RealGM Top 100 list #33

[trex_8063]

I don't think Durant's 5 year peak/prime advantage is enough to make up for Baylor's sizeable longevity edge. I'd have to place almost no value on Baylor's post extended peak seasons to give the overall edge to Durant.

Vote: Elgin Baylor

Sent from my LG-D800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

I don't think people are giving Durant any credit for competing in a much tougher league than Baylor was in 50 years ago. This was the argument that rightly delayed Pettit and Mikan.

Pettit entered the league 4 years earlier than Baylor, and Mikan was already years retired before Baylor came along. I believe it was Doc (but I'm not certain) who suggested (and I agree) that more change in the level of play occurred in the 10-15 years from the early 1950's to the early-mid 1960's than has occurred since.
imo, the league (the game) was becoming quite competitive by the early 60's.

Another thing I'd have you consider is that Baylor did what he did in a time when: a) there was no 3pt line (i.e. awful floor spacing), b) big-men defenders who were essentially allowed to camp under the rim if they wanted (and for the first 6 years of his career the lane was 4 feet narrower than today, too), c) many of the styles of modern ball-handling (elaborate cross-overs, shimmy-shakes, the "backing down" dribble in the post, etc) may have been called illegal (palming), and d) hand-checking was allowed if I'm not mistaken.

These circumstances were ALL disadvantageous to a penetrating/slashing type of perimeter scorer (like Baylor).

[ronnymac2]

I don't think Durant's 5 year peak/prime advantage is enough to make up for Baylor's sizeable longevity edge. I'd have to place almost no value on Baylor's post extended peak seasons to give the overall edge to Durant.

Vote: Elgin Baylor

Sent from my LG-D800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

I don't think people are giving Durant any credit for competing in a much tougher league than Baylor was in 50 years ago. This was the argument that rightly delayed Pettit and Mikan.

Pettit entered the league 4 years earlier than Baylor, and Mikan was already years retired before Baylor came along. I believe it was Doc (but I'm not certain) who suggested (and I agree) that more change in the level of play occurred in the 10-15 years from the early 1950's to the early-mid 1960's than has occurred since.
imo, the league (the game) was becoming quite competitive by the early 60's.

Another thing I'd have you consider is that Baylor did what he did in a time when: a) there was no 3pt line (i.e. awful floor spacing), b) big-men defenders who were essentially allowed to camp under the rim if they wanted (and for the first 6 years of his career the lane was 4 feet narrower than today, too), c) many of the styles of modern ball-handling (elaborate cross-overs, shimmy-shakes, the "backing down" dribble in the post, etc) may have been called illegal (palming), and d) hand-checking was allowed if I'm not mistaken.

These circumstances were ALL disadvantageous to a penetrating/slashing type of perimeter scorer (like Baylor).

Plus, Baylor was essentially de facto power forward for the donut team that was the Lakers.

[penbeast0]

In the playoffs, Durant's edge in efficiency over Baylor is only big for a single outlier year of Durant's career, 2012.

Baylor 1960-63 Playoff FG%
.424
.430
.428
.453

Durant 2011-14 Playoff FG%
.449
.517
.455
.460

Efficiency is NOT equal to fg%; not even in the 60s. Correcting this to ts% (our best boxscore measure of efficiency)
Baylor TS% playoffs 1960-63 -- I will let anyone who chooses norm this to league averages (which should help Elgin)
.547
.538
.503
.508
Career .497

Durant TS% playoffs 2011-14
.582
.632
.574
.570
Career .583

So, not, it's not close in 62 or 63 either; the relative closeness in 1960 looks like the outlier if anything.

[Texas Chuck]

Since efficiency has been a reasonably big topic of discussion, I have a question. And please forgive me if the answer is obvious and Im stupid for asking it. And penbeast, if this doesnt belong here feel free to get rid of it.

I understand why we look at efficiency in evaluating a player. And I understand why we measure it against league average when attempting to compare players from different eras. My question is should we be measuring against a player's own team and then comparing the results? For example(made up numbers here) Kobe is +6% TS from his team making his volume make more sense, but Dirk being -1%TS compared to his meaning his volume is likely too high.

[Texas Chuck]

Spoiler:

In the playoffs, Durant's edge in efficiency over Baylor is only big for a single outlier year of Durant's career, 2012.

Baylor 1960-63 Playoff FG%
.424
.430
.428
.453

Durant 2011-14 Playoff FG%
.449
.517
.455
.460

Efficiency is NOT equal to fg%; not even in the 60s. Correcting this to ts% (our best boxscore measure of efficiency)
Baylor TS% playoffs 1960-63 -- I will let anyone who chooses norm this to league averages (which should help Elgin)
.547
.538
.503
.508
Career .497

Durant TS% playoffs 2011-14
.582
.632
.574
.570
Career .583

So, not, it's not close in 62 or 63 either; the relative closeness in 1960 looks like the outlier if anything.

Curious how much of the TS difference is the 3-pt line? I know Durant would be efficient even without it considering his FT rate and percentages, but maybe it makes it closer?

[penbeast0]

Sure, sometimes that makes sense. Just like we look at the overall efficiency of teams to see if a player's shooting a lot helped or hurt his team. Statistics aren't out there in a void, they measure things we see and want to quantify.

[penbeast0]

Elgin Baylor (10) -- trex_8063, Basketballefan, Clyde Frazier, Warspite, Jim Naismith, FJS, ronnymac2, Chuck Texas, lukekarts, SactoKingsFan



Kevin Durant (7)--RSCD3_, DQuinn1575, batmana, penbeast0, tsherkin, Ray-Ban Sematra, Doctor MJ

[penbeast0]

Spoiler:

In the playoffs, Durant's edge in efficiency over Baylor is only big for a single outlier year of Durant's career, 2012.

Baylor 1960-63 Playoff FG%
.424
.430
.428
.453

Durant 2011-14 Playoff FG%
.449
.517
.455
.460

Efficiency is NOT equal to fg%; not even in the 60s. Correcting this to ts% (our best boxscore measure of efficiency)
Baylor TS% playoffs 1960-63 -- I will let anyone who chooses norm this to league averages (which should help Elgin)
.547
.538
.503
.508
Career .497

Durant TS% playoffs 2011-14
.582
.632
.574
.570
Career .583

So, not, it's not close in 62 or 63 either; the relative closeness in 1960 looks like the outlier if anything.

Curious how much of the TS difference is the 3-pt line? I know Durant would be efficient even without it considering his FT rate and percentages, but maybe it makes it closer?

Absolutely it helps Durant tremendously. The greatly increased use of 3 point shooting in modern offenses, the wing oriented offenses, the handcheck rule, letting slashers carry the ball virtually at will, refs calling the charge/block call to a much greater extent in favor of the offensive player, modern sneakers/floors/medicine to help cushion and repair the damage done to players knees . . . it all is a tremendous advantage for modern wings over players from the 60s.

[Clyde Frazier]

Spoiler:

Efficiency is NOT equal to fg%; not even in the 60s. Correcting this to ts% (our best boxscore measure of efficiency)
Baylor TS% playoffs 1960-63 -- I will let anyone who chooses norm this to league averages (which should help Elgin)
.547
.538
.503
.508
Career .497

Durant TS% playoffs 2011-14
.582
.632
.574
.570
Career .583

So, not, it's not close in 62 or 63 either; the relative closeness in 1960 looks like the outlier if anything.

Curious how much of the TS difference is the 3-pt line? I know Durant would be efficient even without it considering his FT rate and percentages, but maybe it makes it closer?

Absolutely it helps Durant tremendously. The greatly increased use of 3 point shooting in modern offenses, the wing oriented offenses, the handcheck rule, letting slashers carry the ball virtually at will, refs calling the charge/block call to a much greater extent in favor of the offensive player, modern sneakers/floors/medicine to help cushion and repair the damage done to players knees . . . it all is a tremendous advantage for modern wings over players from the 60s.

I use TS% as much as anyone, but that's really my only gripe with it. I think of players who played in eras without a 3 pt line at all. But then I also think of great shooters in the 80s and 90s who just didn't shoot the 3 as much because it wasn't the gameplan. I'd have to think a guy like bird would've typically hovered around 60%+ if he was encouraged to take more 3s. Just something to take into consideration.

[Jim Naismith]

In the playoffs, Durant's edge in efficiency over Baylor is only big for a single outlier year of Durant's career, 2012.

Baylor 1960-63 Playoff FG%
.424
.430
.428
.453

Durant 2011-14 Playoff FG%
.449
.517
.455
.460

Efficiency is NOT equal to fg%; not even in the 60s.

So, not, it's not close in 62 or 63 either; the relative closeness in 1960 looks like the outlier if anything.

So the upshot is that Durant only shoots better from the free-throw line. . .

. . . because the 3-point line didn't exist in the 1960s

. . . and because the difference from 2-point land isn't that obvious.

[penbeast0]

Curious how much of the TS difference is the 3-pt line? I know Durant would be efficient even without it considering his FT rate and percentages, but maybe it makes it closer?

Absolutely it helps Durant tremendously. The greatly increased use of 3 point shooting in modern offenses, the wing oriented offenses, the handcheck rule, letting slashers carry the ball virtually at will, refs calling the charge/block call to a much greater extent in favor of the offensive player, modern sneakers/floors/medicine to help cushion and repair the damage done to players knees . . . it all is a tremendous advantage for modern wings over players from the 60s.

I use TS% as much as anyone, but that's really my only gripe with it. I think of players who played in eras without a 3 pt line at all. But then I also think of great shooters in the 80s and 90s who just didn't shoot the 3 as much because it wasn't the gameplan. I'd have to think a guy like bird would've typically hovered around 60%+ if he was encouraged to take more 3s. Just something to take into consideration.

Not sure about Bird; I know they started moving away from Dirk taking 3's because the "new thinking" is that you want your star to be in a position to draw attention thus freeing more space; it's not that hard to find roleplayers who can shoot open 3's.

[Texas Chuck]

^^ yeah that's pretty much what I was trying to get at too. I think a lot of players suffer because guys are viewing them through a modern lens that is obsessed with efficiency in ways that simply weren't done in their era. Im not sure we should be as hard on them for not matching up to modern guys when they and their coaches didn't have the statistical information and advanced analytics that have only really been popular in the last decade.

[Texas Chuck]

Not sure about Bird; I know they started moving away from Dirk taking 3's because the "new thinking" is that you want your star to be in a position to draw attention thus freeing more space; it's not that hard to find roleplayers who can shoot open 3's.

I think Durant's future looks a lot like Dirk. Now he has an athleticism advantage over Dirk and Bird which means I think he likely won't spend as much time in the post as Dirk has the latter portion of his career. So I think he will still shoot more 3s than Dirk, but I imagine his post game is coming.

[penbeast0]

Spoiler:

In the playoffs, Durant's edge in efficiency over Baylor is only big for a single outlier year of Durant's career, 2012.

Baylor 1960-63 Playoff FG%
.424
.430
.428
.453

Durant 2011-14 Playoff FG%
.449
.517
.455
.460

Efficiency is NOT equal to fg%; not even in the 60s.

So, not, it's not close in 62 or 63 either; the relative closeness in 1960 looks like the outlier if anything.

So the upshot is that Durant shoots better from the free-throw line. . .

. . . because the 3-point line didn't exist in the 1960s

. . . and because the difference from 2-point land isn't that obvious.

No, the upshot is that when you look only at fg% you drastically underrate a player who shoots a lot of 3 pointers and/or draws and hits a lot of FT. It's like comparing prime Chauncey Billups with prime Tony Parker . . . Billups shoots 100 points less from the field but is MORE efficient. An efficient 3 pointer is roughly 35% or up, an efficient 2 pointer is roughly 50% or up. That's why I prefer (but was too lazy to use in this case) ts% compared to league average. You aren't even looking at 2pt percentage which would be more reasonable though still extremely shaky. You are penalizing Durant for shooting a more efficient shot (at his percentages) and ignoring foul draw.

[Clyde Frazier]

Absolutely it helps Durant tremendously. The greatly increased use of 3 point shooting in modern offenses, the wing oriented offenses, the handcheck rule, letting slashers carry the ball virtually at will, refs calling the charge/block call to a much greater extent in favor of the offensive player, modern sneakers/floors/medicine to help cushion and repair the damage done to players knees . . . it all is a tremendous advantage for modern wings over players from the 60s.

I use TS% as much as anyone, but that's really my only gripe with it. I think of players who played in eras without a 3 pt line at all. But then I also think of great shooters in the 80s and 90s who just didn't shoot the 3 as much because it wasn't the gameplan. I'd have to think a guy like bird would've typically hovered around 60%+ if he was encouraged to take more 3s. Just something to take into consideration.

Not sure about Bird; I know they started moving away from Dirk taking 3's because the "new thinking" is that you want your star to be in a position to draw attention thus freeing more space; it's not that hard to find roleplayers who can shoot open 3's.

Well, with dirk specifically, his 3 pt attempts went down for a few seasons, but it focused more specifically on the type of 3s he was taking (he was back up to 4 attempts per game this season). Instead of game planning around getting dirk shots from 3, he'd take them as they came in transition or as a second or third option in a half court set.

In bird's first 6 seasons, he took 1.1 3s per game, and had a TS% of 55.5%. In his last 7 seasons, he took 2.8 3s per game, with a TS% of 57.6%. If he was attempting 3-4 per game over the course of his career, I think his efficiency increases.

[ronnymac2]

Basketball-Reference now has team true shooting percentages on their season pages. Just go down to miscellaneous where the 4 Factors and SRS stats are, and true shooting percentage is right there.

[Jim Naismith]

No, the upshot is that when you look only at fg% you drastically underrate a player who shoots a lot of 3 pointers and/or draws and hits a lot of FT.

You have to leave out 3-point shooting as a point of comparison since that didn't exist in the 1960s. Otherwise you're in apple-and-oranges territory.

I grant you that Durant is the master of the rip-through and the foul shots that it generates. That seems to be the lion share of his efficiency delta.

[Texas Chuck]

I grant you that Durant is the master of the rip-through and the foul shots that it generates. That seems to be the lion share of his efficiency delta.

This is a needless reduction of Durant. A big part of his draw rate stems from being near-as 7 feet tall and an elite shooter. Only Dirk gets fouled more shooting jump shots. You have to challenge Durant's shot or he kills you and due to his length he gets hit on the arm a bunch. Add to that his ability to get to the rim and his draw rate is as legit as can be in a star-driven league(all stars get the benefit of the doubt and thus have slightly inflated draw rates)

[Clyde Frazier]

Basketball-Reference now has team true shooting percentages on their season pages. Just go down to miscellaneous where the 4 Factors and SRS stats are, and true shooting percentage is right there.

HA! This didn't exist a few weeks ago, and I asked them on twitter if they had any plans to add it. Pretty cool how accessible they are.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... misc::none

[Owly]

In terms of historical (published) rankings, Baylor is clearly the highest guy left. His average ranking is 11.47058824 with lowest rankings (highest number) of 15 (Book of Basketball paperback) and 16 (100 Greatest Basketball Players). Next is Cousy average 19.6875. Not saying we should follow this just putting something out there for discussion so I'm contributing something.

Do you have a link to these rankings and how they are making up the average?

No link, it's not online (though several of the constituent lists are). It's unweighted so skews pro older players (who don't have to compete with players since on the older lists).

100 Greatest Basketball Players
Pro Basketball Statistics
The Encyclopedia of Basketball Team Histories
SPORT Magazine (Fab Fifty)
Slam "The Real Top 50 of All Time"
Athlon 50 Greatest Special Magazine
Assoc Press Player of the Century
Slam
Who's better, who's best in basketball?
50 Sense
Heroes of the Hardcourt
Slam
The Book of Basketball
The Book of Basketball (Paperback)
Beckett Presents Basketball Greats
Slam (500 Greatest Special)
NBA List Jam!

Are the constituent lists from oldest to newest. At present it's basically double weighting Simmons' list most players don't really move. Ideally it would have the Basketball Digest players of the century list but whilst I've got the main contributing author's list and most of the official list, I wouldn't want to include it based on guesswork.

Any other questions?