davis and Dolph Schayes than there is between Dolph Schayes and Lisa Leslie.

Of all the candidates, AD has the best numbers. He's the best and most versatile defender and has 8 All-Star selections. He's just... better and more valuable in any era than Rick Barry, who was 6x All-NBA, not 9x.

Not trying to pick on you in particular, but I think recency bias is distorting people's perceptions of AD's career as a whole. His precocity (First Team All-NBA by 2015, his third year) paved the way for some sneaky-respectable longevity, as even though people consider him a shell of himself, he was recently the second best player in the entire playoffs after Jokić.

Not only that, but his 2018-2020 stretch as arguably the best player in the solar system dwarfs the peaks of every other candidate despite playing against superior athletes in an impossibly more competitive era.

It’s not his fault that his teams were exceptionally poorly constructed and that he and his teammates were plagued by injuries early on because the Bensons used the New Orleans Saints' strength and conditioning crew to cut costs.

Barry also had 3 all-ABA years. Regardless, when I say All-NBA, I mean all NBA level. I had Reggie Miller with 9 All-NBA level seasons. He actually only had 3 3rd team nominations.


Yes, if Dolph played now, AD is light years ahead of him. But you know, if AD played in the 50’s, maybe he doesn’t get the treatment from his injuries and is out of the league in a few years. It’s silly to directly compare players from the 50’s to now, as it’s almost a different game. I’m comparing their values within their respective era’s.

For my estimations, Dolph was 2 x Weak MVP, 8 x All NBA, 12x All Star, 3 x All-D. Davis on the other hand has been 4 x Weak MVP, 5 x All NBA, 8 x All-Star, and 5 x All D. Davis is close, but not quite yet overtaken Dolph as of now.

As for Barry, I have him with 2 x Weak MVP, 9 x All NBA, 11 x All Star. Again, it’s close. Given a few more years, Davis will no doubt finish over both. And if you want to debate Davis now, I think that’s also fine. His peak is greater than the others.

Schayes might be “all-NBA” by default when there’s only 8 teams in the league, but there’s no way he had 8 years on the level of Davis’s best 5 even relative to the league. Davis has 8 seasons with a PER over 26. Schayes has zero. And as a finesse big, I can’t imagine Schayes had anywhere near Davis’s impact defensively.

If you wanna say, “well Schayes was less dominant but he ranked higher by default since there were hardly any stars in the league”, that seems like some pretty screwy criteria to give him credit on. It’s like you’re not only failing to reward Davis for facing tougher competition, you’re actually rewarding Schayes extra for facing weaker competition.

[HeartBreakKid]

Vote is for Anthony Davis - Anthony Davis has an amazing combination of efficiency and defense. It took a few years for his defense to catch up to his scoring but it is still quite monstrous and one of the best of his generation. He is a rather diverse player for someone who is primarily an off ball guy. He can pull up from far away, play off the catch, pick and pop, or finish at the rim at an incredible rate. His career is disjointed with injuries as well as an unfortunate sit out situation due to wanting to leave NO. I think he is simply a higher level players than most of the guys left.

My alternate vote is for Elgin Baylor – I used to be incredibly harsh on Baylor. Perhaps because his reputation had him as arguably the best in the world for a long time, and when I saw how inefficient he was relative to the big 4 of his era I said "pffft". I'd say in the past 1.5 years he has went up on my ratings quite a bit. He has a lot more playoff heroic performances than he is given credit for. He was a serious volume scorer on a scale that possibly the other great players left can't match.


My nomination is for Willis Reed - Arguably just as good as Frazier albeit his career feels even shorter.

My alternate nomination is for Kevin McHale – A lot of what I said with Davis applies to McHale. Great combination of hyper efficient scoring and good defense. His defense has less data to back up and he doesn’t seem like he is a true anchor, so that is why I haven’t vote for him earlier. His scoring is quite legendary, but he suffers from a similar situation as Manu in that he didn’t really have his own team for most of his career, and maybe the one season where he did his efficiency was still insane but his volume wasn’t much better. I don’t believe he was a blackhole, just he was so good at scoring there wasn’t much reason to pass, but lack of playmaking comparably does make him seem one dimensional albeit his game has a lot of nuance to it.

[ShaqAttac]

VOTE

DAVIS

crazy d and good o and went crazy for a chip once. also busted the dubs for good. idk why no ones talkin bout him.

BARRY
i dont really know if hes the best, but he led a team to a chip so

I'm gonna nom

WALTON

chip and mvp and swept kareem. some ppl say his impact might have been even higher

WESTBROOK

good args were made for him carryin kd in okc and he won an mvp after.

So, if you had an NBA team, you'd take the guy (Walton) who had ONE season where he was healthy in the playoffs as a starter plus one as a reserve, and only one other season over 60 games over the likes of Embiid or McHale?

And he was a guy who demanded the contemporary equivalent of supermax money every year until he went ring chasing to a team (Boston) that was already one of the league's 3 superteams.

probably not.

[Joao Saraiva]

Vote Rick Barry
He's probably the guy left with good longevity and that did it as the man. He seriously needs consideration and I think being among the top 40 goes well with him. Good/great scorer, good all arround player, and he is definitely a part of history of the NBA. I can't ignore 12 good years, 12 all-star appearences and 6 top 5 finishes on the MVP race. I know some were in the ABA but I don't think there is much difference to be honest.

Alternate Artis

Nomination Dwight Howard - Yeah I'd vote for him if he was already available for that.

[OhayoKD]

Vote
1. Artis Gilmore

One and Done made a good case:

Spoiler:

I think it’s almost time to vote for Gilmore.

Unlike fellow MVP and 11 time-star Pettit, Gilmore led his team to a title in a much tougher league. The ABA in 1975 was probably stronger than the NBA. Gilmore has a skill set that would absolutely translate today. When I look at Gilmore, I see a guy who physically resembles a stronger, slightly shorter version of Kareem. His huge arms and relative fluidity would make him an excellent rim-roller, who in a pinch could score in other ways in and around the rim. His short jump shots and hook look surprisingly clean, even if I don’t know how often they went in.

It’s easy to look on youtube and find extensive footage of Artis dunking on Kareem and playing great against the showtime Lakers, on just horrible Chicago teams that clearly didn’t put anything much around him. There’s even a game of the NBA stars against the ABA stars, where Gilmore matches up very well physically with 1972 Wilt. If we were in the top 10 that would mean nothing, but we’re now nominating people who will be 30 or higher all-time.

Statistically, Gilmore compares favourably to say Moses, who is already in.

Moses per 100 from 1979-84: 31.6/18.2/2, 2 blks, 115 Ortg/103 Drtg, 578 TS%
Gilmore per 100 from 1975-79: 27.5/17.1/3.4, 3 blks, 113 Ortg/97 Drtg, 601 TS%

Yeh, Moses scores a bit more, because of a play style he wouldn’t be able to replicate today. Otherwise though I’m not seeing much difference between him and Gilmore, except Gilmore’s style would be even more valuable today, and his team mates and situation was in general far worse than Moses. Moses doesn’t even really have Gilmore beat on longevity. Gilmore played 1329 games and was an all-star still at age 36. Moses last all-star season was at age 33, and if we take away his completely irrelevant final 3 seasons he drops from 1455 games down to 1372 games, though I guess Gilmore’s last few seasons weren’t terribly relevant either. Moses has maybe more longevity, depending on how you look at it, because he started earlier. But it’s not enough to matter.

I am more impressed by Gilmore than I am with guys like Ewing or Stockton, the latter wasn’t even a real star. The former seems to be perpetually overrated. Gilmore wishes he had all the help Ewing did.

2. Rick Barry

-> Good longevity
-> Led a champion

Not really the best player left, but his longevity is good enough here I think

Nomination

1. Westbrook

Honestly weird he hasn't gotten discussion yet(and now that I think about he probably should have already been inducted by now)

but whatever, let's get this going

-> All-time Creator with all-time playoff elevation and all-time playoff impact
-> Was the most valuable piece on a team that thumped a 67-win team and took a 73-win team to 7, probably the best playoff performer in 2014 on a team which pushed the tiki-taka spurs without their best defender
-> Track-record of elevating against better opponents
-> Excellent cultural figure/teammate by all accounts, something which he leveraged to help OKC sign Paul George to a long-term contract, something they are still benefitting from
-> Great RS floor-raiser, 45-wins(full-strength) without KD with OKC's shallowest cast in 2015, and 2017 was even better
-> Saw a +9 srs team in 2013 turn into something like a +3 one when he was hurt
-> Excellent clutch player
-> Underrated longetivity, has been an elite playoff creator as early as 2010(when he elevated vs the eventual champions as he tends to do), had a strong 2023

Alt-nomination

2. Draymond

Will get into this more but he has the leas empirical question marks than Manu, the better real-world profile, arguably better RAPM/plus-minus, is more proven without Steph, and I'd say has the best series performance in the 2016 finals.

An important point to consider I think when using finals +/- is that Draymond has generally ran into much better finals opponents. Have not done it with the celtics(though I imagine they'd look good), but every other finals opponent Draymond has run into entered with a higher rolling srs/psrs than any finals opponent Manu has run into. The weakest, the 2015 cavs, came off a series where they performed at +16 vs the hawks with kyrie barely playing and no kevin love.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1: Artis Gilmore



Induction Vote 2: Rick Barry

First off, this is a re-post of reasoning. I'm pondering some things right now, but haven't re-changed my ordering between these two or others at this time, so I'll stick to the man with the best (peak) hair in the history of the game.

So, this is a flip because I was advocating for Rick Barry over Artis previously. Tough call between the two and I may flip again.

I might put it like this:

I think Artis was more valuable at peak.
I think Barry was a more resilient star.
I think Artis was better able to remain a positive contributor with time, on and off the floor.

While I don't think Artis was a superstar-level player in the NBA, and that is a disappointment, there's no doubt that his defense was valuable, and his high efficiency on limited volume offensive game was remarkably ahead of its time.

Nomination Vote 1: Draymond Green



Much like Manu, I'm past the point with Draymond where I'm finding reasons to not take the impact indicators that seriously. Green's career is absolutely remarkable as the #2, and a strong #2 on the dynasty of the modern era. I see him as the best defender of the era, and I think his playmaking impact on offense is significant, as is his leadership capacity - though that's not always in the positive direction.

Last thing I'll say here is that I'm high on Steph, Dray, Kerr, and the Warriors in general. I think what they've accomplished is remarkable, and expect to champion them in debates like this...although as I say that, I'm not sure I have Klay in my Top 100. I think Klay's had a great career, but I think Steph & Dray have been the shoulders on this the rest of the Warriors ride on piggy-back.

Nomination Vote 2: Kevin McHale

Exceptionally scary opponent. Outstanding defense, and extremely effective as a volume scorer. Not to be dismissed.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Induction Vote #1: Rick Barry

Induction Vote #2: Elgin Baylor

It seems to be coming down to Barry vs Gilmore this round, and I'm going with Barry. Like I said in the last thread, I have a hard time with Gilmore's lack of NBA playoff success. He has his ABA title, but Barry went to the Finals in both leagues AND he has his 1975 NBA title.

Going with Baylor for my #2, though I see an argument for any of the others. But Baylor's got longevity over AD, more NBA playoff success than Gilmore, was one of the premier scorers of his day even with the inefficiency, as well as an elite rebounder, and I feel like he's just too important a figure in the league's history to slip much further down.

Nomination Vote #1: Dwight Howard

Nomination Vote #2: Draymond Green

So I'm having a hard time with these two. Let's break it down like this:

1. Dwight, by the numbers, isn't a just little bit better of a scorer, he's much better.

Dwight, career, regular season: 25.2 per 100 on +6.0 rTS
Dwight, career, playoffs: 25.2 per 100 on +5.7 rTS

vs

Draymond, career, regular season: 14.6 per 100 on -1.2 rTS RS
Draymond, career, playoffs: 16.6 per 100 on -0.6 rTS

Dwight has 9-11 pp100 in volume over Draymond on 6-7 rTS percentage points better.

Draymond had a >50 TS Add one time - the 87.8 he recorded in 2015-16.
Dwight had 8 100+ and 3 200+ TS Add seasons.

2. Dwight is also the superior rebounder by a comfortable margin.

Dwight, career, regular season: 18.9 rebounds per 100
Dwight, career, playoffs: 19.4 rebounds per 100

Draymond, career, regular season: 11.7 rebounds per 100
Draymond, career, playoffs: 12.6 rebounds per 100

3. Draymond, on the other hand, is obviously the dramatically better playmaker by pretty much any metric you can think of. He was and is an elite playmaker, and Dwight was really not very good in that regard.

4. Comparing one elite defender to another, and although they play distinctly different types of defense(Dwight is more a pure rim protector whereas Draymond is a GOAT tier help defender who can close out to anyone), I suspect if you made a list of the ten most impactful defensive players of the last twenty years, they'd both be on it.

5. In terms of raw on/off, Draymond crushes Dwight. However, Draymond also presumably plays a lot of minutes with Steph, who produces similarly high on/off numbers. This presents a potential collinearity issue.

6. They're both questionable leaders for different reasons. Dwight too often seemed like he cared more about having a good time than about winning, causing some to label him a clown; Draymond plays dirty sometimes and has a tendency to be a hothead on the court, and this has had real consequences - too many flagrant fouls in the 2016 playoffs led to his suspension from Game 5 of the Finals potentially costing the Warriors that championship, and his punching Jordan Poole apparently caused so much discord that it may have altered the trajectory of their 2022-23 season.

In the end, I have a hard time picking one over the other, but I go with Dwight, for two reasons:

1. I feel like these two are being graded on different scales w/r/t to primes. Dwight is being graded as a #1 option, Draymond is being graded as a #2 option(perhaps even #3 during the KD years if you lean that way). Something that is often said about RAPM is that's not just a measure of how impactful a player is, but a measure of how impactful a player is in the role they play. In Draymond's peak RAPM years, he had a 5.98 and 8.85 as a #2 option. In Dwight's last three years in Orlando, he had a 5.62, 5.83, and 5.56 as a #1 option. Which is more valuable? Which one is more difficult to do?

2. On the 2020 list, Dwight was #51 and Draymond was #98. The question I ask is, has Draymond done so much in the three years since 2020 to vault him up 50+ slots? Or was he simply much too low in 2020?

I'm going with Dwight for now, but I am open to having my mind changed before it's time to actually induct one.

[Owly]

Vote Rick Barry
He's probably the guy left with good longevity and that did it as the man. He seriously needs consideration and I think being among the top 40 goes well with him. Good/great scorer, good all arround player, and he is definitely a part of history of the NBA. I can't ignore 12 good years, 12 all-star appearences and 6 top 5 finishes on the MVP race. I know some were in the ABA but I don't think there is much difference to be honest.

Alternate Artis

Nomination Dwight Howard - Yeah I'd vote for him if he was already available for that.

Hard to be certain on intricacies of meaning. And if you think Barry was good enough for the accolades in the NBA anyway perhaps it doesn't matter.

But this could read like there isn't much difference between those accolades in the ABA and NBA. And that just isn't true. Larry Brown and Skip Thoren and Merv Jackson et al aren't making NBA All-Star games, it's a way lower bar.

Ditto MVP finishes. His first fifth ('69) had him behind Larry and Jimmy Jones but required him to be ahead of Donnie Freeman. '71 it's Mack Calvin he has to be better than. I respect that these guys were good players in the ABA. I don't think they would be getting the same accolades or stats in the NBA (rightly or wrongly some might not have had (another) chance at the NBA if the ABA wasn't there).


Fwiw (minor disagreements, since I'm already posting), I think I'd dispute "Good/great scorer" (particularly the latter). Especially if the early ABA is somewhat ... curved for competition levels. But whilst his early NBA years he showed both volume and some efficiency for circa 100 and circa 200 TS adds. His second NBA spell would overall be a little into the negative (as it would remain if we chop out Houston, to go for the years I think you're calling prime - -102.5 for the second NBA spell and -21.8 net for just the second Warriors spell). Now this is just one measure. In this second spell the playmaking is up so one can argue the threat of scoring allows for more impact through playmaking. Being circa average at volume can certainly be better than some alternatives. But whilst it's hard to isolate scoring and some will mean different things by this (he's certainly a volume scorer), I'd want more evidence of putting your team at an advantage by that scoring and, outside the weaker league [especially the first couple of years] the scoring itself doesn't seem ... "great".

12 years too, (I think) gives him full credit on '69 in which he was dominant when on the court but plays 1361 minutes, 35 games (of 78) plus absent for the entire playoffs (yes, all of it, not one of those "he's out early on and they get eliminated before he could get back so we say he missed the playoffs" ... his team went to the final and won it without him). He played big minutes, has a bunch of 3000+ mpg seasons so maybe it doesn't change the overall longevity angle ... I'd just be a little iffy on crediting that as a season, especially for the CORP inclined who take injuries at face value (i.e. no hypothetical, holistic ... "maybe he's unlucky, but it probably wouldn't happen if we ran it over" wiggle room) because his CORP is probably limited to the value of a top seed ... to the extent that he contributed to that.

[AEnigma]

I honestly might prefer Lanier to Gilmore in many ways

I'd really like to see that debate honestly. I'm set to vote for Artis, but I don't think I've actively pitted the two against each other any time recently.

Lanier's always been a box score powerhouse with a solid defensive reputation, but his limited team success - combined with that tough competition at the 5 that also plagues Gilmore - makes easy to implicitly tier-drop him. Always been a possibility, but if I recall, Lanier looks really strong by Moonbeam's RWOWY graphs.

Obviously, Gilmore's best-in-league ABA year(s) give him a feather-in-cap that Lanier doesn't have, but was it possible Lanier was just the more robust player throughout his prime? How sure are we that Bob shouldn't be getting in above Gilmore?

Will take a stab at this as likely one of the earlier Lanier backers in this project.

1. I do think Lanier peaked higher than Gilmore did.

2. I think Lanier’s impact profile is more robust, whether by Moonbeam’s set or by Elgee’s set or by the basic filtering we all can do ourselves.

3. Gilmore played an extra three seasons, played an extra two minutes a game, and was generally healthier throughout his career both in his ability to play games (only four seasons playing fewer than 81) and in his health when he was on the court.

4. While I suspect Lanier may have replicated or surpassed Gilmore’s success in the ABA, that is a pure hypothetical, and Gilmore is the one who actually did win a title. It is not nothing to have done that. I am less moved by the MVP and all-league accolade advantages, and given the Reggie/Manu placements, perhaps this voting bloc could be similarly willing to overlook that…

5. … However, Lanier also had no real playoff success, only making the conference finals in his final two seasons.

That leaves us with a mostly situational “what-if” player, something like a version of Garnett who joined the Hawks or 76ers instead of the Celtics, or a less extreme Grant Hill or Tracy McGrady (longer prime, fewer injuries, less time spent as a roleplayer). I think that is a clearly valuable player. He is in my personal top 50, ahead of Dwight Howard (even though I am giving my alternate nomination to Dwight this round). However, definitively arguing him over others is difficult. To use another contemporary, I think he was “better” than Cowens, but Cowens was in my opinion the best player on two title teams, and whether I think Lanier could have conceivably done the same is not a replacement for Cowens having done that.

In that sense, I wonder if the more interesting question might be Cowens versus Gilmore, because now we suddenly match the 68-win MVP (with neither actually being the best player in the world) and add on another title. For myself, I think Gilmore’s added production after 1980 is more than enough to justify placement ahead, but for those almost exclusively looking at prime performance, it does seem worth pondering.

[penbeast0]

Also, with the exception of 1974 which is a massive outlier, look at Detroit's defenses while Lanier was there. They are bad. When he got to Milwaukee, he was platooned offense/defense with one of Milwaukee's other centers. His on/off is good however, but I remember him as soft and relatively uninvolved defensively compared to the top centers of his day like Cowens, Hayes, Kareem, and yes, Artis in the ABA.

[trex_8063]

Also, with the exception of 1974 which is a massive outlier, look at Detroit's defenses while Lanier was there. They are bad. When he got to Milwaukee, he was platooned offense/defense with one of Milwaukee's other centers. His on/off is good however, but I remember him as soft and relatively uninvolved defensively compared to the top centers of his day like Cowens, Hayes, Kareem, and yes, Artis in the ABA.

I recall scouting a Lanier [Pistons] game, though from later than '74 (I think it was from '76); and I was most specifically scouting his defense.
My take-away impression was a bit of a mixed bag: he seemed lackadaisical on some possessions, but really engaged in others. I recall him having a fantastic defensive possession or two toward the end of what was a very tight game.

The limited signals we have [re: defense] are pretty strong for '74; though as mentioned, it appears something of an outlier year for him (at least defensively). They were 3rd of 18 teams defensively that year, looking decent to strong in DREB% and opp eFG%.
Chris Ford generating turnovers certainly must have helped, too; but they have much the same cast the following year [same coach,too], yet fall off a cliff to 17th of 18 defensively. Most other years they're mediocre to poor on defense, too. Given there aren't any notable defensive stalwarts (aside from limited-minute Chris Ford making a pest of himself, perhaps), and he had the league's best DBPM and individual DRtg (I know, I know, neither are very reliable indicators), I'm left to speculate that---for this one year, anyway---he tried, and was quite effective, defensively.

Offensively, he looks like a beast pretty much from '72 onward (even in his lower minute role player years in Milwaukee, he's still scoring substantial volume [per minute, or per 100] on excellent shooting efficiency).

[AEnigma]

One impressive defensive finish is also not notably distinct from Minnesota Garnett or Denver Dikembe, and both were much better than Lanier on that end. Nevertheless, the Pistons’ defensive indicators were all substantially tied to Lanier’s presence. I do not think he was all-time as a centre, but I have no doubts he was a notable positive.

[Owly]

Also, with the exception of 1974 which is a massive outlier, look at Detroit's defenses while Lanier was there. They are bad. When he got to Milwaukee, he was platooned offense/defense with one of Milwaukee's other centers. His on/off is good however, but I remember him as soft and relatively uninvolved defensively compared to the top centers of his day like Cowens, Hayes, Kareem, and yes, Artis in the ABA.

I would, as ever, don't need to post the same stuff again, but the 70s Hollander Handbooks generally seem impressed with Lanier's mobility guarding out on the floor, and unimpressed with most other Pistons.

Given the consistent evidence of impact via his absences in the mid 70s and his seemingly huge impact on arrival in Milwaukee (small sample), even if he were a negative defender (I don't think he was and the named centers are probably a high defensive bar - and at his best his box side stuff is within touching distance of Kareem at that time, so if the defense any thing close ...) the net impact is still there.

I think he played through the knee injury when he shouldn't have as a rookie and maybe carried a bit of extra weight through circa '73.

It could though, I suppose, be argued that his his typical signiicant impact was what he did with weaker D and then '74 is substantially better (and perhaps '80 is a Garnett-arc where he's less productive but able to achieve very strong impact through greater emphasis on D) ...
I just think he was generally a really good net player.

[penbeast0]

If offensive skills were all, I would have Lanier and Amare in my top 10 centers of all time and KAT in my top 20. He was indeed probably a reasonably strong positive force with his offensive skills and size overall, but top 50 of all time seems a stretch to me. His on/off signals are strong from what I remember. I know I generally rate him lower than most here. I value defense very highly unless, like Jokic, you can show that the offense is so good that the defensive issues are overshadowed.

I don't think you can say that about Lanier whose team defenses were consistently bad during his prime in Detroit except for 74. He had Curtis Rowe, Howie Komives, then Don Adams, then Ford, M.L. Carr, then Terry Tyler so each year he generally had 2 guys who were out there who were out there to play defense in addition to the Jimmy Walker/Dave Bing/Eric Money/Kevin Porter types who played very little which was pretty normal for a 70s NBA team so it isn't just the lack of help. It could be coaching which I've always though affects defense more than offense. But in the 60s/70s, defense basically revolved around the primary post player and Detroit's defense was consistently bad (except for one outlier year) while Lanier throughout the 70s was the main man on the team.

I don't count his Milwaukee years that strongly as defensive impact because they were a top defensive team already and they platooned him with Catchings, Lister, etc. in Don Nelson's system. His offensive impact is still much much better than any of the other Milwaukee centers, (Breuer and Pat Cummings are the only other ones that didn't seem like liabilities) so he is still the best center on the team. He even adds a 3 point shot to his offensive skill set which speaks to his midrange skills as well.

[Owly]

If offensive skills were all, I would have Lanier and Amare in my top 10 centers of all time and KAT in my top 20. He was indeed probably a reasonably strong positive force with his offensive skills and size overall, but top 50 of all time seems a stretch to me. His on/off signals are strong from what I remember. I know I generally rate him lower than most here. I value defense very highly unless, like Jokic, you can show that the offense is so good that the defensive issues are overshadowed.

I don't think you can say that about Lanier whose team defenses were consistently bad during his prime in Detroit except for 74. He had Curtis Rowe, Howie Komives, then Don Adams, then Ford, M.L. Carr, then Terry Tyler so each year he generally had 2 guys who were out there who were out there to play defense in addition to the Jimmy Walker/Dave Bing/Eric Money/Kevin Porter types who played very little which was pretty normal for a 70s NBA team so it isn't just the lack of help. It could be coaching which I've always though affects defense more than offense. But in the 60s/70s, defense basically revolved around the primary post player and Detroit's defense was consistently bad (except for one outlier year) while Lanier throughout the 70s was the main man on the team.

I don't count his Milwaukee years that strongly as defensive impact because they were a top defensive team already and they platooned him with Catchings, Lister, etc. in Don Nelson's system. His offensive impact is still much much better than any of the other Milwaukee centers, (Breuer and Pat Cummings are the only other ones that didn't seem like liabilities) so he is still the best center on the team. He even adds a 3 point shot to his offensive skill set which speaks to his midrange skills as well.

Your guys out there to play defense ...
Rowe ... I've got one year Hollander's books note him on the team level as guy who will make opponents try among a list of a bunch of them. Generally very disappointing pro is my main recollection. By your method he's as much a mainstay on crummy Detroit defenses except without the mitigation of the team being much better when he plays.

Komives: Might have heard nice stuff for him in 60s though hard to recall. Knicks get way better after trading him and Bellamy for Dave D.

Don Adams I think was a good defender though he plays one full season then two (over half) part seasons at circa 25mpg.

Ford is a solid guard defender but I think not a difference maker and again suffers the exact same argument you give against Lanier. Also not regarded as an athlete.

Carr: Accumulated steals. Unclear on broader read.

Tyler: Impressive defensive box. Unclear whether this translate into good defense.

Honestly I'd cite Mengelt first above many of those cited as an actually notably hustling, good defender.

As before impact on arrival in Milwaukee, small sample as it is, they're way better. If you want to say it doesn't quite sustain and other guys are getting better (Johnson and Moncrief are good and young) and perhaps doing it for them on D, okay. But Milwaukee weren't good before he arrives and in the short term he seems to correlate with them getting good.

[trex_8063]

Also, with the exception of 1974 which is a massive outlier, look at Detroit's defenses while Lanier was there. They are bad. When he got to Milwaukee, he was platooned offense/defense with one of Milwaukee's other centers. His on/off is good however, but I remember him as soft and relatively uninvolved defensively compared to the top centers of his day like Cowens, Hayes, Kareem, and yes, Artis in the ABA.

I would, as ever, don't need to post the same stuff again, but the 70s Hollander Handbooks generally seem impressed with Lanier's mobility guarding out on the floor, and unimpressed with most other Pistons.

Given the consistent evidence of impact via his absences in the mid 70s and his seemingly huge impact on arrival in Milwaukee (small sample), even if he were a negative defender (I don't think he was and the named centers are probably a high defensive bar -

Yeah, this is a fair point to address when suggesting Lanier is or isn't a net positive defender. Saying he isn't as good on defense as contemporaries such as Kareem, Cowens, Hayes, Gilmore, or even Unseld (could also add in names like Clifford Ray, George Johnson, Elmore Smith, or Caldwell Jones (or the scant few seasons of Bill Walton)) is not necessarily the same as meriting the label "bad" or "weak" as a defender.

All of those [save arguably Unseld] are kinda high bars to clear [on defense].


If, otoh, we ask ourselves how he fairs defensively compared to:
Bob McAdoo
Dan Issel
Alvan Adams
Billy Paultz
Sam Lacey
Tom Boerwinkle
Jim Chones
Rich Kelly
Otto Moore
Jim Fox
Kevin Kunnert
Joe Merriweather
Jim Eakins
Darnell Hillman
Mike Green
Tom Burleson
Dennis Awtrey


.......idk, suddenly he doesn't look too bad defensively.

[falcolombardi]

Out of these players i prolly go anthony davis as i am less knowledgeable on guys like schayes or even barry

Davis has a similar case to kawhi as a peak that may belong a solid bit higher but weak longevity/durability
Still has accumulated what is essentially a near decade of star play with near mvp highs in the most skilled era and has had some impressive playoffs in 15, 18 (short runs tho) and 20

My alt vote is....artis gilmore, mostly because his big longevity advantage over barry/baylor. I am not sure how to evaluate baylor and barry value quite yet so i go safe with the guy who was good for really damn long

Nomination- russel westbrook, mvp impact at his admittedly short peak, star level surrounding seasons, short ish but decent prime longevity

Aged...not so well and has been a questionable playoff value player outside his best seasons but remains one or the best combos of peak/longevity at this stage regardless

Alt nomination: not sure, i am fine with the paul pierce nom which has gained traction

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1:

Barry - 7 (Clyde, AEnigma, trelos, Ambrose, hcl, Joao, OSNB)
Baylor - 1 (trex)
Artis - 4 (beast, Samurai, Ohayo, Doc)
Davis - 4 (ShaqA, iggy, HBK, falco)

No majority. Going to Vote 2 between Barry, Artis & Davis:

Barry - 0 (none)
Artis - 1 (trex)
Davis - 0 (none)

Eliminating Davis, continuing:

Barry - 1 (ShaqA)
Artis - 1 (falco)
neither - 2 (iggy, HBK)

Rick Barry 8, Artis Gilmore 6.

Rick Barry is Inducted at #40.



Nomination Vote 1:

Drexler - 2 (Clyde, trex)
Pierce - 1 (AEnigma)
Green - 3 (beast, hcl, Doc)
Walton - 1 (ShaqA)
Howard - 5 (trelos, Samurai, Ambrose, Joao, OSNB)
Westbrook - 3 (iggy, Ohayo, falco)
Reed - 1 (HBK)

No majority. Going to Vote 2 between Howard, Green & Westbrook:

Green - 0 (none)
Howard - 1 (AEnigma)
Westbrook - 1 (ShaqA)
none - 3 (Clyde, trex, HBK)

Eliminating Green, continuing:

Howard - 0 (none)
Westbrook - 0 (none)
neither - 3 (beast, hcl, Doc)

Dwight Howard 6, Russell Westbrook 4.

Dwight Howard is added to Nominee list.