RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #42 (Anthony Davis)

[Doctor MJ]

Our system is now as follows:

1. We have a pool of Nominees you are to choose from for your Induction (main) vote to decide who next gets on the List. Choose your top vote, and if you'd like to, a second vote which will be used for runoff purposes if needed.

2. Nomination vote now works the same way.

3. You must include reasoning for each of your votes, though you may re-use your old words in a new post.

4. Post as much as they want, but when you do your official Vote make it really clear to me at the top of that post that that post is your Vote. And if you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same Vote post.

5. Anyone may post thoughts, but please only make a Vote post if you're on the Voter list. If you'd like to be added to the project, please ask in the General Thread for the project. Note that you will not be added immediately to the project now. If you express an interest during the #2 thread, for example, the earliest you'll be added to the Voter list is for the #3.

5. I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over). For this specific Vote, if people ask before the Deadline, I'll extend it.

Here's the list of the Voter Pool as it stands right now (and if I forgot anyone I approved, do let me know):

Spoiler:

AEnigma
Ambrose
ceilng raiser
ceoofkobefans
Clyde Frazier
Colbinii
cupcakesnake
Doctor MJ
Dooley
DQuinn1575
Dr Positivity
DraymondGold
Dutchball97
f4p
falcolombardi
Fundamentals21
Gibson22
HeartBreakKid
homecourtloss
iggymcfrack
LA Bird
JimmyFromNz
Joao Saraiva
lessthanjake
Lou Fan
Moonbeam
Narigo
OhayoKD
OldSchoolNoBull
penbeast0
Rishkar
rk2023
Samurai
ShaqAttac
Taj FTW
Tim Lehrbach
trelos6
trex_8063
ty 4191
ZeppelinPage

Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):

Elgin Baylor


Anthony Davis


Draymond Green


Dwight Howard


Dolph Schayes


As requested, here's the current list so far along with the historical spreadsheet of previous projects:

Current List
Historical Spreadsheet

[penbeast0]

Vote: Anthony Davis Not sold on him as I just don't think he can be counted on year in and year out but can be a very good second option when healthy and not sold on anyone else yet. Interesting comp with Embiid who has peaked much higher with his MVP voting but had trouble in the playoffs.

Alt: Dolph Schayes I think Baylor peaked higher but Schayes was just much more consistent for longer. Strongly considered Green but his resume (defense, inefficiency, inconsistent leadership) is weaker and he was never the main man that Schayes was.



nomination: Kevin McHale: Scoring, defense, rings, consistency, a willingness to play roles that may not maximize his own value in order to help his team win. Want to submit Bobby Jones, but I do actually think McHale (and many others) did more.

alternative: Russell Westbrook is the best player left but it's just really hard to build a great team around him with his playstyle. Too ball dominant to be that inefficient in a league where we've seen how important spacing and efficiency are. Possibly in a previous era, I'd have voted him in already but no way to know how well he'd translate in a different situation.

[trex_8063]

Glad to see my alternate at least get in, but definitely nothing has changed wrt to my primary vote. I personally feel we're overdue on Baylor.

Induction Vote: Elgin Baylor

Piggy-backing on comments from post #28 of the #39 thread......

A partial case for Baylor follows:

Spoiler:

The opening salvo to get Elgin Baylor on the list of eligible candidates (from my archives):


I view him as a very good [not great] scorer in his era.......a modern(ish) comp [as a scorer only] maybe being Carmelo Anthony.

But although he's a touch shorter than Melo, I'm not sure he wouldn't be a slightly better rebounder, even in the modern era. I know the league was marginally shorter and a bit less athletic at that time, but Baylor's pre-injury rebounding numbers are resoundingly impressive. Here are his reb/100 possession estimates by year:
'59: 15.3
'60: 15.85
'61: 17.75
'62: 16.3
‘63: 13.9

For comparison, here are some notable big-time big-men and their reb/100 possession estimates for the same years (and relation to Baylor's avg):
Pettit
'59: 17.1 (+1.8)
'60: 16.9 (+1.05)
'61: 18.9 (+1.15)
'62: 17.1 (+0.8)
‘63: 16.0 (+2.1)

Wilt
'59: na
'60: 20.9 (+5.05)
'61: 20.7 (+2.95)
'62: 19.4 (+3.1)
‘63: 19.9 (+6.0)

Russell
'59: 20.2 (+4.9)
'60: 19.9 (+4.05)
'61: 19.3 (+1.55)
'62: 16.3 (+2.8)
‘63: 19.9 (+6.0)

Wayne Embry
'59: 15.5 (+0.2)
'60: 17.1 (+1.25)
'61: 15.1 (-2.65)
'62: 14.3 (-2.0)
‘63: 15.0 (+1.1)

Walter Dukes
'59: 16.7 (+1.4)
'60: 16.1 (+0.25)
'61: 19.2 (+1.45)
'62: 16.4 (+0.1)
‘63: 15.7 (+1.8)

Dolph Schayes
'59: 14.4 (-0.9)
'60: 13.2 (-2.65)
'61: 11.9 (-5.85)
'62: 11.05 (-5.25)

Bailey Howell
'59: na
'60: 13.1 (-2.75)
'61: 14.3 (-3.45)
'62: 13.5 (-2.8)
‘63: 12.2 (-1.7)

When viewing that I'd note two things: every single one of those guys is taller than Elgin, and every single one of them was more a low-post player on one or both ends (so presumably would more frequently [than Elgin] be in the position to grab rebounds). And yet he's at least in the neighborhood of all of them except for Wilt and Russell----who are both a) legitimately BIG and b) legitimately freakish athletes, and c) considered on the short-list of greatest rebounders ever (and even Russell isn't far ahead of him in '61, fwiw).
Otherwise Baylor's reasonably close to everyone else, and well ahead of Schayes and Howell (though admittedly Schayes is trickling into his post-prime for most of the years referenced here).

He was a thick strong guy, good at creating space with his lower body, could jump (isn't he labeled the "grandfather of hang-time" or some such?), and seems to have had great anticipation for where the rebound was going (a la Jerry Lucas, Fat Lever, and Jason Kidd). All this has me suspecting that Baylor would be special kind of rebounder for the SF position in any era (maybe likened to Shawn Marion in this regard).


Basic WOWY:
‘59: 33-37 (.471) with, 0-2 without
‘60: 23-47 (.329) with, 2-3 (.400) without
‘61: 34-39 (.466) with, 2-4 (.333) without
‘62: 37-11 (.771) with, 17-15 (.531) without **West missed only 5 games, no one else in the regular rotation missed more than 2 games
‘63: 52-28 (.650) with


The Lakers in ‘58 were 19-53 with an SRS of -5.78. And then they obtained rookie Elgin Baylor.
In ‘59--with Baylor being the only relevant player acquisition--they improved by 14 games to 33-39, SRS of -1.42 (+4.36 improvement); also made it to the finals (defeating the 2.89 SRS defending champion Hawks 4-2 along the way). That strikes me as indication of fairly significant impact.

The big criticism on Baylor has been his offensive efficiency (relative to his astronomical volume), and whether he was really “helping” the offense.

The Laker team offensive rating improved with rookie Baylor by +2.8 (+1.4 in rORTG terms) in ‘59. I won’t claim that Baylor always “helped the offense optimally” to the best of his abilities; but I do think he helped it. Obviously other metrics of offensive production/efficiency suggest Baylor was a “big deal” (more on that below)......but what I’m beginning to wonder about is whether or not Baylor had a defensive impact that hasn’t been properly appreciated.

Maybe his capability as a rebounder eliminated a lot of second-chance points for opponents????

idk, but something I noted is that the Laker team rDRTG improved by -2.8 in ‘59. In ‘58, they were 8th of 8 defensively, DRtg +4.5 over league avg and +2.5 over the next worse team.
In ‘59, improved to +1.7 over league avg (6th of 8).
They would continue to improve defensively over the next couple of seasons with acquisitions of Jerry West and aging Ray Felix. And then interestingly their defense appears to suffer slightly in ‘62 when Baylor misses significant games:
In ‘61, the Laker DRtg is -1.3 to league average (again: minus is good), 4th of 8.
In ‘62 Baylor misses 32 games and the Laker DRtg falls a little: just -0.3 vs league average (though still 4th of 9).
In ‘63: no more big Ray Felix in playing significant minutes in the middle and Jerry West misses 25 games (things you’d expect to hurt the team defense); they otherwise obtain guard Dick Barnett, and the only other change from the previous year is that Baylor is healthy (doesn’t miss a game)…….and the team DRtg improves to -1.2 vs league average (3rd of 9).
And then beginning in ‘64 (perhaps non-coincidentally just as Baylor begins to be significantly hampered by knee injuries, which causes his overall effectiveness to suffer, as seen by sudden drop in PER, etc), the Laker team DRtg takes a sudden dip……...And it would never recovery to a better than average team defense (even with big bodies like Darrall Imhoff and Mel Counts) until ‘69 when they obtained Wilt Chamberlain.

So I’m starting to wonder if Baylor had a bigger impact defensively than he’s typically given credit for.
And I sort of wonder if he isn't like Carmelo Anthony scoring, Shawn Marion on the glass, with defense somewhere in between (and a little better passer than either). That's an awfully good player.

Anyway…..
Otherwise, I promised some tidbits regarding his overall production and efficiency during his prime years:

In ‘59 and rookie Elgin Baylor had the 2nd-highest PER in the league, behind only a peak Bob Pettit.
In ‘60 he had the 2nd-highest PER in the league, behind only Wilt Chamberlain.
In ‘61: he had the highest PER (even ahead of Wilt, not to mention Pettit and rookie Oscar Robertson).
‘62 and ‘63: 2nd-best PER in the league both years, behind only Wilt Chamberlain (even ahead of triple-double season Robertson, as well as Pettit and Walt Bellamy’s insane rookie season).

That’s a super-impressive 5-year span. Yes, he drops off quite a bit after, but it’s not as though he faded into obscurity or ineffectiveness in subsequent years. He was a relevant player until ‘70. So…..


For another comparison:

Kevin Durant (‘10-’14) rs
Per 100 Possessions: 38.7 pts, 10.0 reb, 5.1 ast on 61.7% TS% (+8.0% on league avg)
26.9 PER, .250 WS/48 in 38.8 mpg

Elgin Baylor (‘59-’63) rs
Estimated Per 100 Possessions: 30.3 pts, 15.7 reb, 4.2 ast on 49.9 TS% (+2.7%)
26.1 PER, .195 WS/48 in 42.1 mpg


Kevin Durant (‘10-’14) playoffs
Per 100 Possessions: 35.8 pts, 10.2 reb, 5.2 ast on .583 TS% (+4.6%)
24.4 PER, .189 WS/48 in 42.3 mpg

Elgin Baylor (‘59-’63) playoffs
Estimated Per 100 Possessions: 30.4 pts, 13.2 reb, 3.5 ast on 51.2 TS% (+4.0%)
25.1 PER, .183 WS/48 in 44.0 mpg

Spoiler:

When thinking about what has driven improvement in the league......integration has helped, but I suspect most of us agree that probably the biggest factor is size of player pool.

And obviously things like scheming/coaching/strategy/analytics have helped toward getting players guided toward better and more effective outcomes. Skills training, shot mechanics, etc, have also evolved, improving the all-around quality of play. However, these latter things are all EXTRINSIC factors: they are things that players from 50-60 years ago would have absorbed if they had been immersed in them from day one (like today's players).

Otherwise, increasing the size of the player pool that the league can tap into is probably the largest driver of improved player quality.

And I think arguably the biggest driver in player pool size is the popularity of the game. As such, I think there is something to be said for those players who were, quite simply, big draws: the guys that put butts in seats, and who inspired the imaginations of younger generations of players.

I bring this up as another small plug for Elgin Baylor. In his time, he was certainly someone who fits this distinction. I'll offer one quote:

“.....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….”

I'd place the career of either of these guys ahead of that of Rick Barry. Will try to post more to that sentiment later.
Suffice to say that I think we're getting on toward long overdue for having Baylor at least listed among the nominees. I don't think his career is behind Barry's, and I simply have a very hard time seeing it FAR behind.

Alt. Induction Vote: Anthony Davis
Arguably the highest peak still not inducted, imo (well, with the possible exception of the flash in the pan that is Bill Walton). So he takes my alternate, despite mediocre longevity.


FOR PURPOSES OF ANY RUN-OFF, I go:
Baylor > Davis > Schayes > Howard >>> Green


Nomination: Clyde Drexler
Alt Nom: Paul Pierce

(fwiw, Pau Gasol is the other guy I'd really like to nominate, but he has no traction presently; so I'll go with Pierce instead)

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Dolph Schayes
Vote 2 - Elgin Baylor
Nomination 1 - Clyde Drexler
Nomination 2 - George Gervin

What stands out most with Schayes was his ability to get to the line and hit at an elite %: his career FT rate is .512, with a career high .654 in '51 (league avg was .399 that yr). His career FT% was 84.9% on 7.9 attempts per game. The league avg typically hovered around 70-73% throughout his career.

From the footage I've seen, he had a consistent outside shot and good first step, with solid body control once he got into the lane. He also had a floater, which I find funny for some reason, but it was still effective. The Nationals were also one of the best defensive teams in the league during his prime (yes, only 8-10 teams, but routinely ranked in the top 1-3 in DRtg).

Again, his marked consistency and longevity relative to his era really impressed me. In '55, he led the Nationals to the NBA title in 7 games over the #1 SRS ranked Pistons. One can point to inferior competition, but I think a player who was considered one of the best in the game for as long as he was deserves a spot in the top 50.

Schayes retired having played the most seasons, games and minutes in league history (this includes NBL play). Some more insight on his playing style from a SLAM Magazine interview: 

SLAM: You were a big man who played like a guard. How did you develop those skills?

SCHAYES: By playing in the New York City schoolyards, where the game was all about movement. I happened to be tall, but I learned the fundamentals well—the give and go, setting picks, passing, fast breaks and everything else we called “New York style.” I was a center in college but I was a high-post guy, feeding cutters and rebounding. 

SLAM: Your range went out to 30 feet. How many more points would you have averaged with a three-point line?

SCHAYES: Quite a few, but I didn’t score out there as much as people think. My game was slashing to the basket, getting fouled and making three-point plays. But I hit enough deep shots to keep them honest and make them come out. The real secret to my success was I could shoot with either hand.

[Rishkar]

Induction Vote 1: Elgin Baylor
Induction Vote 2: Dolph Schayes
Nomination Vote 1: Russell Westbrook
Nomination Vote 2: Chauncey Billups

Induction 1 Reasoning: Elgin is such a weird player to rank. His first year in the league, he was 4th in scoring and 3rd in rebounding; he was one of the most adapt rookies ever. He would remain among the league leaders for the next 5 years, before hurting his knees in the 1965 playoffs. I view his playstyle as a mix of Kobe Bryant, Larry Bird, and Karl Malone. He had a vast arsenal of moves that allowed him to score on high volume and above average efficiency. Because of this variety, he held up well into the playoffs. He was also an incredible ball handler for a wing (being pretty comparable to Kobe's handle). The similarities I see with Bird is the creative passing and elite rebounding from a small forward. Elgin passed in such a unique fashion, and would consistently begin a shooting motion and finish it with a pass. This manipulated the defense in a Steve Nash type of way, and led to an unofficial rule in the league that you didn't double Elgin. His peers consistently praise his passing ability. I see him as a Karl Malone style defender, good in the post, athletic, and trying (with some fluctuation in effort) but in no way exceptional. Then, after his knee injury (and the knee issues leading up to it) he drops to a Carmelo Anthony type player (worse scorer but better rebounder) while not giving West the primacy he deserved. Short peak (placing him below Ginobili) and lots of health issues, but I think his level of play was clearly higher than any of the other nominees. I can't figure out his leadership or intangibles, but I'll link a Sports Illustrated issue that discusses them. https://vault.si.com/vault/1966/10/24/a-tiger-who-can-beat-anything I think Elgin has the highest non-Walton, non-Rose, non-Schayes, non-Yao, non-Moncrief, non-Hawkins, non-Sears peak left on the board, with much better longevity than those players.

Induction 2 Reasoning: I'm not super knowledgable about Schayes, but I think that the main argument against him is stength of competition. All the other Nominees have some really glaring flaws, (Davis's health, Draymond's role, and Dwight's brain). Could be convinced to vote for Draymond, but I tend to defer to older players as a kinda tiebreaker.

[Owly]

Vote 1 - Dolph Schayes
Vote 2 - TBD
Nomination 1 - Clyde Drexler
Nomination 2 - George Gervin

What stands out most with Schayes was his ability to get to the line and hit at an elite %: his career FT rate is .512, with a career high .654 in '51 (league avg was .399 that yr). His career FT% was 84.9% on 7.9 attempts per game. The league avg typically hovered around 70-73% throughout his career.

From the footage I've seen, he had a consistent outside shot and good first step, with solid body control once he got into the lane. He also had a floater, which I find funny for some reason, but it was still effective. The Nationals were also one of the best defensive teams in the league during his prime (yes, only 8-10 teams, but routinely ranked in the top 1-3 in DRtg).

Again, his marked consistency and longevity relative to his era really impressed me. In '55, he led the Nationals to the NBA title in 7 games over the #1 SRS ranked Pistons. One can point to inferior competition, but I think a player who was considered one of the best in the game for as long as he was deserves a spot in the top 50.

Schayes retired having played the most seasons, games and minutes in league history (this includes NBL play). Some more insight on his playing style from a SLAM Magazine interview: 

SLAM: You were a big man who played like a guard. How did you develop those skills?

SCHAYES: By playing in the New York City schoolyards, where the game was all about movement. I happened to be tall, but I learned the fundamentals well—the give and go, setting picks, passing, fast breaks and everything else we called “New York style.” I was a center in college but I was a high-post guy, feeding cutters and rebounding. 

SLAM: Your range went out to 30 feet. How many more points would you have averaged with a three-point line?

SCHAYES: Quite a few, but I didn’t score out there as much as people think. My game was slashing to the basket, getting fouled and making three-point plays. But I hit enough deep shots to keep them honest and make them come out. The real secret to my success was I could shoot with either hand.

On minutes ... would that include NBL ... if so is it off a safe assumption that he would have been ahead but without totals? Or press stories from the time? To my knowledge minutes only come in in 51-52 for the NBA (never in NBL). Or is the NBL tag just to cover seasons, games (i.e. minutes is just in terms of known totals). He wouldn't need the NBL season for a tied lead with Braun for seasons at 15 but in any case Braun missed two years for military service taking him down to 13 years across a 15 year range. So granting that I'm mainly only looking at "major league" era (and only significant players) so there really isn't much of a window before him, I think even his 15 (NBA) years would have retired him as a clear leader.

[trex_8063]

Gonna offer my 2c on Dray, which I know will not be popular here, but I'm of the belief that this is WAY too early for Draymond Green.

Granted, my criteria probably values the rs more than many others do, and effective longevity is also a major consideration. Thus, it's hard for me to even consider a guy [here circa-#42] who has just 11 seasons [missing major time in 2-3 of them] with a career avg of <29 mpg........someone who is not even in the top 300 in career minutes played.
I almost don't care how big an impact you have when you play; when you've only played that little [relative to other candidates], I'm skeptical it could overcome the value gap.

And particularly when we note that Draymond has almost zilch floor-raising ability (see '20). More than most players, his success, or rather the dynamic monster-impact he's often credited for, is a bit situational.

Someone like Manu I can buy a little easier as high as circa-#40, because I have little difficulty imagining him raise the floor on a poor team. With Draymond, we've seen it; and he can't.

Thus, if he'd fallen into team situation(s) similar to what Elton Brand or Kevin Garnett fell into.......not a single person would have yet mentioned his name in the project (because we'd have yet to see how he can shine in a talent-laden environment).

[AEnigma]

Not overly inclined to vote this round, but the three names I would consider are Schayes, Baylor, and Davis. Comparing Davis to the former two seems unlikely to provide much insight — better player, played less, by rights less of an era standout but specifically because he played in a much better league — so am mostly interested to hear people discuss Schayes versus Baylor.

[Dutchball97]

Vote: Dolph Schayes - He was the best player in the league between Mikan and Pettit even though he might not have the highest peak among the candidates, it's still competitive. The theme with most of the other candidates is a very impressive peak but short primes and limited longevity. Meanwhile, Schayes was an elite player for the entire decade of the 50s and even held up for a couple of years in the 60s. I don't think the peak of Baylor, Dwight and AD is so much above Schayes' that it can overcome the deficit in prime length for me.

Alternate: Anthony Davis - While Draymond's impact stats are nothing to sneeze at I'm not as convinced of his ability to lead a team as the other candidates and that's not just about scoring. Baylor's star shone just a bit too short for me to have him here already, even though I'm surprised I'm so much lower on him than I was last time around. Dwight would be next for me as he's a pretty similar case but I slightly prefer his prime and he turned into an actual roleplayer, while Baylor kept playing as the star of the team even years after he had fallen off so Dwight wasn't as detrimental later on. AD doesn't have a prime nearly as consistent as the others but he does have the benefit of keeping up a high level of impact every time he returns from injury, while Baylor and Dwight just fell off the edge of the earth after their injuries.

Nominate: George Gervin - I think his career compares pretty favorably to some of the candidates already up for selection. While Gervin also declined at a relatively young age, I'm still more impressed by his prime overall.

[Clyde Frazier]

Spoiler:

Vote 1 - Dolph Schayes
Vote 2 - TBD
Nomination 1 - Clyde Drexler
Nomination 2 - George Gervin

What stands out most with Schayes was his ability to get to the line and hit at an elite %: his career FT rate is .512, with a career high .654 in '51 (league avg was .399 that yr). His career FT% was 84.9% on 7.9 attempts per game. The league avg typically hovered around 70-73% throughout his career.

From the footage I've seen, he had a consistent outside shot and good first step, with solid body control once he got into the lane. He also had a floater, which I find funny for some reason, but it was still effective. The Nationals were also one of the best defensive teams in the league during his prime (yes, only 8-10 teams, but routinely ranked in the top 1-3 in DRtg).

Again, his marked consistency and longevity relative to his era really impressed me. In '55, he led the Nationals to the NBA title in 7 games over the #1 SRS ranked Pistons. One can point to inferior competition, but I think a player who was considered one of the best in the game for as long as he was deserves a spot in the top 50.

Schayes retired having played the most seasons, games and minutes in league history (this includes NBL play). Some more insight on his playing style from a SLAM Magazine interview: 

SLAM: You were a big man who played like a guard. How did you develop those skills?

SCHAYES: By playing in the New York City schoolyards, where the game was all about movement. I happened to be tall, but I learned the fundamentals well—the give and go, setting picks, passing, fast breaks and everything else we called “New York style.” I was a center in college but I was a high-post guy, feeding cutters and rebounding. 

SLAM: Your range went out to 30 feet. How many more points would you have averaged with a three-point line?

SCHAYES: Quite a few, but I didn’t score out there as much as people think. My game was slashing to the basket, getting fouled and making three-point plays. But I hit enough deep shots to keep them honest and make them come out. The real secret to my success was I could shoot with either hand.

On minutes ... would that include NBL ... if so is it off a safe assumption that he would have been ahead but without totals? Or press stories from the time? To my knowledge minutes only come in in 51-52 for the NBA (never in NBL). Or is the NBL tag just to cover seasons, games (i.e. minutes is just in terms of known totals). He wouldn't need the NBL season for a tied lead with Braun for seasons at 15 but in any case Braun missed two years for military service taking him down to 13 years across a 15 year range. So granting that I'm mainly only looking at "major league" era (and only significant players) so there really isn't much of a window before him, I think even his 15 (NBA) years would have retired him as a clear leader.

The NBL mention came from the 2020 project writeup I did, and I'm having trouble finding the source now. I'll continue looking. I know we're talking about minutes, but it's a little confusing because the NBA's page for Schayes for example lists him at 19,249 career points without mentioning the NBL. Whereas basketball reference has him at only 18,438 points.

https://www.nba.com/news/history-nba-legend-dolph-schayes

[trelos6]

Vote: Dwight Howard



One of the best defensive players of all time. His peak was arguably a top 3 player in the league. Offensively,he was limited, but what he did was effective. Great catch radius. Some monster dunks. 20.7 pp75 on +8.7% rTS. In the playoffs, he was still 23.2 pp75 on +10.7% for his 3 year peak. He was a monster down low.

I have him with 3 weak MVP seasons, 8 All NBA, 9 All Star, and 12 All D.

Alternate vote: Dolph Schayes

Probably the second best player of the 50's. Schayes had 8 seasons over 10 WS, 7 seasons over .200 for WS/48. Compare that with Jason Kidd's 2 and 0 seasons, Stocktons 13 and 14, Miller's 11 and 5. Suggests he's in the ball park. Ultimately, I have him at 2 weak MVP level seasons, 8 All NBA Seasons, 12 All Star seasons. His peak 3yr PS was 25.3 pp75 on +7 rTS%, and regular season he was around 17-18 pp75 on +5-6 rTS%.

Nomination: Joel Embiid

Alt. Nom: Russell Westbrook

It comes down to Westbrook v Embiid. Guys like Pierce, McHale, Payton, Isiah, didn’t reach the heights of Westbrook or Embiid. One was a high octane play creator, the other a fantastic defensive presence. Both were force of will scorers. I think I’ll give the nod to Jojo. Although I can appreciate the Westbrook argument.

[Mogspan]

Elgin Baylor, despite playing against far inferior competition and whose impact is more likely to be overrated by such a stat, has one season where his PER is higher than AD's career average.

Dolph Schayes, despite playing against far inferior competition and whose impact is more likely to be overrated by such a stat, has 0 seasons where his PER is higher than AD's career average.

I'm not an "everything before the merger was uncompetitive trash" kind of guy, but let's be real here: when those guys played, no one outside of America considered basketball as a career, whereas one could argue that the five best players today aren't from the United States. I don't want to be too harsh when it comes to these old-timers; I don't expect their skills and physiques to be on a par with players of today - and I don't want to unduly penalize them for being born early - but some of y'all are giving them extra credit for being born early.

Like if the first 15 years of the NBA consisted only of players born within 10 miles of Springfield, MA, would you be comfortable calling the third-best player in that league a more historically significant and accomplished player than Anthony Davis because he made more All-League teams? That would be insane.

Wilt is my favorite player of all-time, but even I can appreciate that he has no real argument for being in the top 10. Would he have been a stud today? Very likely (which I can't say about Elgin and Dolph), but I'm not giving him extra credit for being born in an era when being 6' 8" was an automatic spot on an NBA roster and one could make more money being a dentist.

[Samurai]

Vote for #42: Elgin Baylor. Baylor was more highly regarded in his day than he is now. Back then when more advanced stats were unheard of and points were king, he was considered one of the very best in the game since he was a great volume scorer. Now we can look at his stats and realize he was not a particularly efficient shooter and in hindsight it would have made more sense to have West be the primary alpha on offense rather than splitting that role with Baylor. But we're getting to the point in looking at the others not yet nominated that Baylor deserves a mention. He was a ten-time All NBA First Team member, finished in the top 5 in points/game 8 times, and an excellent rebounder with 8 top ten finishes in rebounds/game. And while not known as much for his playmaking as his scoring, he still had 6 top ten finishes in assists/game. In the days before Dr J and long before MJ, Baylor was a pioneer in combining strength with grace, hops and that seemingly impossible trait of "hanging in the air" longer than what many deemed possible. I only saw Baylor play live after injuries took away much of his earlier athleticism, so the "magic" of Baylor was more what my dad would tell me about how incredible he was in his younger days. When my dad saw Dr J, and later Jordan, he felt he was seeing a younger Baylor reincarnated.

Alternate vote: Anthony Davis. Not sure I would necessarily pick him if I were starting a team due to his lack of dependability. But when he is healthy, his peak is hard to argue against. 4-time All NBA First team member, 4-time NBA All defensive team (two first teams and two second teams), 6-times in the top ten in points/game as well as rebounds/game. Not the best longevity guy but the other guys eligible aren't vastly better in that department eligible. Sure, I wish he were better than just a 30% shooter from distance but if he were, I assume he would have been voted in already.

Nomination: Russell Westbrook. Not a fan and I wouldn't necessarily want him on my team if I were picking from scratch. But I'm having trouble continuing to not nominate him based on my personal playstyle preferences. MVP in 2017 and 9-time All NBA Team member (2 first team, 5 second team and 2 third team selections). Led the league twice in points/game and three times in assists/game. I don't highly value his triple doubles since I tend to think he was a stat padder, particularly his rebounding, but he was still a very good defensive rebounder for a guard.

Alternate nomination: George Gervin. Outstanding scorer who led the league in scoring 4 times (only Jordan, Wilt and KD have more scoring titles and tied with Kobe and Harden). Named All NBA/ABA nine times (5 of them to the First Team), played in 12 straight All Star games, and scored double figures in 407 consecutive games. Not a very good defender although he was a very good defensive rebounder and shot blocker for a guard. And the eye test tells me that he had the best floating finger roll off a drive that I've ever seen (Wilt's was off a post-up, not a drive!).

[trex_8063]

Wilt is my favorite player of all-time, but even I can appreciate that he has no real argument for being in the top 10. Would he have been a stud today? Very likely (which I can't say about Elgin and Dolph), but I'm not giving him extra credit for being born in an era when being 6' 8" was an automatic spot on an NBA roster and one could make more money being a dentist.

The bolded is just not true. And I can provide examples, should that be needed.

Also, the dentist comment is largely only true in comparison to the NBA's lower-tier players, and even those only near the START of Wilt's career:
*An average NBA starter was making the equivalent [corrected for inflation] of six-figure salary, even in Wilt's rookie season [1959-60]. Even the single lowest-paid full-time player was making a livable wage in '60 (maybe about $70k in modern-day equiv).
**By just 2-3 years later, even many of the scrubs and lowest-paid players were making the equivalent of six-figure salaries. An average or low-level NBA starter could expect the equiv of around $200-250k/year.
***By the early 70s [end of Wilt's career], the AVERAGE NBA salary was the modern-day equiv of about $700k; even the lowliest scrub was making a GOOD living. The highest paid players were making modern-day equiv of >$2.5M annually.

[Doctor MJ]

Gonna offer my 2c on Dray, which I know will not be popular here, but I'm of the belief that this is WAY too early for Draymond Green.

Granted, my criteria probably values the rs more than many others do, and effective longevity is also a major consideration. Thus, it's hard for me to even consider a guy [here circa-#42] who has just 11 seasons [missing major time in 2-3 of them] with a career avg of <29 mpg........someone who is not even in the top 300 in career minutes played.
I almost don't care how big an impact you have when you play; when you've only played that little [relative to other candidates], I'm skeptical it could overcome the value gap.

And particularly when we note that Draymond has almost zilch floor-raising ability (see '20). More than most players, his success, or rather the dynamic monster-impact he's often credited for, is a bit situational.

Someone like Manu I can buy a little easier as high as circa-#40, because I have little difficulty imagining him raise the floor on a poor team. With Draymond, we've seen it; and he can't.

Thus, if he'd fallen into team situation(s) similar to what Elton Brand or Kevin Garnett fell into.......not a single person would have yet mentioned his name in the project (because we'd have yet to see how he can shine in a talent-laden environment).

So, I'll say up front that your perspective is valid and I'm sure others feel similarly. If Green gets in in the '40s, that's a massive leap compared to the previous Top 100 to say the least.

Further, as I'm wont to say, we each weigh longevity differently. Weighing it heavier than others certainly makes sense.

My main thought though would be that I don't think that most would consider someone playing 20K minutes to be so low that they can't be this on the list given that others who have played even less are already inducted. So, while you may personally not care how valuable someone is in a mere 20K minutes, for many, that's clearly enough to reach these heights.

I think another perspective to take is that our career playoff +/- leaderboard for the data we have goes:

1. LeBron
2. Duncan
3. Green

Is Green fortunate to play with the teammates he does? Sure, but fundamentally, if you've played enough to be that high on that leaderboard, is there really some critical threshold you need to pass to have "good enough" longevity? I really don't think there is.

That's not to say that anyone need feel required to rank Green anywhere near this high, but I think it's important for people in general - not you specifically because I expect you've thought this through for yourself - to consider how much they really care about that extra longevity, and whether they'd be using longevity as a watershed if it didn't allow them to reinforce a tier separation they already have in mind.

And to be clear, this is not the same thing as valuing longevity to some degree and that giving a guy the nod in a particular comparison. Anyone who has no particular qualms about the amount of minutes a guy has played to reach Top X on their list, but just happens to not have a particular guy higher in part because of a minutes deficit, is in a bit of a different category than what I'm focused on here. I'm more speaking to the feeling that there's no amount of value per minute that can make a player Top X if he hasn't played at least Y minutes, because I think that categorical-type distinction feels artificial.

Re: zilch floor-raising so impact is situational. On offense perhaps, but his main value add is on defense where I don't think he's really any more situationally dependent than other top players.

Re: in a worse situation he wouldn't be seen as a candidate. It's true, and something to consider with all players - including those we are currently thinking of. Nevertheless, he's one of the two big guys on the best dynastic run of the past decade. That's a big deal and not dependent on him playing more years to round out his longevity or him being limited as a scorer.

[OhayoKD]

Gonna offer my 2c on Dray, which I know will not be popular here, but I'm of the belief that this is WAY too early for Draymond Green.

Granted, my criteria probably values the rs more than many others do, and effective longevity is also a major consideration. Thus, it's hard for me to even consider a guy [here circa-#42] who has just 11 seasons [missing major time in 2-3 of them] with a career avg of <29 mpg........someone who is not even in the top 300 in career minutes played.
I almost don't care how big an impact you have when you play; when you've only played that little [relative to other candidates], I'm skeptical it could overcome the value gap.

And particularly when we note that Draymond has almost zilch floor-raising ability (see '20). More than most players, his success, or rather the dynamic monster-impact he's often credited for, is a bit situational.

Someone like Manu I can buy a little easier as high as circa-#40, because I have little difficulty imagining him raise the floor on a poor team. With Draymond, we've seen it; and he can't.

This is pretty out of pocket imo.

A season where he was well past his rs-prime and minutes restricted in a siutation where steph looked even worse per lineup data, doesn't really "show" anything imo. I'd also say pure defensive specialists generally have a better-track record raising floors than low minute do-it-all guard.

The Bulk of draymond's career offers evidence he offers superstar lift(notably this remains even if we swap out lineup-data for game to game data), at his peak his lineups looked as good without his co-star as it did in the reverse, and he floor-raised a team past the first round and may have even made the conference finals at his apex.

I think longevity and him coasting in the regular-season past a few years are fair knocls. But 2020 more or less the equivalent of using Washington for Jordan or 2013 for Kobe(leadership=/basketball ability) and isn't really any more relevant as proof of floor-raising than all the seasons he "cieling-raised" instead.

Those are made-up terms that draw lines describing an effect that is gradient. Consistently impactful players(and draymond has superstar-looking replciation regardless of the metrics) are more likely than not going to be impactful in the vast majority of situations. Contrary to common perception, I'd say defensive specialists/on-court generals historically are the most resilient across contexts.

"Draymond may lose some value on worse teams" is one thing. "Draymond can't raise a floor" isn't really defensible I think. A best defender in the league candidate historically can lead playoff teams. Now add being one of history's few two-way floor-general(something which can turn otherwise lineup negatives into positives, aka, floor-raising), and then you get "really gifted passer". If passing was the bulk of draymond's value this would make sense. But his impact is mostly defensive and his strengths have consistently led to great defensive floor-raising even when the players in question are physically compromised by injury/load(2015 Lebron, Boston KG, ect.)

Draymond is the pinnacle of the archtype and looks like a superstar with nearly any impact approach playing as many minutes as his co-star and elevating in the playoffs on a team which slants towards defense when its time to win. If you have to use a off-year when he's on a minutes restriction and hsi team is tanking while this projects #11 posted even worse lineup-splits...

yeah I don't think there's much of a case here at all.

I also think it's especially wierd to cite Manu-Ginobli who, in the year some here have said he was the best in the world, saw his team continue basically unaffected without him when he missed regular-season games.

[OhayoKD]

Elgin Baylor, despite playing against far inferior competition and whose impact is more likely to be overrated by such a stat, has one season where his PER is higher than AD's career average.

Dolph Schayes, despite playing against far inferior competition and whose impact is more likely to be overrated by such a stat, has 0 seasons where his PER is higher than AD's career average.

I'm not an "everything before the merger was uncompetitive trash" kind of guy, but let's be real here: when those guys played, no one outside of America considered basketball as a career, whereas one could argue that the five best players today aren't from the United States. I don't want to be too harsh when it comes to these old-timers; I don't expect their skills and physiques to be on a par with players of today - and I don't want to unduly penalize them for being born early - but some of y'all are giving them extra credit for being born early.

Like if the first 15 years of the NBA consisted only of players born within 10 miles of Springfield, MA, would you be comfortable calling the third-best player in that league a more historically significant and accomplished player than Anthony Davis because he made more All-League teams? That would be insane.

Wilt is my favorite player of all-time, but even I can appreciate that he has no real argument for being in the top 10. Would he have been a stud today? Very likely (which I can't say about Elgin and Dolph), but I'm not giving him extra credit for being born in an era when being 6' 8" was an automatic spot on an NBA roster and one could make more money being a dentist.

Foreign nba talent more than doubled in a 6-year span between 1998 and 2003 and did not stop looking back.

Do you apply this era-based curvature against players in the 2010's, 2000's, and 90's too?

[Doctor MJ]

Elgin Baylor, despite playing against far inferior competition and whose impact is more likely to be overrated by such a stat, has one season where his PER is higher than AD's career average.

Dolph Schayes, despite playing against far inferior competition and whose impact is more likely to be overrated by such a stat, has 0 seasons where his PER is higher than AD's career average.

So first thing here, I think this was brought up by another poster and I don't want to rehash it, but the existence of a guy like Andre Drummond (the other "AD") being able to trounce old-timers by this stat as well really makes clear how limited it is as a tool.

I think Davis is better than Baylor & Schayes and will be continuing to vote for Davis above them, but would say that Drummond is DRASTICALLY worse than all 3 of these player to such a degree that the difference between the other 3 is minor in comparison, and so if a stat thinks Drummond is better than old Hall of Famers when the reality is he's not even good enough to play for a contender as more than a guy to fill out the bench, I can't take it as much of an argument.

Wilt is my favorite player of all-time, but even I can appreciate that he has no real argument for being in the top 10. Would he have been a stud today? Very likely (which I can't say about Elgin and Dolph), but I'm not giving him extra credit for being born in an era when being 6' 8" was an automatic spot on an NBA roster

So, to be clear, the average height in the NBA in Wilt's era was 6'6", merely an inch shorter than it is today. For Schayes it drops to 6'5", two inches shorter than today. This really isn't that big of a deal.

I understand you're talking with some hyperbole, but the reality is that height really hasn't progressed in the NBA like people tend to assume. The big explosion in height came in the '40s, and while the tail end of that explosion happened in NBA years, it wasn't primarily an NBA thing. That might seems like quibbling about small potatoes, but I think it's important because modern NBA fans tend to think of the start of the NBA as the start of serious basketball, and it really wasn't.

Really the NBA's formation is about moneyed interests recognizing not just that basketball already had a ton of momentum, but circumstances surrounding World War II had kept the existing professional leagues from taking advantage of both a) the rabid basketball fan enthusiasm of the time, and b) acquiring most of the best basketball talent.

None of this is to say that there wasn't an extremely noteworthy "big man cometh" paradigm shift happening around the same time, but the fact that the players were shorter previously doesn't mean that the game itself wasn't played by tons of people nor that it wasn't played by exceptionally skilled people.

Bigger players come because people in general were getting bigger. This affected athletics in general, but it affected basketball more because of how valuable height was for the sport. But this shouldn't be used as a proxy for assuming that basketball was drastically more primitive than other sports at the time simply. The story of basketball's astonishing growth is primarily a story about the rapid development that came about before World War II rather than after, which was made possible by a unique set of circumstances.

To put it another way: Basketball was already part of the fabric of the US by World War II on a level that very few other team sports were. Basically anywhere you had a school gym, people weren't just playing basketball, they watching people play basketball for entertainment and often paying to do so. Much of the work that the NBA has succeeded in doing has been to kill interest in local levels of basketball and place more and more of the collective attention on the best of the best.

Doing so has certainly improved how good the best are, but sometimes it gets characterized like guys in the early NBA were just picking up a basketball for the first time. In reality, there was a time when this was true of pro basketball players, but it was the 1890s into early 1900s. Players coming to elite levels half a century later were considerably more sophisticated than most realize.

[LA Bird]

Vote 1: Dolph Schayes
Vote 2: Anthony Davis
Nom 1: Clyde Drexler
Nom 2: Russell Westbrook

Reposting my writeup on Schayes:

Spoiler:

High peak, excellent longevity for his time, fairly all-rounded game, and won a title as the clear best player in the post shot clock era. Schayes was the original stretch big with 3pt range and his ten straight seasons being top 3 in the league in FT% is still the best in history barring Barry (whose FT form obviously doesn't translate to regular shots). Besides the outside shooting, Schayes also attacked the basket well even in his later years (he was 33 in the first video below) and by most reasonable thresholds, he is the GOAT FT merchant at 1.154 career free throws per field goal over regular season and playoffs combined.

His passing also passes the eye test to me. There is one play at 0:36 mark in the second video where he spots the cutter and delivers a perfect behind the back pass. Obviously that's just one highlight but his assist numbers are generally pretty good too. It is more common now with the rise of heliocentric guards in recent years but Schayes along with Wilt and LeBron are still the only non guards to have been top 5 in both points and assists per game in the same season and he did it in his rookie (NBA) year. In G5-G7 of the 1959 Eastern Finals against the Russell Celtics, Schayes had games of 7, 8, 9 assists and while I know high assists don't necessarily mean good passing, a PF getting those kind of numbers in crucial playoff games against a #1 defense still says a lot.

For team performance, Schayes' 54 Nationals was 1st in both regular season SRS and defensive rating, the only team to ever top prime Mikan's Lakers in either categories. Schayes was injured and practically out of half of the Finals but still put up solid numbers in a close G7 loss (18/13 on 51% TS vs Mikan's 11/15 on 38.2% TS). The Nationals go on to win the title the following season after Mikan's retirement. Schayes consistently rated above Pettit for non-box impact in Moonbeam's regressed WOWY and ElGee's WOWYR and he is one of the guys who maintained their box score numbers well in the postseason. If we look at WS/48, the 50s stars could be divided into two contrasting groups when it comes to playoffs resiliency:

Mikan (0.249 -> 0.254)
Schayes (0.192 -> 0.189)
Arizin (0.183 -> 0.183)

Johnston (0.241 -> 0.159)
Pettit (0.213 -> 0.159)
Macauley (0.196 -> 0.134)

Note that we are missing minutes data for playoffs before 1952 or Schayes would likely be above 0.200 for his career postseason WS/48, which would be 5th all time among retired players.

Obviously, era is a concern for Schayes and that's partly why I've not been pushing for him earlier. But Pettit was nominated in round #25 and I don't see him as being that much better than Schayes (if at all). Mikan's a better player no contest but his career is literally half the length of Schayes' - I don't think it's a stretch to argue the 2nd best player over the decade of the 50s should at least be nominated at this point.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

TLDR: Schayes checks all the boxes (ring, accolades, skills, box/impact stats, playoff resiliency, longevity) and era-relative, looks comparable to Pettit who was voted in over ten spots ago already.

Baylor peaked higher than Schayes but his efficiency fell off after only his fifth season in 1963, after which he became more like a Melo-level high volume guy who declined even further in the playoffs. And no offense to Melo but he isn't the caliber of player making the top 100 list this time around. I still have Baylor around top 50 mainly off his peak but if we are going by short multi-year peaks, Davis/Westbrook/Howard are all very competitive too.

Also, I feel like the gap in league competition between Baylor and Schayes is overrated. The bulk of Baylor's career value came in the early 60s which overlapped the tail end of Schayes' prime. For example, I previously only mentioned Schayes' high assist numbers in the series against the 59 Celtics but overall, he performed better than Baylor did against the same opponent:

Baylor - 23/12 on 39% TS in a 4 game sweep
Schayes - 28/13 on 51% TS in a 7 game series

Obviously small sample size and Baylor left him in the dust from the year after but Schayes still played at an All Star level until 1961. This is not like Mikan vs Baylor where there's a clear gap in era between the two players.

[Doctor MJ]

So I'll just say, my top 2 votes this time will be the 2012 draftmates Anthony Davis and Draymond Green. I haven't yet decided who I'll put first.

To some degree I'm looking for arguments for one over the other, but I feel I should context that by saying I'm not particularly looking for people to tell me why Green doesn't belong anywhere near this spot. I can engage with those thoughts as well, but I'd like to see folks put down some serious thoughts between these two guys in particular.

Part of what's interesting here for me is that Davis was a prospect that I personally championed in a way I don't typically do. I saw him as a possible Bill Russell-style prospect and was curious to see how that would look today. My expectation was that he'd be considerably less impactful than Russell of course due to changes in the game, but I thought he has a serious chance to be a Defensive Player of the Decade level guy.

And the thing is, I wasn't wrong, but I actually think draftmate Dray has been the Defensive Player of the past Decade. That's no small thing.

Of course if I'll we're talking about are preferences and justifications, one can agree with all of that and simply point to Davis' offensive advantage (where he surpassed expectations from college a great deal), I think there's more to sink teeth into here.