RealGM Top 100 List #29

[tsherkin]

Lol and the excuses flow in, just as i expected.

This is not a productive comment. Please contribute, or stick to observing the constructive dialogue.

[DQuinn1575]

Connie Hawkins, Spencer Haywood, and Jim McDaniels were all centers in the ABA and were all all-stars.
The ABA was full of power forwards playing center.
These guys dominated the ABA, and couldnt do so in the ABA

Hawkins wasn't a center in the ABA. He played power forward. HIs position move to the NBA was to small forward, but that's really not that meaningful because he was always a player who moved well and he was still a top rebounder for his team. He could, and did at times, play "power forward" in the NBA.

Haywood didn't play center in the ABA either, at least according to b-r. He played PF, and there were two guys taller, listed at center, and getting major minutes. Haywood clearly went down from looking like a GOAT in that early ABA to something great but only mortal in the NBA, but he remained labeled as a 4.

McDaniels we've talked about before. He was a center in both leagues whose calling card was as a scorer/star type. He came to the NBA, to Haywood's team, and had to learn to adjust to playing less of a primary role, and he never did. He got petulant, and didn't put in the work he needed to.

After Pittsburgh got Art Heyman, they started Trooper Washington and Heyman at forwards and Connie Hawkins at center - you can look at the playoff minutes and see that is the lineup.

"Spencer Haywood has been outstanding. He's 6-8,but playing like he's 7'2"

"Haywood enters the ABA as no worse than second-best center, after Indiana's MVP, Mel Daniels,

You can debate if Byron Beck or Haywood played center, the Sporting News roster lists both as centers.
But Spencer was playing inside, and was easily the best rebounder in the league.
My point is that he dominated completely inside a league that had no centers.

You should all realize the positions in B-Ref are not close to Gospel; they were done in the early-mid 2000's.

[DQuinn1575]

...
- Whilst I generally acknowledge the strong crop of NBA 70s centers (indeed this is suggested in the previous post)
- the center listing you give are perhaps more about star name power than performance. Walt Bellamy - in mini renaissance -

is productive by the boxscore, though he has traditionally been considered (perhaps substantially) less than sum of his boxscore contributions.

Unseld is in what appears to be a down year. Hayes is Hayes, shooting (and missing) a lot, between his boxscore and his intangiables I'm not impressed.
Lanier seems quite good by the boxscore, some have concerns about his D over his career and, whilst I'm unsure of how conclusive team level stuff
isfor his career in general, when it chimes with negative reviews of his early career D, this suggests PER might overstate his impact (though WS probably
understates it).

All these guys were way better than Zelmo Beaty.
...

With all due respect, Beaty when healthy was better than either Bellamy or Lanier and his stats were certainly better than even a healthy Unseld (Wes is one of the kings of non-boxscore value as arguably the GOAT pick setter and outlet passer in NBA history).

Z, in the 60s which was a stronger era than the 70s, was a consistent 20/11 on .475 center with excellent range to draw opposing bigs away and a Vlade Divac rep as a master of "dirty/cheat/flop" defense. Bellamy averaged 16/13/.500 in his 70s prime but was slow, overweight, and his defense suffered because of it. Lanier has better numbers/appreciably worse team defense (which to me is especially important to a center in this ear). Unseld in the early 70s averages 10/15/,490 though his passing is far superior to the others. Z's knees were falling apart; he was actually greatly helped by sitting out a year to change leagues.

Beaty was clearly better in the ABA (about the same numbers but shooting up to .550 which is major improvement) for his 2 healthy years but was generally considered behind Mel Daniels -- in Z's best ABA year, Mel won the MVP; in Z's 2nd best year, a rookie Artis won it. Not a major point for you, but Zelmo was a very good player, just in an era where there was always Wilt and Russell throughout his prime.

1969 Beaty's last NBA season - they have him 6th center in WS/48 http://bkref.com/tiny/jLqcg
I call him fairly even with Bellamy - both were 29

1971 - Beaty had best ABA season http://bkref.com/tiny/8GvYW
Actually Beaty was best ever http://bkref.com/tiny/9BR8v
Bells was 13th in the NBA http://bkref.com/tiny/hkTFc


1969 Bells = Beaty
1971 Beaty best in ABA; Bells 13th in NBA

[Doctor MJ]

Quinn 2 interesting points from you:

1) More important than the height is the interior effectiveness. The latter really says something about the level of front court competition. Still, if his team didn't have use for taller guys next to Haywood, they wouldn't play them, which means the really damning thing about saying Haywood dominated at center - his height - isn't actually in play here. Haywood's plenty big enough to thrive at the 4 in any era, so the telling thing here is HOW effective Haywood was (MVP level) rather than THAT he did okay.

2) I hadn't realized that about Connie's teammate shift. You're quite right most of us are coming at this from a historical perspective, and so we'll miss some things. Might mean we embarrass ourselves a bit.

I think it has to be noted though that Connie in those players led the team in points and assists (plus efficiency, while drawing insane amounts of free throws) but didn't lead the team in rebounds. I have no doubt that Connie started the game at center (he was a great leaper), and that his length was used as part of the interior defense, but I think it's pretty clear he wasn't playing center in a way that resembles what we think of when we think of center-play.

To me it's much more like a Julius Erving in '76 playoffs on steroids in terms of the sheer domination which allowed him to take point anywhere it was needed.

Of course as I say that, there are several things in there that beg for a rebuttal of "yeah, see, the league was weak". I can't say I disagree.

Though I do think Connie was amazing, and I typically end up voting for him somewhere later in the Top 100.