RealGM Top 100 List #28

[Doctor MJ]

I'll ask again since revealing more information about Havlicek may be relevant in this thread (Thanks to Owly for his response in the previous thread):

How was his defense against Dr. J in the 1977 Eastern Conference Finals?

Bob Ryan wrote:

"(Havlicek's) defensive job on a much younger and friskier Julius Erving in the 1977 Eastern Conference Finals against Philadelphia was nothing short of spellbinding."

Is that Ryan just advocating for a Celtic legend, or did older Hondo slow down a Julius Erving one year removed from arguably the GOAT playoff performance in professional basketball history?

Hmm, have to note:

The two didn't play in the ECF. They played in the ECSF, which was the first series Philly played. And in that series, Erving's scoring went up from the regular season while his co-lead scoring teammate McGinnis fell off a cliff.

While I don't doubt for a second that Hondo worked hard on Erving and wasn't remotely embarrassed, any statement implying that Erving's struggle was a key takeaway from the series doesn't seem likely.

[Doctor MJ]

My vote for #28: Elgin Baylor.

4-5 really fantastic years (a top 21-25 peak imo; arguably top 20), followed by 7 years ranging between "good role player" and All-Star (if not All-NBA) quality.

A great scorer, very very good rebounder, and even a decent play-maker from the SF position.

Critics will call him a chucker and criticize his scoring efficiency (which was actually pretty good most years), and to a degree they have a good point (given his star teammate), one which likely should challenge the "status quo" (a status quo which historically does have a lot of basis in volume and accolades). However, I think we're already well outside the "status quo" position of Elgin Baylor. As evidence of that, I'd point out some of the recent rankings of him (no comment on the credibility of individual sources; merely citing as examples which collectively may represent an accurate "status quo" ranking):

2008 RealGM PC forum: #21
2011 RealGM PC forum: #26
2009 Slam Magazine top 50 rank: #11
2011 Slam Magazine top 500 rank: #12
Bill Simmon's The Book of Basketball (2010) rank: #15
2012/13 InsideHoops.com top 100 rank: #19
Current http://www.ranker.com all-time rank: #24


Criticisms sustained, I'm still reasonably comfortable casting my vote for him at this position.

EDIT (additions):
He's #23 all-time in MVP Award Shares.
#23 all-time in RealGM RPoY shares.
#24 all-time in career rs PER.
#24 all-time in career playoff PER.
#28 all-time in career rs points.
#15 all-time in career playoff points.

So I'm seeing 2 points here.

The first one is essentially: "Okay, you wanted us to not follow the status quo. We're officially ranking Baylor lower than other people now, so we officially aren't following the status quo, and now we should put him in so that we don't look crazy."

I don't think anyone should think like this.

The second point, is essentially a list of things where Baylor looks like 28th best or better, but these are all things that inflate perception of how good he is. Everything on their either directly overrates the value of volume scoring directly or gives Baylor an advantage based on his era.

[Doctor MJ]

Baylor's impact on the game as a blueprint for the likes of Dr. J and jordan make him a top 30 player in my eyes.

I would urge folks not to vote here based on historical influence. As I've said before, there are a ton of great lists we can make, but confusing several different ideas into one list just makes the list less meaningful. This is very clearly not a "historically noteworthy" list.

I have to say though, while I would note Baylor for historical noteworthiness for the reasons you say, it wasn't exactly news that a 6'6"-ish guy with great athleticism was someone who should play basketball. Baylor's noteworthy in that we hadn't seen someone who looked like him before, not in that without him guys like that wouldn't exist or wouldn't play basketball in later years.

[Clyde Frazier]

Baylor's impact on the game as a blueprint for the likes of Dr. J and jordan make him a top 30 player in my eyes.

I would urge folks not to vote here based on historical influence. As I've said before, there are a ton of great lists we can make, but confusing several different ideas into one list just makes the list less meaningful. This is very clearly not a "historically noteworthy" list.

I have to say though, while I would note Baylor for historical noteworthiness for the reasons you say, it wasn't exactly news that a 6'6"-ish guy with great athleticism was someone who should play basketball. Baylor's noteworthy in that we hadn't seen someone who looked like him before, not in that without him guys like that wouldn't exist or wouldn't play basketball in later years.

I should clarify on 2 points, then.

I'm not saying his influence on the progression of the game automatically puts him in the top 30, or that it's the main reason. I just think it's one of the contributing factors, with his overall play relative to his era giving him a good case for the spot.

Also, I was speaking more to his style of play and creativity as a blueprint for guys like Dr. J and Jordan. I wasn't implying that they wouldn't end up playing basketball without him specifically. Erving has directly credited Baylor for the development of his game, and Jordan credits Erving and David Thompson for the same.

[Doctor MJ]

So yeah where I'm standing:

Lead big: Artis Gilmore. Still need to hear more on a guy like McHale before I'd put him above Gilmore, who I see as having a much more complete career.

Lead wing-ish: Rick Barry. There's a part of me that wants to say Reggie here, but I can't imagine he has a prayer here, and I'm not really certain I'd put him above Barry.

Oh, and, on wings, no one has questioned me about why I see Barry so differently than Baylor, though I imagine it's crossed people's minds.

Why does the efficiency thing bother me so much with Baylor but not Barry? Well, it doesn't NOT bother me, but the thing I recognize is that part of why shooting efficiency is so informative to analysis is that indicates an awareness of the basketball court, and as such the guy chucking the shot that should have been passed is also more likely to be the guy who makes other decisions that are "individual wise, team foolish".

It's not always the case though, and Barry's a counterexample. Guys talk about how smart he was, and his coaches used him in a way you'd only use a smart, veteran guy to great effect. It doesn't make the missed shots he took any less problematic, but what it means is that the non-scoring tangible stuff looks a lot more favorably for him.

As I've laid out with Baylor, we don't see stuff like this from him. He didn't have the same brainy reputation, there are reports of his ego getting in the way of him accepting a more reasonable primacy level, and of course he was directly confronted with a superior teammate to defer to (and didn't) in a way that Barry never did.

None of this is meant to be an argument along the lines of "Barry wouldn't have done what Baylor did that I object to", because I don't know. However, my best estimate of the impact Baylor had in the years post-'63 is quite weak relative to the standards that pretty much every other guy bandied about at this stage were having in their 5th best year onward.

If you want to criticize my argument saying, "You're making a really big deal out of something you're acknowledging is very hard to be certain about", I think that's fair. Just don't convince yourself that nothing THAT dramatic in a difference in unrealistic. As has been talked about with Wilt Chamberlain in depth, a guy's impact can very drastically and fall greatly if he takes on more scoring primacy that he should, and with Baylor it's not really a question of whether he should have shot so much much once West hit prime. He should have been shooting less. He should have been playing differently.

Lead point: Here's the place where I'm more torn. I suppose I have Frazier rather defaulted here. And I do like him, and wouldn't be disappointed if he got voted in here (which seems likely). However longevity is an issue, and an issue to the point that it makes me not only consider Kidd over him but Chris Paul.

I think everyone voting for Frazier based on being sold on his prime level of play needs to seriously do a head to head comparison with Paul.

[Doctor MJ]

Why Paul over durant?

For me it's the longevity. I realize that if you see it as 7 good years vs 5 years, it's easy to side with the 5 if you think the peak better, but it's not that simple. Compare the two guys with any kind of advanced metric tallied over their careers, and Paul has a pretty massive summed advantage.

[penbeast0]

Walt Frazier -- penbeast0, FJS, fpliii, tsherkin, Clyde Frazier, batmana

Isiah Thomas -- JordansBulls

Elgin Baylor -- Jim Naismith, trex_8063

[trex_8063]

My vote for #28: Elgin Baylor.

4-5 really fantastic years (a top 21-25 peak imo; arguably top 20), followed by 7 years ranging between "good role player" and All-Star (if not All-NBA) quality.

A great scorer, very very good rebounder, and even a decent play-maker from the SF position.

Critics will call him a chucker and criticize his scoring efficiency (which was actually pretty good most years), and to a degree they have a good point (given his star teammate), one which likely should challenge the "status quo" (a status quo which historically does have a lot of basis in volume and accolades). However, I think we're already well outside the "status quo" position of Elgin Baylor. As evidence of that, I'd point out some of the recent rankings of him (no comment on the credibility of individual sources; merely citing as examples which collectively may represent an accurate "status quo" ranking):

2008 RealGM PC forum: #21
2011 RealGM PC forum: #26
2009 Slam Magazine top 50 rank: #11
2011 Slam Magazine top 500 rank: #12
Bill Simmon's The Book of Basketball (2010) rank: #15
2012/13 InsideHoops.com top 100 rank: #19
Current http://www.ranker.com all-time rank: #24


Criticisms sustained, I'm still reasonably comfortable casting my vote for him at this position.

EDIT (additions):
He's #23 all-time in MVP Award Shares.
#23 all-time in RealGM RPoY shares.
#24 all-time in career rs PER.
#24 all-time in career playoff PER.
#28 all-time in career rs points.
#15 all-time in career playoff points.

So I'm seeing 2 points here.

The first one is essentially: "Okay, you wanted us to not follow the status quo. We're officially ranking Baylor lower than other people now, so we officially aren't following the status quo, and now we should put him in so that we don't look crazy."

I don't think anyone should think like this.

I realize you intend to beat the efficiency drum (or relative efficiency drum) as loudly as possible whenever Baylor's name is brought up (at least within the top 30: top 30 being a locale you've expressed disapproval of him occupying), and fwiw you've convinced me to reconsider and subsequently lower my personal ranking of Baylor.

But above you are (fairly clearly, imo) putting words in my mouth; blatantly enough that I feel like I'm being baited. I'm not biting; we can just agree to disagree.

[Doctor MJ]

I realize you intend to beat the efficiency drum (or relative efficiency drum) as loudly as possible whenever Baylor's name is brought up (at least within the top 30: top 30 being a locale you've expressed disapproval of him occupying), and fwiw you've convinced me to reconsider and subsequently lower my personal ranking of Baylor.

But above you are (fairly clearly, imo) putting words in my mouth; blatantly enough that I feel like I'm being baited. I'm not biting; we can just agree to disagree.

I'm sure you're sick of me right now on this topic so I'll refrain from going any further, but if you didn't mean what I interpreted to mean, what did you mean? If it wasn't an appeal to authority, I have no idea what it was.

[SactoKingsFan]

I think Rick Barry should start gaining some real traction and deserves to be in the conversation with Frazier and Baylor.

Barry provides more high quality/elite seasons than Frazier and Baylor:

Barry: 10-11 high quality seasons | Frazier: 7 high quality seasons | Baylor: 6-7 high quality seasons

1975: Barry led/carried the Warriors to title

75 RS: 33.8 PTS, 6.3 TRB, 6.8 AST, 3.6 STL+BLK per 100
23.5 PER, .509 TS%, .904 FT% .188 WS/48

75 PS: 30.8 pts, 6.0 trb, 6.6 AST, 4.2 STL+BLK per 100
22.5 PER, .505 TS%, .918 FT%, .204 WS/48

Although Frazier and Baylor peaked higher, Barry had a longer prime which makes his 10 season prime at least comparable to Frazier and Baylor’s 10 season primes.

10 Season Prime
Barry 10 Season Prime (66-76*) RS: 22.2 PER, .530 TS%, 103.3 WS, .178 WS/48
Barry 10 Season Prime (66-76*) PS: 22.2 PER, .519 TS%, 13.2 WS, .161 WS/48

*After playing his first two seasons in the NBA (Warriors), Barry left the NBA to sign with the ABA’s Oakland Oaks which prompted the Warriors to go to court and prevent Barry from playing the 68 season.

Frazier 10 Season Prime (69-78) RS: 19.4 PER, .545 TS%, 109.9 WS, .181 WS/48
Frazier 10 Season Prime (69-78) PS: 20.0 PER, .559 TS%, 15.8 WS, .198 WS/48

Baylor 10 Season Prime (59-68) RS: 23.2 PER, .491 TS%, 87.4 WS, .148 WS/48
Baylor 10 Season Prime (59-68) PS: 23.6 PER, .503 TS%, 13.0 WS, .148 WS/48

Career
Barry: 21.0 PER, .525 TS%, 129.0 WS, .162 WS/48
Frazier: 19.1 PER, .542 TS%, 113.5 WS, .176 WS/48
Baylor: 22.7 PER, .494 TS%, 104.2 WS, .148 WS/48

Leaning towards Frazier and Barry for the next two spots, but I haven't decided who I'll be voting for since there's not a lot separating the remaining top 30 candidates.

[Quotatious]

People have been mentioning Bill Walton for quite a long time now, so I have a question - how do you guys feel about Sidney Moncrief? Obviously he wasn't as good as Walton at his peak, not even close, really, but his longevity is much better. He was an elite , top 10 player for 5 consecutive seasons, averaged 21.0 ppg/5.8 rpg/4.7 apg/1.5 spg on 20.5 PER, 21.2 WS/48, 59.2% TS in 36.9 minutes, 381 games (14066 RS minutes, + 1893 playoff minutes, 15959 total, played about 93% of possible games between 1981-82 and 1985-86), with All-Defensive First Team level defense. That's actually more minutes played in just 5 seasons (all on a very high level), than Walton played in his entire career, and it's certainly not like Walton sustained his peak level of play for very long...Prime Walton (so pretty much only during his time with the Blazers), lasted for 230 RS+PS games, 7837 minutes, and peak Walton is just 144 games (76-77 and 77-78 seasons). Think about it.

I think that Moncrief's prime is very comparable to players like Pippen (already in), Drexler (should be in very soon, too) and Payton.

I'm not trying to say that he should be getting any serious traction yet, but I think that if someone values peak/prime play really highly, Moncrief should rank pretty high on his list.

[DQuinn1575]

Why Paul over durant?

For me it's the longevity. I realize that if you see it as 7 good years vs 5 years, it's easy to side with the 5 if you think the peak better, but it's not that simple. Compare the two guys with any kind of advanced metric tallied over their careers, and Paul has a pretty massive summed advantage.

You're right

http://bkref.com/tiny/c57uD

Paul is way ahead of Frazier and Durant in regular season WS/36,
Playoffs is real even for the 3



And Paul has more great seasons versus Durant's - played at a top 5 player level in current day- tougher league than Frazier faced in the 70s. -

And Frazier doesn't have a longevity edge here.


I'll change my vote from the last few rounds:


Voting for Chris Paul

[RebelWithACause]

People have been mentioning Bill Walton for quite a long time now, so I have a question - how do you guys feel about Sidney Moncrief? Obviously he wasn't as good as Walton at his peak, not even close, really, but his longevity is much better. He was an elite , top 10 player for 5 consecutive seasons, averaged 21.0 ppg/5.8 rpg/4.7 apg/1.5 spg on 20.5 PER, 21.2 WS/48, 59.2% TS in 36.9 minutes, 381 games (14066 RS minutes, + 1893 playoff minutes, 15959 total, played about 93% of possible games between 1981-82 and 1985-86), with All-Defensive First Team level defense. That's actually more minutes played in just 5 seasons (all on a very high level), than Walton played in his entire career, and it's certainly not like Walton sustained his peak level of play for very long...Prime Walton (so pretty much only during his time with the Blazers), lasted for 230 RS+PS games, 7837 minutes, and peak Walton is just 144 games (76-77 and 77-78 seasons). Think about it.

I think that Moncrief's prime is very comparable to players like Pippen (already in), Drexler (should be in very soon, too) and Payton.

I'm not trying to say that he should be getting any serious traction yet, but I think that if someone values peak/prime play really highly, Moncrief should rank pretty high on his list.

I personally would prefer about 10 wings at this point, before even thinking about Moncrief to be honest.

His longevity is mediocre.
Pennbeast spoke about his terrific man defense often. Yet as great as his man defense was his help defense was not nearly as good and help defense is something much more valuable regarding value and impact especially among wing players.
His offense was simplistic, yet effective. His skill set does not strike me as great.
Most of his games I watched were from the 84-85 season, which is his prime/peak and from the eye test I was not that impressed actually (as I am with other wings that are not in yet)

I am surprised how Moncrief ranked so early in the last project (at 53).

Does anybody have some compelling evidence for Moncrief to sway me on this one here?

[Jaivl]

You're right

http://bkref.com/tiny/c57uD

Paul is way ahead of Frazier and Durant in regular season WS/36,
Playoffs is real even for the 3

Well, actually according to BRef this is easily Frazier. He scores >20 2-pointers on <20 shots.

Spoiler:

[Quotatious]

I personally would prefer about 10 wings at this point, before even thinking about Moncrief to be honest.

Prime vs prime comparison (let's say the best consecutive 5-year stretch), I think that Moncrief can be argued over any of the remaining wings, and among all perimeter players (so including PGs), I think that only CP3 and Frazier are better. It seems kinda weird to argue Moncrief over Baylor, for example, but I think that Moncrief's big edge in terms of scoring efficiency (obviously on a much lower volume, but Baylor was never noticeably better than league average, no matter the volume, except for the 1969-70 season), and I think it's safe to assume that Moncrief was much better on D, makes it debatable.
Oh, and Durant is obviously better, forgot about him.

I can certainly see about 10 wings being better career-wise, though, as Moncrief's longevity is very weak (as you pointed out), but prime vs prime, his chances are IMO way higher.

His longevity is mediocre.
Pennbeast spoke about his terrific man defense often. Yet as great as his man defense was his help defense was not nearly as good and help defense is something much more valuable regarding value and impact especially among wing players.

Help defense is more impactful/important in general, I agree with that, but for me, man defense is actually MORE important on the perimeter, than in the post. Guards like Moncrief, who can put a ton of pressure on opposing ballhandlers, are IMO pretty valuable.
I certainly agree with the notion that Moncrief's man D was better relative to his help D, though.

His offense was simplistic, yet effective. His skill set does not strike me as great.
Most of his games I watched were from the 84-85 season, which is his prime/peak and from the eye test I was not that impressed actually (as I am with other wings that are not in yet)

I look at Moncrief as a poor man's version of Wade (obviously not nearly as great, not as athletic or explosive, but quite similar stylistically), offensively - aggressive slasher (amazing free throw rate, because of that), but possibly even a bit better shooter than Wade, from what I've seen - really consistent pull-up jumper from 15-18 feet, excellent FT shooter, very strong for his size, too, which allowed him to score in the post, at times, pretty good ballhandler. Nothing special as a playmaker, and like many players of his time, didn't really have a 3-point shot in his arsenal (but it wasn't emphasized during the 80s, and he actually seemed to develop that, towards the end of his prime (shot 32.0% on 1.4 attempts during the 85-86 season, and then 34.2% on 1.2 attempts in 88-89), so I think there are reasons to believe that he would develop that shot, if he played today. Pretty good rebounder for a guard, as well, particularly on the offensive glass (Kobe level, as an overall rebounder, and actually his peak rebounding season, 81-82, is better than any of Bryant's).

I don't think his skillset was any less impressive than many of the other stars' of the 80s.

[DQuinn1575]

You're right

http://bkref.com/tiny/c57uD

Paul is way ahead of Frazier and Durant in regular season WS/36,
Playoffs is real even for the 3

Well, actually according to BRef this is easily Frazier. He scores >20 2-pointers on <20 shots.

Spoiler:

You got me confused -Win Shares- which should be total contribution in their environment is even.

All 3 of them are shooting over 50% on 2 pointers in the playoffs, so they are all scoring >20 2 pointers on less than 20 2 point shots.

[SactoKingsFan]

You're right

http://bkref.com/tiny/c57uD

Paul is way ahead of Frazier and Durant in regular season WS/36,
Playoffs is real even for the 3

Well, actually according to BRef this is easily Frazier. He scores >20 2-pointers on <20 shots.

Spoiler:

You got me confused -Win Shares- which should be total contribution in their environment is even.

All 3 of them are shooting over 50% on 2 pointers in the playoffs, so they are all scoring >20 2 pointers on less than 20 2 point shots.

Green font = joking/sarcasm. Frazier's per 100 numbers from BBR player comp are clearly off. Says he averaged 52.6 (RS) and 151.9 (PS) PTS per 100. Also says he made more 2P than FGA per 100.

[DQuinn1575]

Well, actually according to BRef this is easily Frazier. He scores >20 2-pointers on <20 shots.

Spoiler:

You got me confused -Win Shares- which should be total contribution in their environment is even.

All 3 of them are shooting over 50% on 2 pointers in the playoffs, so they are all scoring >20 2 pointers on less than 20 2 point shots.

Green font = joking/sarcasm. Frazier's per 100 numbers from BBR player comp are clearly off. Says he averaged 52.6 (RS) and 151.9 (PS) PTS per 100. Also says he made more 2P than FGA per 100.

Color blind - don't follow color cues at all - the stats per possession are screwed up on BBR - it takes all the stats but only possessions after 1974 or so -

[Texas Chuck]

Official Vote John Havlicek

Reasons listed below, just wanted to make sure I got an official vote recorded. I see Frazier is doing really well and I don't really have an issue with that, but I do believe Hondo should be ranked higher. He has imo the superior peak, prime, and longevity really isn't even close.

Leaning strongly to Hondo again.

Not much of a factor in the Finals as rookie in 63, but then in the Finals for his career:

18/4/4 in 28 mpg in 64
18/6/2 in 30 mpg in 65
Then finally starts getting full-time minutes
23/10/4 in 66
27/9/7 in 68
28/11/4 in 69
26/8/5 in 74 FMVP
16/6/5 in 76

Missed 33 games in 16 seasons

Career 20/6/5 guy upped to 22/7/5 over 172 playoff games

Peak years was a 28/8/8 guy while being one of the top defenders in the league

Has a high peak, has a long prime, has great longevity, has team success, is a complete player. Seems fitting imo to put him in next to Pippen.

[DQuinn1575]

Most of his games I watched were from the 84-85 season, which is his prime/peak and from the eye test I was not that impressed actually (as I am with other wings that are not in yet)

I look at Moncrief as a poor man's version of Wade (obviously not nearly as great, not as athletic or explosive, but quite similar stylistically), offensively - aggressive slasher (amazing free throw rate, because of that),
but possibly even a bit better shooter than Wade, from what I've seen - really consistent pull-up jumper from 15-18 feet, excellent FT shooter, very strong for his size, too, which allowed him to score in the post, at times, pretty good ballhandler.
Nothing special as a playmaker, and like many players of his time, didn't really have a 3-point shot in his arsenal (but it wasn't emphasized during the 80s, and he actually seemed to develop that, towards the end of his prime
(shot 32.0% on 1.4 attempts during the 85-86 season, and then 34.2% on 1.2 attempts in 88-89), so I think there are reasons to believe that he would develop that shot, if he played today. Pretty good rebounder for a guard, as well, particularly on the offensive glass (Kobe level, as an overall rebounder, and actually his peak rebounding season, 81-82, is better than any of Bryant's).

I don't think his skillset was any less impressive than many of the other stars' of the 80s.[/quote]




Moncreif was stronger, quicker, and a better leaper than Wade - how is Wade more athletic?


Wade is more skilled, but not a better athlete.

Sidney was not a super great ballhandler - great defender, and best player on a very very good team.