RealGM Top 100 List #32

[Owly]

Gary Payton v. Isiah Thomas

Longevity: Payton 16 years, Thomas 13 years
Years over 20PER: Payton 8, Thomas 3 (surprising dominance for Payton)

Scoring: Payton career 24.0/100 possessions at .528 TS%
Thomas career 25.7/100 possessions at .518 (roughly even)
Payton Peak 29.6/100 possessions at .545 TS%
Thomas Peak 27.2/100 possessions at .525 TS% (advantage Payton)

Playmaking: Payton career 9.9ast/100 possessions v. 3.3 turnovers
Thomas career 12.4ast/100 possessions v. 4.1 turnovers (slight advantage Thomas)

Rebounding: Payton career 5.8reb /100 possessions
Thomas career 4.7reb/100 possessions (advantage Payton)

Playoffs: Payton career 21.3pts/100 possessions at .506 ts% for a 15.6 PER
Thomas career 27.6pts/100 possessions @.520ts% for a 19.8 PER (Strong advantage Thomas)
though to be fair, Payton had a lot more playoff games out of his prime
Payton peak 1996 (21g) 25.9pts/5.3reb/6.5ast/100 possessions @ .568 ts%
Thomas peak 1989 (17g) 26.4pts/6.2reb/12.0ast/100 possessions @ .560ts% (slight advantage Thomas)

Defense: Payton 9 times 1st Team All Defense, 1x Defensive Player of the Year (1996)
Thomas (none)

So, comparing the two using simple metrics . . .

Payton is the better regular season player.
Thomas is clearly the superior at stepping up in the playoffs
Payton has a massive defensive edge

Basically, about what was expected. If you value PG defense as I do (and our advanced metrics have shown that, other than Garnett, Duncan, and the center position, all 4 of the other positions have roughly equal defensive importance) then Payton has a strong edge over the course of their careers. If you value playoffs appreciably more than regular season (I tend to value them similarly, the greater sample size of the one balancing the greater importance of the other though there are exceptions), then Isiah has that edge though Payton had some great defensive playoffs, v. Kevin Johnson where he got the nickname "Glove", v. Michael Jordan even.

For me, the choice is still Gary Payton over Isiah Thomas. Since I value him over Kidd as well, I rate Gary Payton first among the remaining PGs. I don't have a clear decision over whether I value Payton over Artis Gilmore or the top SFs yet though and am open to being convinced.

Nice comparison breakdown, although as you mentioned, Payton's playoff numbers take a BIG hit because so many of his playoff games came in his twilight as he bounced around (including two stops with finals participants: '04 Lakers and '06 Heat); whereas ALL of Isiah's playoff games came in his prime. I don't think it's fair to hold Payton's longer career AGAINST him in that fashion.

If we were to compare only prime Payton (say....'94-'03) vs. prime Isiah in the playoffs:

Isiah
Per 100 possessions: 27.6 pts, 6.4 reb, 12.1 ast, 4.5 tov on .520 TS%
19.8 PER, .143 WS/48, 110 ORtg/105 DRtg (+5); 12.5 total WS
Payton ('94-'03)
Per 100 possessions: 27.2 pts, 6.2 reb, 9.0 ast, 3.4 tov on .528 TS%
19.4 PER, .130 WS/48, 111 ORtg/109 DRtg (+2); 7.9 total WS

So for playoff performance it's still advantage to Thomas, but it's now apparent it's not such a big gulf.

Speaking for myself, the longevity factor also adds some career value to Payton (only bring it up because you didn't mention it in your closing remarks); for me that puts a touch more distance between them. Generally agree with your assessment, though (except that I rate Payton marginally behind Kidd).

Well, by your measures playoff boxscore Isiah has an advantage. I think the boxscore (particularly DWS but also PER through steals) overcredits Isiah's D (and undercredits non-boxscore defenders, particularly Rodman, Dumars and Mahorn). If you consider your span a fair sample (some might say if we're getting to pick and choose Payton years Isiah should be able to lop off his last two playoff years, with Payton able to lop off an additional two years too, which might open up Isiah's advantage a little more; but I'd venture not enough to negate my coming point - not for my tastes anyhow) I'd suggest Payton's defensive superiority, beyond just the boxscore, might negate Thomas' playoff stats advantage.

[trex_8063]

Well, by your measures playoff boxscore Isiah has an advantage. I think the boxscore (particularly DWS but also PER through steals) overcredits Isiah's D (and undercredits non-boxscore defenders, particularly Rodman, Dumars and Mahorn). If you consider your span a fair sample (some might say if we're getting to pick and choose Payton years Isiah should be able to lop off his last two playoff years, with Payton able to lop off an additional two years too, which might open up Isiah's advantage a little more; but I'd venture not enough to negate my coming point - not for my tastes anyhow) I'd suggest Payton's defensive superiority, beyond just the boxscore, might negate Thomas' playoff stats advantage.

Fair enough; I wouldn't necessarily argue that. However, I don't agree (although I see you said "some might say"---i.e. not necessarily you) with lopping off Isiah's last two playoff years. Again, I'm just trying to compare apples to apples, just as we typically would with rs numbers: career vs. career, prime vs. prime, peak vs. peak. And as I said, ALL of Isiah's playoff games occurred during his prime. But nearly 40% of Payton's occurred in his post-prime/twilight years; should also be noted that ALL of the post-prime years in question came AFTER his 13th season (Isiah never even played past his 13th season).

So yes, I think including those in a playoff comparison unfairly penalizes Payton for his longevity.

[tsherkin]

Efficiency
By year TS%: Baylor vs League Avg (diff)
'59: 48.8/45.8 (+3.0)
'60: 48.9/46.3 (+2.6)
'61: 49.8/46.9 (+2.9)
'62: 49.2/47.9 (+1.3)
'63: 51.9/49.3 (+2.6)
'64: 48.7/48.5 (+0.2)
'65: 46.3/47.9 (-1.6)
'66: 45.6/48.7 (-2.0)
'67: 49.1/49.3 (-0.2)
'68: 50.5/49.8 (+0.7)
'69: 50.0/49.1 (+0.9)
'70: 53.7/51.1 (+2.6)
'71: 46.2/50.0 (-3.8) *2 game sample
'72: 48.7/50.4 (-1.7) *9 game sample

So what I see here is that he hit a given level of offensive efficiency and then didn't improve much as league average was rising, which sort of throws some doubt as to the value of his early positive deviations in my mind. I guess relative to his competition in-era, that's mostly impressive until you get into West, Wilt and Oscar. Not super-stunning next to Barry, either. Barry was as good or better than Baylor in terms of efficiency as a rookie and in his second season, then went to the ABA and exploded... and when he came back, his efficiency remained poor but similar to Baylor's upper-bound.

I like Baylor's passing, but I think he's one of the more overrated volume scorers in league history. He seemed to be a decent defender. His rebounding is minutes/era-related and not at all portable, but he'd be a strong rebounder in any era regardless, so one can call that a strength. Underrated passer/ball-handler.


Generally for me, I like to see some indication of self-consciousness in my stars; I'm not usually fond of humongous volume shooters unless they're really, really good. That said, and particularly true for this range in the project, those early deviations are comparable to Kobe Bryant's career. That sort of deviation from league average is generally where I like to see 30%+ USG guys hit at least before I stop wondering whether it might be smarter to redistribute those shots.

So let's look at LA's offense from 58-63 (e.g. pre-Baylor until just before his knees started to really go), then we can get a look at him while his efficiency was strong and then perhaps a bit of team impact stuff.

58: 88.0 ORTG, 6th of 8 (no Baylor)
59: 90.8, 4/8
60: 87.7 8/8 (Baylor plays 70 of 75 games)

Notable here is that Baylor stepped up from 21.2 FGA/g and 24.9 ppg to 25.4 FGA/g and 29.6 ppg. This offense was worse than the pre-Baylor 58 offense (marginally). Team factors are worth consideration,

Now we begin Baylor's 3-year run of 34+ ppg.

61: 90.8, 7/8

We add rookie West and Baylor goes to 29.7 FGA/g (not ppg, FGA/g). Their offense moves back to the level of the 59 Lakers... lagging considerably behind the rest of the league as the second-worst offense out there. Rookie West was less efficient than Baylor and a rookie, so it's hard to really lampoon Baylor's general strategy apart from the whole "volume scoring at that level is not generally a smart idea" premise.

62: 95.0, 3/9

Baylor hits his career-high of 38.3 ppg and also posts 33.1 FGA/g. West improves, Selvy, LaRusso and Krebs area all better than Garmaker, Hundley and so forth (all sub-40% shooters replaced by guys in the mid-40s). West rocks a 52.4% TS that's just about as good as anything Baylor ever managed. Baylor's at 49.2% for the season, right in that pre-Knicks Carmelo Anthony zone of "you shouldn't be shooting this much." The team as a whole was improving, though, and that mattered a lot to team offense, which was better than it had ever been before.

63: 97.4, 4/9

League average still rising, LA offense going with it. Baylor's offensive output changes to 34.0 ppg on 28.4 FGA/g, but the offense improves.

Worth reiterating, but I'll sneak in something else:

'59: 48.8/45.8 (+3.0), 21.2 FGA/g, 40.8% FG
'60: 48.9/46.3 (+2.6), 25.4 FGA/g, 42.4% FG
'61: 49.8/46.9 (+2.9), 29.7 FGA/g, 43.0% FG
'62: 49.2/47.9 (+1.3), 33.1 FGA/g, 42.8% FG
'63: 51.9/49.3 (+2.6), 28.4 FGA/g, 45.3% FG

So there's also a slight rising trend to Baylor's own FG%, and 63 marks his career-high until his injury-abbreviated 1970 season (54 GP, last season with that many or more games played; only played 11 more games after that year).

So there are mixed feelings here for me. I see the volume shooting not working out as well as other tactics. I see some player improvement. I see tons of team improvement helping the overall team offensive efficiency increase despite Baylor's style of play. Having watched more Baylor of late, I've come away with an altered appreciation for his ball-handling and passing.

As we move away from the upper-most echelon of NBA players, Baylor is one of those guys whose name is definitely on my mind. I think that he would be a player who might translate forward more effectively than some. If you drop down his minutes to modern levels and do some other minor adjustments, he doesn't look far off from a guy like Carmelo Anthony. A little bit more trigger-happy, but with coaching from today's game and the like, I imagine he'd be the type of guy who would fit reasonably well into the contemporary game. I picture him something like Nique, actually. Early/mid-90s Nique, maybe.

Not sure how to look at him just yet. I'd love to see some Baylor/English discussion; saw the Barry discussion already and am still interested in that. Right now, I think Baylor, Kidd, and a host of SFs are on my board, as well as Gervin. This becomes tougher as we go, because there are SOOO many people we could miss or who could wait a little too long.

[Owly]

Well, by your measures playoff boxscore Isiah has an advantage. I think the boxscore (particularly DWS but also PER through steals) overcredits Isiah's D (and undercredits non-boxscore defenders, particularly Rodman, Dumars and Mahorn). If you consider your span a fair sample (some might say if we're getting to pick and choose Payton years Isiah should be able to lop off his last two playoff years, with Payton able to lop off an additional two years too, which might open up Isiah's advantage a little more; but I'd venture not enough to negate my coming point - not for my tastes anyhow) I'd suggest Payton's defensive superiority, beyond just the boxscore, might negate Thomas' playoff stats advantage.

Fair enough; I wouldn't necessarily argue that. However, I don't agree (although I see you said "some might say"---i.e. not necessarily you) with lopping off Isiah's last two playoff years. Again, I'm just trying to compare apples to apples, just as we typically would with rs numbers: career vs. career, prime vs. prime, peak vs. peak. And as I said, ALL of Isiah's playoff games occurred during his prime. But nearly 40% of Payton's occurred in his post-prime/twilight years; should also be noted that ALL of the post-prime years in question came AFTER his 13th season (Isiah never even played past his 13th season).

So yes, I think including those in a playoff comparison unfairly penalizes Payton for his longevity.

I'm absolutely with you in Thomas being fortunate in having his best years being his playoff years (or at least in missing the playoffs in his 3 worst years), and I suspect I'm as big an Isiah skeptic as there is (simply because I think boxscore metrics get him broadly correct and as I said overcredit his D, - albeit OWS is a little mean - and so, so long as his case is basically playoffs I'll raise Billups, Gus Williams and Baron Davis; of those just at the PG position who look better in the playoffs). That might be why I notice that Isiah's DWS in those title teams look conspicuous.

I'm not sure you're getting my point though. The main takeaway was giving Thomas the playoff advantage might be generous because I'm not sure those metrics fully capture Payton's defensive advantage. A peripheral point was that whilst it makes sense not penalizing Payton for longevity (i.e. I'm not saying what I think you think I'm saying, based on the line "So yes, I think including those in a playoff comparison unfairly penalizes Payton for his longevity") some (in my first post I first typed "Isiah advocates", but I thought one might not need to be such to take this position, so replaced it) might say, okay this way you're getting to pick and choose Payton's years, so shouldn't we reduce the time frame so Isiah gets to pick and choose a little bit too. One could go on to argue that Isiah has the larger playoff sample size on your primes comp so given he was already going on deeper runs he should be able to cutoff off non-impact playoff years, which drag down his career numbers and don't show the impact he usually had. And if Payton gets to shave off his worst playoff years so should Isiah.

I'm not saying I'm comitted to that. I can see the point that at 29, 30 you still should be in your prime (so it could be as simple as calling it "should be prime years"). And as before whilst cutting off Isiah's last two playoff years would help the averages, it's not like it doesn't raise issues for Isiah's candidacy (acknowledging those aren't prime years means acknowledging a short prime that those years cut out weren't that special in general - sub .100 WS/48 in the RS; and the fact that those RSes, '91 in particular, doesn't look that dissimilar to the the title year RSes might give further pause to those advocating Isiah as a title centerpiece).

To summarise: I'm absolutely fine with making sure Payton isn't penalised for non-prime performances versus a guy with less longevity who missed the playoffs in his worst years. I'm absolutely in the Payton camp in this comp. I just see that if we've got a measure chopping off marginal years (particularly in the small samples of the playoffs), I can see how people might have issues if it allows you to frame one guy positively and not the other.

Maybe this wasn't required but based on the last line I felt like maybe you were reading what I said as "You should look at the whole of their careers, or else you could chop it up however you like to favour your guy", and it wasn't that.

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

Led the Pistons to back to back titles in an era that was tough as nails. Had to deal with peak Bird and Magic in the process. Also won finals mvp, lost only 1 series in his career with HCA. Took a franchise from the bottom to the top as well in the process.

[trex_8063]

Efficiency
By year TS%: Baylor vs League Avg (diff)
'59: 48.8/45.8 (+3.0)
'60: 48.9/46.3 (+2.6)
'61: 49.8/46.9 (+2.9)
'62: 49.2/47.9 (+1.3)
'63: 51.9/49.3 (+2.6)
'64: 48.7/48.5 (+0.2)
'65: 46.3/47.9 (-1.6)
'66: 45.6/48.7 (-2.0)
'67: 49.1/49.3 (-0.2)
'68: 50.5/49.8 (+0.7)
'69: 50.0/49.1 (+0.9)
'70: 53.7/51.1 (+2.6)
'71: 46.2/50.0 (-3.8) *2 game sample
'72: 48.7/50.4 (-1.7) *9 game sample

So what I see here is that he hit a given level of offensive efficiency and then didn't improve much as league average was rising, which sort of throws some doubt as to the value of his early positive deviations in my mind. I guess relative to his competition in-era, that's mostly impressive until you get into West, Wilt and Oscar. Not super-stunning next to Barry, either. Barry was as good or better than Baylor in terms of efficiency as a rookie and in his second season, then went to the ABA and exploded... and when he came back, his efficiency remained poor but similar to Baylor's upper-bound.

I like Baylor's passing, but I think he's one of the more overrated volume scorers in league history. He seemed to be a decent defender. His rebounding is minutes/era-related and not at all portable, but he'd be a strong rebounder in any era regardless, so one can call that a strength. Underrated passer/ball-handler.


Generally for me, I like to see some indication of self-consciousness in my stars; I'm not usually fond of humongous volume shooters unless they're really, really good. That said, and particularly true for this range in the project, those early deviations are comparable to Kobe Bryant's career. That sort of deviation from league average is generally where I like to see 30%+ USG guys hit at least before I stop wondering whether it might be smarter to redistribute those shots.

So let's look at LA's offense from 58-63 (e.g. pre-Baylor until just before his knees started to really go), then we can get a look at him while his efficiency was strong and then perhaps a bit of team impact stuff.

58: 88.0 ORTG, 6th of 8 (no Baylor)
59: 90.8, 4/8
60: 87.7 8/8 (Baylor plays 70 of 75 games)

Notable here is that Baylor stepped up from 21.2 FGA/g and 24.9 ppg to 25.4 FGA/g and 29.6 ppg. This offense was worse than the pre-Baylor 58 offense (marginally). Team factors are worth consideration,

Yes they are.
I went into detail about this particular drop from '59 to '60 in one of the prior threads. To recap some other changes (other than Baylor's shot-load increasing) that occurred:

*Vern Mikkelsen---who was 2nd on the team in FGA in '59, and was +1.0% over league avg in TS%---is no longer with the team.
*Aging veteran Larry Foust---who was 4th on the team in FGA in '59 and was +1.5% over league avg in TS%---has been marginalized (presumably do to age/fading effectiveness).
*Hot Rod Hundley goes from 5th on the team in FGA in '59 to 2nd in '60 (+3.9 FGA). This is bad because (as we both noted) his efficiency is horrific (was -4.0% compared to league avg in '59; is even worse in '60 at -5.3%).
*3rd on the team in FGA in '60 is rookie Rudy LaRusso. While I think LaRusso is an important player in NBA history, he wasn't yet an efficient scorer as a rookie (-0.7% TS compared to league); you might say LaRusso hadn't quite become LaRusso yet.
*Slick Leonard (not much of an offensive player anyway)---who had the 2nd-best offensive year of his career in '59---has his WORST offensive season in '60, shooting an abysmal -9.0% TS compared to the league.

So there were many factors there. As a consequence, they were 2.0% below league avg in TS% as a team. So not too surprising they had the worst rated offense with that. But you can't really lay that on Baylor's shoulders.
IN FACT: Baylor was the *basically the ONLY player on the entire roster who DID shoot above league avg TS% (by 2.6%). *Ed Flemming, who only played in 27 games, averaging just 5.2 FGA shot above league avg (actually 1% better than Baylor, even). But that's it: literally every single other player on the roster was below league average.

[penbeast0]

..
So there were many factors there. As a consequence, they were 2.0% below league avg in TS% as a team. So not too surprising they had the worst rated offense with that. But you can't really lay that on Baylor's shoulders.
IN FACT: Baylor was the *basically the ONLY player on the entire roster who DID shoot above league avg TS% (by 2.6%). *Ed Flemming, who only played in 27 games, averaging just 5.2 FGA shot above league avg (actually 1% better than Baylor, even). But that's it: literally every single other player on the roster was below league average.

Is that a positive for Baylor. If he is drawing defensive attention and a good passer out of the post, shouldn't his teammates shooting averages be somewhat improved?

[SactoKingsFan]

My candidates for this spot are Drexler, Kidd and Payton. I’m kind of surprised Drexler hasn’t been discussed more as a serious candidate. IMO, his athleticism, volume scoring, rebounding, solid defense and passing/playmaking makes him a legit top 30 candidate. I don’t see any remaining players that have a clear-cut case over Clyde. He’s also one of only six players to score 20,000+ points and average at least 5 rebounds and 5 assists, which puts him in elite company.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... tats::none

I’m not all that impressed with peak/prime Kidd due to his inefficient scoring, but I’m considering him at this spot for his GOAT level PG defense, defensive versatility, playmaking, rebounding and great longevity. In my top 50 pre-list I had Payton ranked slightly ahead of Kidd. Although Kidd is the better facilitator and rebounder, I think I still prefer Payton since he’s a much more capable/efficient scorer, at least comparable as a defender, clearly peaked higher and also has very good longevity.

LONGEVITY/DURABILITY (GP/MP)
Drexler 10 Year Prime (87-96): 717, 26254 | High Quality Seasons: 10-11 | Career: 1086, 37537
Kidd 10 Year Prime (98-07): 731, 27697 | High Quality Seasons: 12-13 | Career: 1391, 50111
Payton 10 Year Prime (94-03): 782, 30602 | High Quality Seasons: 11-12 | Career: 1335, 47117

PEAK
Top 5 ASPM Seasons
Drexler: 6.0 (92), 5.5 (88), 5.2 (90), 5.0 (89), 4.8 (91)
Kidd: 5.4 (03), 4.8 (99), 3.7 (01), 3.7 (02), 3.6 (06)
Payton: 5.4 (00), 5.4 (97), 4.8 (95), 4.8 (99), 4.8 (96)

Mean Top 5 ASPM
Drexler: 5.3 | Kidd: 4.2 | Payton: 5.0

Extended Peak Estimated Impact
Drexler (88-92): 4.1, 3.7, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1
Kidd (99-03): 3.7, 3.3, 3.2, 3.0, 3.9
Payton (96-00): 3.6, 3.9, 3.8, 2.7, 3.6

Mean Extended Peak EI
Drexler: 4.3 | Kidd: 3.4 | Payton: 3.5

Best Peak = Drexler

10 Year Prime
Mean 10 Year Prime ASPM
Drexler: 4.54 | Kidd: 3.54 | Payton: 4.55

Mean 10 Year Prime Estimated Impact
Drexler: 3.6 | Kidd: 2.9 | Payton: 3.25

Mean Career ASPM
Drexler: 3.97 | Kidd: 2.73 | Payton: 3.15

Mean Career Estimated Impact
Drexler: 3.2 | Kidd: 2.4 | Payton: 2.4

10 Year Prime Regular Season
Drexler 87-96 RS per 100: 29.9 PTS, 8.8 REB, 7.6 AST, 3.6 STL+BLK, 3.7 TOV
Drexler 87-96 RS: 21.9 PER, .553 TS%, .350 FTr, 116 ORtg, 105 DRtg, .190 WS/48

Kidd 98-07 RS per 100: 20.6 PTS, 9.6 REB, 12.9 AST, 3.2 STL+BLK, 4.4 TOV
Kidd 98-07 RS: 19.5 PER, .508 TS%, .280 FTr, 106 ORtg, 99 DRtg, .153 WS/48

Payton 94-03 RS per 100: 27.9 PTS, 6.0 REB, 10.5 AST, 3.1 STL+BLK, 3.5 TOV
Payton 94-03 RS: 21.5 PER, .534 TS%, .247 FTr, 113 ORtg, 105 DRtg, .175 WS/48

Best 10 Year Prime RS = Drexler

10 Year Prime Postseason
Drexler 87-96 PS per 100: 28.1 PTS, 9.5 REB, 8.1 AST, 3.5 STL+BLK, 3.5 TOV
Drexler 87-96 PS: 20.8 PER, .538 TS%, .366 FTr, 114 ORtg, 109 DRtg, .150 WS/48

Kidd 98-07 PS per 100: 20.6 PTS, 9.9 REB, 11.8 AST, 2.9 STL+BLK, 4.3 TOV
Kidd 98-07 PS: 18.6 PER, .490 TS%, .264 FTr, 103 ORtg, 101 DRtg, .124 WS/48

Payton 94-03 PS per 100: 27.2 PTS, 6.2 REB, 9.0 AST, 2.4 STL+BLK, 3.4 TOV
Payton 94-03 PS: 19.4 PER, .528 TS%, .263 FTr, 111 ORtg, 109 DRtg, .130 WS/48

Best 10 Year Prime PS = Drexler


Based on this comparison, Drexler has the clear edge in the following categories:
(1) peak, (2) 10 year prime, (3) playoffs, (4) volume scoring/scoring efficiency, (5) drawing fouls

Although Kidd and Payton were superior playmakers, more impactful defenders and had greater longevity, Drexler was a very good passer and solid defender. Ultimately, I don’t think Kidd or Payton’s longevity, playmaking and defense are more valuable than Drexler’s overall game and edge in the aforementioned categories.

Vote: Clyde Drexler

[Moonbeam]

At the moment it's between Baylor, Drexler, Miller, Chris Paul and Gilmore for me. Love Dikembe (he's my 2nd favorite player ever), but I'm not sold on him this high yet.

[SactoKingsFan]

At the moment it's between Baylor, Drexler, Miller, Chris Paul and Gilmore for me. Love Dikembe (he's my 2nd favorite player ever), but I'm not sold on him this high yet.

Paul won the runoff over Kidd.

[penbeast0]

At the moment it's between Baylor, Drexler, Miller, Chris Paul and Gilmore for me. Love Dikembe (he's my 2nd favorite player ever), but I'm not sold on him this high yet.

Paul won the runoff over Kidd.

Thanks for doing a Drexler post; he's one of my finalists too but I've been focused on the Payton/Isiah matchup.

[trex_8063]

..
So there were many factors there. As a consequence, they were 2.0% below league avg in TS% as a team. So not too surprising they had the worst rated offense with that. But you can't really lay that on Baylor's shoulders.
IN FACT: Baylor was the *basically the ONLY player on the entire roster who DID shoot above league avg TS% (by 2.6%). *Ed Flemming, who only played in 27 games, averaging just 5.2 FGA shot above league avg (actually 1% better than Baylor, even). But that's it: literally every single other player on the roster was below league average.

Is that a positive for Baylor. If he is drawing defensive attention and a good passer out of the post, shouldn't his teammates shooting averages be somewhat improved?

Yes, perhaps they should, but probably aren't likely to if they're simply poor offensive players. Nor, to my knowledge, did he do too much work in the post, for that matter (unless I'm just way off). I had him as more of a perimeter slasher/driver.

I guess I went so far as to state that the low% can hardly be laid on Baylor's shoulders, but otherwise merely stated numerical facts. You're well out into the land of conjecture, and conjecture apparently aimed at justifying or fulfilling a pre-established negative opinion of Baylor.

Are you suggesting they somehow got WORSE looks as result of the defensive attention Baylor may have drawn? Hundley never shot well in his career, even after West (presumably a better play-maker who is also drawing even more attention away) arrives; Slick Leonard as well. LaRusso was a rookie and had some of the ineffiencies commonly seen in rookies (even West didn't shoot particularly as a rookie).

But sure, let's lay it all on Baylor. Even though he's +5.9% TS on the rest of the Laker team while doing a [bunch] of iso'ing. It's HIS fault his teammates couldn't step up just a tiny bit, even though none of them ever would in ANY circumstance in their respective careers, with the exception of LaRusso (who again: was a rookie).

You know better; don't evade the language filter.

[SactoKingsFan]

At the moment it's between Baylor, Drexler, Miller, Chris Paul and Gilmore for me. Love Dikembe (he's my 2nd favorite player ever), but I'm not sold on him this high yet.

Paul won the runoff over Kidd.

Thanks for doing a Drexler post; he's one of my finalists too but I've been focused on the Payton/Isiah matchup.

Seemed like a good time for a Drexler post since I meant to do one for the Havlicek thread.

[Moonbeam]

At the moment it's between Baylor, Drexler, Miller, Chris Paul and Gilmore for me. Love Dikembe (he's my 2nd favorite player ever), but I'm not sold on him this high yet.

Paul won the runoff over Kidd.

Aha! Happy with that result. Not sure why I thought Kidd won.

[tsherkin]

Ah yes. Drexler, Payton/Isiah, Baylor and the rest of the SF crew...

This should be a very interesting thread.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I'm again voting for Kevin Durant, who in my view should have gone way earlier than this.
His peaks trumps the one of any player left (aside Walton, maybe, if you call that a peak), historical combination of efficiency and volume (only Dantley matches him, but compared to his peers Durant was more impressive), MVP, several seasons as a top MVP contender, good post season success (compared to who's left, not playing as a sidekick).
Finally, GOAT MVP acceptance speech and internet meme relevance second only to Yao.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

Amazing 7-year prime where he proved to be one of the best playoff point guards in NBA history. One of the great NBA Finals in 1990, averaging 27.6 points and 7 assists on 62.9%TS against the 4th-ranked defense in the league. Underrated defender, too. He used his quickness to cut off point guards and fight through screens, and he gave 2 non-Larry Hughes type steals, too.

[Jaivl]

Love Dikembe (he's my 2nd favorite player ever), but I'm not sold on him this high yet.

Well it's understandable, but I felt like his name should be mentioned. Was undecided between him and Kidd.

How many of us have voted? Very few votes this round if I'm not wrong.

[SactoKingsFan]

Current Vote Count:

Isiah (3): Warspite, JordansBulls, ronnymac2
Baylor (2): trex_8063, magicmerl
Durant (2): DQuinn1575, Ryoga Hibiki
Mutombo (1): Jaivl
Drexler (1): SactoKingsFan

Miller: ElGee?

[Sasaki]

Formally declaring my vote for Clyde Drexler.

A terror in transition, who like Kidd led the Portland Trail Blazers to the Finals twice and then won a championship for a different team ( though obviously Clyde's role with the Rockets> Kidd's role with the Mavericks - Clyde was actually the leader on the 95 Rockets in Win Shares). He had a great post game which meant that he was not entirely useless in the halfcourt offense, and is arguably the GOAT rebounding SG. And for as much crap as people want to give Drexler in the playoffs thanks to the Shrug, he had his big games as well.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MoSw5DD_Cg[/youtube]
Here he is with 33 points on 13-20 shooting in Portland's one win against the Pistons in the 1990 Finals. In Game 4, he scored 34 points on 19 shots.

I can pull up other examples, but I think that there is this idea that Drexler wasn't tough enough or clutch, and I don't think that is particularly true.