RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #45 (Dolph Schayes)

Guys who truly made a difference . . . Cousy, Arizin, Schayes (maybe Johnston) in the 50s but Cousy did not handle the change in play into the late 50s/60s well, particularly in the postseason. I can't see any 50s guys here without more dominance than they displayed to offset the weakness of the era.

60s guys, I am looking at Sam Jones, Hal Greer, maybe Chet Walker and Dave DeBusschere. Thurmond is hurt by his offense and his team winning a title just after trading him for Cliff Ray. 70s there are a bunch of guys who are impressive (Daniels, Cowens, Unseld, Hayes, McAdoo, etc.) but no one who jumps out of this relatively weak era who hasn't been picked yet.

80s, Sidney Moncrief had a short career but every time I saw him he was brutally effective, particularly defensively. Bobby Jones is another great two way player with limited time (not length of career for him but minutes per game). On the other end, Adrian Dantley is probably the next great scorer over Nique (and King/Aguirre/Marques/etc.).

90s have been picked through pretty well except for the oddity that is Dennis Rodman; GOAT rebounder in regular season, but big dropoffs in the postseason or I'd probably be looking at him here. 00s we have Mutombo's defense, Ray Allen's scoring, and Manu Ginobili, the Bobby Jones of the modern era.

Vote: Alex English
Alternate: Adrian Dantley?

dhsilv2 · Post #3 » by **dhsilv2** » Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:42 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Guys who truly made a difference . . . Cousy, Arizin, Schayes (maybe Johnston) in the 50s but Cousy did not handle the change in play into the late 50s/60s well, particularly in the postseason. I can't see any 50s guys here without more dominance than they displayed to offset the weakness of the era.

60s guys, I am looking at Sam Jones, Hal Greer, maybe Chet Walker and Dave DeBusschere. Thurmond is hurt by his offense and his team winning a title just after trading him for Cliff Ray. 70s there are a bunch of guys who are impressive (Daniels, Cowens, Unseld, Hayes, McAdoo, etc.) but no one who jumps out of this relatively weak era who hasn't been picked yet.

80s, Sidney Moncrief had a short career but every time I saw him he was brutally effective, particularly defensively. Bobby Jones is another great two way player with limited time (not length of career for him but minutes per game). On the other end, Adrian Dantley is probably the next great scorer over Nique (and King/Aguirre/Marques/etc.).

90s have been picked through pretty well except for the oddity that is Dennis Rodman; GOAT rebounder in regular season, but big dropoffs in the postseason or I'd probably be looking at him here. 00s we have Mutombo's defense, Ray Allen's scoring, and Manu Ginobili, the Bobby Jones of the modern era.

Vote: Alex English
Alternate: Adrian Dantley?

Tiny statement, but Mutombo 00's? Drafted in 91. 3 DPOY awards in the 90's. Most of his all nba status was in the 90's as well. Of course I used him as a case against Ewing for his super high ranking which I suppose is why this jumped out to me, but he's a 90's guy in my mind, who had a nice few years after the 90's. Kinda like Malone getting an MVP post 90's.

More importantly can you speak more on Dantley and English? These are two guys I think of more like Mitch Richmond and Chris Mullin and less like even a Wilkens, but certainly not say Iverson. That said they are interesting in that they were leaving the game as I was getting into it and they didn't really make an impression on my young basketball collecting self, and let me tell you, I have their cards and knew their stats, lol. They also for that era get less discussion even than Moncrief get today. So i'm interested in more on why they were over looked.

dhsilv2 · Post #4 » by **dhsilv2** » Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:56 pm

I'm going to vote Reed again. But my alt is up for free agency between:

Cowen, Iverson, Jones, Unseld, Schayes, and lets throw in Thurmond. If someone has a great argument for one of the elite scoring wings not listed, I'm open but it would need to be strong. On the plus side many from the 80's aren't guys I know as well as I should so I'm a bit more open minded about those players than other's here. Oh and I'm considering Cousy here, but at this point I'm not sure what is left to say. I think he's coming due....but I think I have 4 guys ahead of him ball park.

Post #5 » by **penbeast0** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:36 am

dhsilv2 wrote:... can you speak more on Dantley and English? These are two guys I think of more like Mitch Richmond and Chris Mullin and less like even a Wilkens, but certainly not say Iverson. That said they are interesting in that they were leaving the game as I was getting into it and they didn't really make an impression on my young basketball collecting self, and let me tell you, I have their cards and knew their stats, lol. They also for that era get less discussion even than Moncrief get today. So i'm interested in more on why they were over looked.

English was the most versatile of the great 80s high scorers (Bird, English, Dantley, Aquirre, King, Nique). The Nuggets ran a quick read and react system that led to some high scoring teams so he benefited from tremendous pace but, unlike the other great scorers mentioned, English didn't have the offense designed around him but got his points within the normal flow without a lot of isos or the like so it evens out. He had a nice midrange game but could post up well or extend his range depending on who he played with. He could score on or off ball and at times played point forward for the team as well. Bird is of course on a different level but comparing English to Dantley and Nique (ignoring English's last year and the last two for AD and Nique):

Durability -- All had long careers as stars, Dantley fell off earlier than his peers but all 3 played at least 15 years and at least 12 scoring 20ppg. English and Nique were beloved by their teams (English won several NBA citizenship awards), Dantley had some issues with Frank Layden in Utah and with Isiah Thomas in Detroit. English missed appreciably less games with injury but played less minutes per game than the other two.

per 36 numbers (regular season):

Dantley 24.7/5.8/3.0 (2.9to) .619ts%!
English 24.6/6.2/4.2 (2.7to) .552
Wilkins 25.4/6.9/2.5 (2.5to) .538

Dantley was clearly the most efficient, Wilkins the least, English is the best playmaker, all scored about the same. Defense, English was above average, Dantley generally considered poor (though Chuck Daly raved about his defense during his 1.5 years with the Pistons), Nique was voted the player least interested in playing defense in a TSN poll of fellow players.

playoffs

Dantley 22.4/4.6/2.2 (2.6to) .608ts%
English 24.6/5.5/4.3 (2.8to) .556
Wilkins 23.6/6.4/2.4 (2.5to) .510

In the playoffs, the trends continued with Dantley still showing outstanding efficiency, English being the playmaker of the group, the main difference is Wilkins who had a long history of mediocre shooting in the playoffs (and again, all these three are primarily scorers).

So, Dantley is the individual standout with his unique ability to draw fouls and play in the post at a slender 6'5 (basketball height). Wilkins was the highlight film with his spectacular dunks and the only one of the three who developed a 3 point shot in his late career. English was the best defender and playmaker and a more efficient scorer than Wilkins though not Dantley caliber.

pandrade83 · Post #6 » by **pandrade83** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:14 am

1st choice: Wes Unseld
Honorable Mention: Dolph Schayes

If you're not giving Unseld a look, you're missing a gem. You're getting a guy who was a high performer by advanced metrics (VORP, BPM), was selected to be an MVP, was a strong playoff performer & enjoyed strong team success.

Advanced Metrics

Unseld hit 5+ scores for both BPM 3 times & VORP twice - that we know of - one of which didn't come in a double digit WS year. If we make the reasonably safe assumption that he hit those scores in ALL of his double digit WS year, that gives him 6 years of a BPM Score of 5+ and 5 years of a VORP Score of 5+ and It's highly likely that if we had RAPM, the metric would've loved him as well.

What's so impressive about that? If we assume that Cousy never got there (WS peaks at 8.8), that means that our 2 run-off candidates from last run combined to have less than half the number of BPM 5+ & VORP 5+ years as Unseld.

MVP Season

In the '68-'69 season, Unseld was selected MVP over guys who are already in like Wilt, Russell, West, Baylor, Frazier & Hondo. He is clearly well respected by his peers. People have said that Unseld's MVP was a little weak - and I get that - but remember you're voting for slot #45! It's noteworthy that Unseld's arrival coincided with a 21 win improvement without a change in the team's core, or a change in the coach. Washington went from 36 to 57 wins and finished with the best record in the league - that's why he won MVP - he had a major impact on winning. A team with Unseld & Monroe as it's two best players beat out Wilt/West, Russell/Hondo, Frazier/Reed, which is pretty impressive.

Strong playoff performer

In the playoffs, he maintains his strong performance - averaging 10/15/4/with 1.8 TOs (on fairly limited data) which is right on par with his career averages.

The most infamous defeat one of his teams suffer isn't really on him (the '75 Finals). He does his thing - 12-17-4 on 54% TS. That's who he was. Hayes crippled the team offensively - yes, he scored 20 PPG but he shot a miserable TS% of just 46%.

Strong Team Success

Unseld was the team playoff leader in WS and then VORP/BPM for 4 Finals Teams* as he was vital to his teams' playoff success as mentioned by his strong playoff numbers above. Unseld only misses the playoffs once in a strong 13 year career that sees him pace his team in every year but 2# in VORP & BPM - and before that in WS.

* - Hayes outpaced Unseld in Playoff VORP; Unseld outpaced Hayes in Playoff BPM as well as regular season VORP and BPM during their title year of '78.
# - ('74 - injuries & '81 - injuries + final year)

Unseld would make a fantastic addition to our List. You're getting an MVP who is recognized as a high impact performer by advanced metrics, who had decent longevity, was a strong playoff performer and was the driver of a consistent winner.

You just don't see guys who achieved that much this late; there's guys left who achieved higher peaks, but had much worse longevity - Unseld brings very high impact years over a sustained run as a winner; the really high peak players remaining (Westbrook, Tmac, McAdoo, Walton) can't say that. Of our remaining MVP's who didn't play in a segregated era, Unseld has the most quality years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you might expect from a 50's guy, Schayes is around the top of the leaderboard of guys left in terms of accolades; I'm not going to waste your time with them.

Instead, let's focus on impact to winning.

-Schayes is 30th all time in WS; 4th of those guys left on the board (Issel, Allen, Parish)
-Schayes was clearly the best player on a title team; of guys left, I'm willing to say that Arizin, Williams, Cowens, McGinnis, Hawkins & Beaty also achieved this feat. I'd argue that Unseld/Gasol were the best player on title teams, but I don't think there's a consensus there.
-Schayes leads the league in Total Win Shares in '58, he also leads the league in WS/48 in '54. He posts 8 double digit WS seasons & for those who are big into PER, he has 9 years at PER 20+ including one year at 25.
-Schayes anchors strong defenses that are Top 3 every year in '50-'60 except one and leads the league in multiple years.
-Schayes is the type of guy you can anchor an offense around (in era, anyway) finishing Top 10 in TS% 5 times - including a pair of years where he scored nearly 25 PPG. He also was Top 10 in assists 3 times indicating that he's a willing passer.

WRT Cousy, Schayes leads a team to a championship and 2 additional Finals. Cousy never led a team to a Finals even. In pre-Russell years, Schayes encountered Cousy 4 times in the playoffs and came out on top 3 times. Unless accolades are all you care about, I'm not sure why you're voting Cousy over Schayes.

Schayes accomplished just as much as anyone left. We all know why he's not in - it's the strength of the league - which I've certainly picked on. The real test is how did he hold up as the game advanced?

In '57, Syracuse faced Boston in the Conference Finals (after eliminating Arizin/Johnston) and got swept by Russell's Celtics. But Schayes acquits himself; he averages 25/15 - they lose, but he brings it.

In '58, Syracuse is eliminated by Arizin's Warriors but Schayes again shows up - averaging a 27/15.

In '59, Syracuse faces Boston again in the Conference Finals & falls - in 7. Schayes competes - he averages 28 PPG (we don't know anything else) but in the decisive Game 7, he drops 35-16-9 and shoots 49% TS (not bad for the era when the average is 45.7%) and especially against Russell.

In '60, he gets 29-16-3 against Wilt's Warriors and shoots an outstanding (for the time) 56% TS.

He starts to slow down in '61 but puts up respectable playoff #'s in series against Wilt & Russell - averaging 21-11-3 on 45% TS - I know that the TS% isn't great but that's a solid post prime.

Look, he's not better than Russell & he's not better than Wilt. But he proves he belongs on the court with them and he is able to credibly compete; that's what you'd expect from someone from that time period and he does LEAD a team to a title.

Being able to acquit himself well against Wilt & Russell in their primes makes me believe that with health/nutritional benefits, he would've been able to adapt to be effective against quality centers in any era. We're in the zone where we're picking from centers who were very good but not necessarily great - & that's where Schayes belongs. His longevity is strong - 12 quality seasons and demonstrates himself to be a very high impact player in leagues where we're starting to get some all time greats like Russell, Pettit & Wilt.

Post #7 » by **trex_8063** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:04 am

penbeast0 wrote:Alternate: Adrian Dantley?

I'll try to post some details later, but does it not bother you that Dantley---for all of his scoring efficiency----did not seem to move the needle a great deal as far as team offensive performance?
I mean, Allen Iverson arguably has a greater record of elevating poor offensive casts up to mediocrity (occasionally a little better) than Dantley does. And that's quite a problem, imo, when volume scoring is really your entire forte.

THKNKG · Post #8 » by **THKNKG** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:41 am

Okay, now for me to go back to the nitty gritty - at the beginning, I defined certain axioms that are central to my analysis of basketball greatness. I want to post these again for the sake of reference, and they will help explain my thinking.

Defense - The value of a defensive big man (4/5) is higher than the value of a defensive perimeter player (1/2/3).

Offense - The value of an offensive perimeter player is higher than the value of an offensive big man. Again, this can be demonstrated a couple of ways.

Offense vs defense – Offensive players have a higher capacity to affect the game (or at least do so more frequently), but the scarcity of defenders who can produce at that level makes those defenders at least equally valuable (aka scarcity theory).

Playstyle – Except for situations where a team is so weak it needs a player to “carry them,” a team-friendly playstyle is most preferred.

Longevity/peak – Unless there is a clear advantage in peak, assuming levels similar to one another, the player with more effective longevity is more highly valued.

Intangibles – Intangibles clearly affect a player/team, so they must be considered when analyzing the greatness of a player, for better or worse.

Era – The player must be considered in the context of the era in which they played, and any “era translation” must be done consistently in all directions in context as well.

Some thoughts on some of these to add on, before I continue:

1. Axioms 1/2/3 are why I value ATG defensive anchors so much, and axiom 4 is why I view inefficiency as less valuable by default. In my first post on the project, I made the following distinctions (assuming equal levels of talent - obviously the hierarchy is not used in the instance of a GOAT level player) -

off-ball > ball-dominant playmakers > ball-dominant scorers

2. The scarcity of an ELITE defensive 4 / 5, combined with the intrinsically additive nature of defense to a team, means that for me to overlook a high impact, GOAT tier defender, that other player better have some rock solid reasoning.

Alright, next, I also mentioned the concepts of gravity/creation, and anti-gravity/disruption. Gravity meaning the amount of distortion put on the defense by a player, and anti-gravity meaning the amount of distortion put on the offense. Creation meaning a combination of scoring/playmaking, and disruption being actually disrupting a play - jumping passing lanes, steals, blocks, rim protection, etc. Those are fundamental concepts to our understanding of basketball, and they’re important for our discussions here.

I wrote in a separate thread a few weeks ago (that I can’t search for right now for some reason), that on a PPP basis, unless a player is at Steph level 3 pt. % and beyond, shots in the lane are more valuable. Midrange shots would require a LOT of increase to be as valuable - they’re just bad shots to take by willing choice, which is why the league has evolved as it has.

So, shots in the lane are the most effective. Studies have also shown that 3 point defense and midrange defense (ITO percentage at least) tend to be close to random. Meanwhile, rim protectors tend to be consistent from year to year.
sources: https://fansided.com/2017/01/12/nylon-calculus-shot-defense-metrics-actions/
https://fansided.com/2015/02/09/defending-the-three-pointer-mean-avoiding-three-pointer/

Therefore IF shots in the lane are most effective, and IF they are the shots that demonstrably CAN be altered, it follows that players who can alter shots the most effectively are HIGHLY valuable.

The best rim protectors of the past 4 years or so have altered the oppFG% <5 ft. by between 10-15% (sometimes more). The average fg% for teams in that range was roughly 60%. 60% gives a rate of 1.2ppp, which is the same efficacy as a 40% 3 pt. shooter. This means that the best rim protectors of the last few years have shifted the ppp of shots at the rim from 1.2ppp to anywhere from 0.9-1.0ppp.

This means the most elite rim protectors make shots at the rim nearly as inefficient as midrange shots.

Now, imagine the players who were even better rim protectors than Gobert - Russell, Robinson, Hakeem, Mutombo - and then all of a sudden, the massive RAPM scores of Deke start to make a lot of sense. Could Deke have altered oppFG% by near 20%, and thus made shots at the rim LESS efficient than midrange shots? Quite possibly, as there have been some players over the last few years who have been in the high teens. Deke exhibited massive anti-gravity, and accompanied it with arguably GOAT level rim protection.

For all of the reasons above, my vote is:
1. Dikembe Mutombo
2. Dolph Schayes

Lou Fan · Post #9 » by **Lou Fan** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:37 am

T-Mac was the ideal point-forward and if for some reason we were cloning shooting guards I'd argue T-Mac would be the best choice. McGrady had it all 6'9" elite athleticism and wingspan. He had absolutely no holes in his game. I'll go through every portion of his game but not overly extensive. First his passing ability was great, truly elite. He knew how to find his teammates at the best time in the best spot and had the type of vision you can only be born with. He could pass out of any double-team and he basically never turned the ball over. His turnover pct was often below 10% which is really incredible. Another reason for his turnover averse play was his ball-handling. Tracy McGrady is the greatest SG ball handler of all time and at 6'9" that's really saying something. He could dribble the ball anywhere he wanted on the court and while sometimes his fancy displays of ball-handling killed ball movement they mostly enabled him to attack and score from wherever he wanted. These two traits made him the best point-forward of his time (pre LBJ of course). He could do literally whatever he wanted as far as scoring the basketball. He could get to the basket and finish with ease, he had a solid post up game with a great fadeaway, he could pull up for 3 off-the dribble, he could spot up and hit shots, he could run off screens, he could any type of step-back, turnaround, hop step mid range jumpers you could think of, he could play in the pick and roll to score or pass, and he could explode out of the triple-threat. He had the most variety in his coring of any player I've ever seen and possibly the most ever. He was really the perfect wing. T-Mac was really beautiful to watch. Watching T-Mac play was like watching Federer play tennis it looks as tho they were born to play the sport and they just glide around the court gracefully dismantling their opponents in a way that seems effortless. This seemingly effortlessness in McGrady's game probably partially contributed to the perception of him being a lazy player. McGrady's work ethic was pretty poor and if he had Kobe or MJ killer in him, provided he was healthy, he'd be top 3 all-time. He was never a great leader and he was a pretty quiet guy but his intangibles other than work ethic weren't a negative. I can't honestly blame him for his lack of effort if your best teammates were Juwan Howard and Mike Miller you'd probably be pretty frustrated and lazy too. Those Orlando supporting casts are so laughably bad that they dwarf LBJ and Kobe's and even Garnett's. No wonder his back couldn't take him carrying all those scrubs for 4 years :lol:

. His situation was just completely hopeless. Maybe that's why he always settled for deep contested 2s his jumper was awesome but no one can hit contested perimeter shots consistently at a high percentage. He easily could've gotten to the rim more or created more open looks but he really seemed to half-ass games at time because of how **** his teams were. He was literally the only guy on the team who could create any shots for himself or others. That's probably another reason he settled because he was tasked with doing literally everything for his team and he was probably exhausted. Had he played on even a decent team he would have the energy to attack the rim way more. Same goes for defense when he was playing at 100% effort he looked like an All-NBA defender but he was an average defender his whole career because he didn't care to play defense most of the time and he also didn't have energy to play D. McGrady was the only person on his team that defenses had to give any **** about and he still destroyed defenses. At his peak in 03 he had 30 ast % to 8.4 yes 8.4 tov % and had the greatest season of all-time tied with Michael Jordan according to OBPM at 9.8. The Magic still only went 42-40 and he played amazing in the playoffs and they still lost in 7 to the Pistons. It's honestly depressing to think about. If only Tim Duncan signed with the Magic and Grant Hill could stay healthy they would've been the greatest team of all-time and maybe McGrady's back wouldn't have been destroyed by carrying the 600 pound Shawn Kemp and all those other scrubs on his back. His 1 year peak is top 10 and his 7 year prime is awesome but it could've been so much more. He was the third best player in the league in the early 00s behind Shaq and TD and was the best offensive player in a time dominated by defense. This is getting ridiculously long so I'm done but I could go on for even longer if I wanted lol. I'm willing to answer any questions/debate with people about this but I think it's time for McGrady.
1st Vote: T-Mac
2nd Vote: Nique

scrabbarista · Post #10 » by **scrabbarista** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:21 pm

45. Elvin Hayes
46. Dolph Schayes

*For combined (RS) points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals, Elvin Hayes is 9th in the history of the NBA and ABA combined. If you aren't giving him consideration around the 45th spot, then career totals should probably not enter into your thought at any point on this list. 9th and 45th! C'mon!

*Hayes was the most productive player on the '78 Bullets title team, although Unseld was generally more heralded. By my count, there is only a handful of players remaining who were the best player on a title team, so Hayes at least needs to start receiving consideration.

*Hayes' MVP finishes, in spite of the fact that apparently not a single person with a vote actually liked him:

1971-72 NBA 0.006 (17)
1972-73 NBA 0.021 (10)
1973-74 NBA 0.082 (5)
1974-75 NBA 0.299 (3)
1975-76 NBA 0.018 (8)
1976-77 NBA 0.020 (7)
1978-79 NBA 0.126 (3)

*Hayes also led the league in scoring in '69, and was a 12x All-Star.

For me, his combination of longevity and production for a championship team make him too hard to ignore.

Post #11 » by **penbeast0** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:22 pm

trex_8063 wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:Alternate: Adrian Dantley?

I'll try to post some details later, but does it not bother you that Dantley---for all of his scoring efficiency----did not seem to move the needle a great deal as far as team offensive performance?
I mean, Allen Iverson arguably has a greater record of elevating poor offensive casts up to mediocrity (occasionally a little better) than Dantley does. And that's quite a problem, imo, when volume scoring is really your entire forte.

Yes, very much so. If it didn't, he would have been up (or above) Charles Barkley for me because he was a better scorer than Chuckles and (arguably) better intangibles and passing though of course nowhere close to Sir Charles as a rebounder. As far as pure individual scoring, Dantley may be the GOAT or at least in the argument and unlike players I like better like Sidney Moncrief, he had excellent durability/longevity. As it is, I am looking at him after English so marginally top 50 seems about right? Hard decisions here.

Post #12 » by **trex_8063** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:48 pm

Been wanting to talk about Dolph Schayes at some point, and I’ve finally found the time to put a longer post together…..

I’m going to start by looking at what he was doing during his best statistical seasons in terms of per 100 possession (estimated) relative to the league and make some modern-day comparisons:

Schayes in ‘53 was averaging an estimated 24.5 pts/100 possessions, 17.8 reb/100, and 4.4 ast/100, while shooting +5.01% rTS.
In ‘54, he was averaging 23.75 pts/100, 16.8 reb/100, and 4.1 ast/100 @ +5.57% rTS.
In ‘57, he was averaging 24.2 pts/100, 15.1 reb/100, 3.4 ast/100 @ +5.21% rTS.
In ‘58, he averaged 24.7 pts/100, 14.1 reb/100, and 3.1 ast/100 @ +5.84% rTS.

Note they recorded assists slightly more stingily, and there were generally speaking more missed shots [lower shooting %] in this era (creating more rebounding opportunities). These things combine to lower pts and ast per 100 poss numbers [relative to present day standards] while raising reb/100 numbers. In the accelerated pace years (which we’re starting to see in ‘57 and ‘58), that can also add an element of “randomized” shot selection (not necessarily always selecting for your best scorer), which could marginally further lower a star’s pts/100 poss numbers [relative to present day standards].

So with those things in mind…...
Those numbers from ‘53 might be roughly analogous to something like 29-29.5 pts/100, 14.0 reb/100, and a little over 5 ast/100 while shooting around 58.5-59% TS in the modern era.

Just to get an idea of who has managed that kind of statline (or better): If you do a search for all seasons in the modern era (let’s say since the change to hand-checking, so ‘05 on) in which someone averages at least those marks [per 100 possessions] with at least 58.5% TS, while playing at least 33 mpg, you get just two seasons--->‘06 Kevin Garnett and ‘14 Kevin Love (‘08 Kevin Garnett would also qualify if we lowered the mpg stipulation slightly---32.8 mpg; Schayes played 37.6 mpg that year, btw).

His ‘54 numbers are roughly analogous to ~28.5 pts/100, ~13.5 reb/100, and >4.8 ast/100, with a TS% of around 59% or so. Put those numbers in a search of the modern era with at least 33 mpg (Schayes averaged 36.9 mpg that season), you come up with just TWO seasons in the last 13 years: ‘14 Kevin Love and ‘07 Pau Gasol (and should be noted that Gasol did it for a godawful 22-60 team, whereas ‘54 Schayes did it for a team that went 42-30 and went 7 games in the NBA finals against Mikan’s Lakers).

In modern terms, the ‘57 numbers are roughly analogous to something like 29.0 pts/100, 12 to 12.5 reb/100, and 4.0 or so ast/100 @ ~58.5-59% TS.
If we again search ‘05-’17 for seasons of at least 29 pt/100s, 12.5 reb/100, 4 ast/100 @ 59% TS while playing at least 33 mpg (Schayes was playing a whopping 39.6 mpg this year and didn’t miss a game), we come up with just four seasons in the last 13 years: ‘14 Kevin Love, ‘07 Pau Gasol, ‘07 Dirk Nowitzki, and ‘10 Carlos Boozer (who, it should be noted, was awful defensively); none of them played as many mpg as Schayes did.

The modern analogous statline for his ‘58 marks might look like ~29.5 pts/100, 11 to 11.5 reb/100, and 3.5 or so ast/100 @ ~59.5% TS. Search the last 13 seasons for those with at least 33 mpg (Schayes played a monsterous 40.5 mpg that year), we come up with just 7 [very noteworthy] seasons: ‘13 and ‘17 Lebron James, ‘16 and ‘17 Kevin Durant, ‘17 Karl-Anthony Towns (terrible defensively, fwiw), ‘07 Dirk Nowitzki, and ‘17 Giannis Antetokounmpo.
Might also be worth noting that approximately one of every 6 games played in ‘57 and ‘58 were against Russell and the Celtics, too.

A search of a statline analogous to his ‘56 campaign yields three seasons of Dirk (‘05, ‘07, ‘08), two seasons of Carlos Boozer (‘07 and ‘08), ‘14 Kevin Love, ‘07 Tim Duncan, ‘14 Blake Griffin, and ‘05 Shaquille O’Neal.

In short, Schayes was routinely putting up extremely dominant [relative to league] seasons year after year thru the heart of his prime (majority of that AFTER the advent of the shotclock, too).

I also want to look at his ‘60 season, as I think it bears relevance wrt his ability to play in more competitive times:
*In ‘60 the NBA was on its way to being integrated, at least 25% black at that time (I don’t have the exact proportion for that year, but I have stats for ‘55 (7.7% black), ‘61 (28.0% black), and ‘67 (49.6% black)).
**It included guys like Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain (who Schayes would have been facing literally 1 of every 3 games), as well as Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit, etc, all in their primes.
***Schayes is actually getting marginally long in the tooth at this point (would turn 32 by the end of the season).
…...And still Schayes would average an estimated 23.25 pts/100, 13.2 reb/100, 3.5 ast/100 @ +3.26% rTS, while playing 36.5 mpg and not missing a single game in ‘60. Personally, I think that reflects well on his potential to compete at a high level in a more competitive league.

He’s certainly got the honors and accolades: a 12-time All-Star (only one of those questionable at all), 12-time All-NBA (6 times 1st), is 55th all-time in ABA/NBA history in MVP award shares despite the fact that the MVP was not even awarded his first 6 seasons (including 2-3 of his very best years); finished in the top 10 in MVP vote six times, three times in top 5 (as high as #2 to only Bill Russell in ‘58, a year in which Schayes led the league in WS).

He’s got a title (in the shotclock era) as the clear best player, too.

Full game footage is hard to come by, but everything I’ve read indicates his defensive reputation is “OK”.

So I’m gonna go this way….

1st vote: Dolph Schayes
2nd vote: Pau Gasol

Will try to post later about why I think Gasol should have serious traction by now.

pandrade83 · Post #13 » by **pandrade83** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:30 pm

trex_8063 wrote:Been wanting to talk about Dolph Schayes at some point, and I’ve finally found the time to put a longer post together…..

I’m going to start by looking at what he was doing during his best statistical seasons in terms of per 100 possession (estimated) relative to the league and make some modern-day comparisons:

Schayes in ‘53 was averaging an estimated 24.5 pts/100 possessions, 17.8 reb/100, and 4.4 ast/100, while shooting +5.01% rTS.
In ‘54, he was averaging 23.75 pts/100, 16.8 reb/100, and 4.1 ast/100 @ +5.57% rTS.
In ‘57, he was averaging 24.2 pts/100, 15.1 reb/100, 3.4 ast/100 @ +5.21% rTS.
In ‘58, he averaged 24.7 pts/100, 14.1 reb/100, and 3.1 ast/100 @ +5.84% rTS.

Note they recorded assists slightly more stingily, and there were generally speaking more missed shots [lower shooting %] in this era (creating more rebounding opportunities). These things combine to lower pts and ast per 100 poss numbers [relative to present day standards] while raising reb/100 numbers. In the accelerated pace years (which we’re starting to see in ‘57 and ‘58), that can also add an element of “randomized” shot selection (not necessarily always selecting for your best scorer), which could marginally further lower a star’s pts/100 poss numbers [relative to present day standards].

So with those things in mind…...
Those numbers from ‘53 might be roughly analogous to something like 29-29.5 pts/100, 14.0 reb/100, and a little over 5 ast/100 while shooting around 58.5-59% TS in the modern era.

Just to get an idea of who has managed that kind of statline (or better): If you do a search for all seasons in the modern era (let’s say since the change to hand-checking, so ‘05 on) in which someone averages at least those marks [per 100 possessions] with at least 58.5% TS, while playing at least 33 mpg, you get just two seasons--->‘06 Kevin Garnett and ‘14 Kevin Love (‘08 Kevin Garnett would also qualify if we lowered the mpg stipulation slightly---32.8 mpg; Schayes played 37.6 mpg that year, btw).

His ‘54 numbers are roughly analogous to ~28.5 pts/100, ~13.5 reb/100, and >4.8 ast/100, with a TS% of around 59% or so. Put those numbers in a search of the modern era with at least 33 mpg (Schayes averaged 36.9 mpg that season), you come up with just TWO seasons in the last 13 years: ‘14 Kevin Love and ‘07 Pau Gasol (and should be noted that Gasol did it for a godawful 22-60 team, whereas ‘54 Schayes did it for a team that went 42-30 and went 7 games in the NBA finals against Mikan’s Lakers).

In modern terms, the ‘57 numbers are roughly analogous to something like 29.0 pts/100, 12 to 12.5 reb/100, and 4.0 or so ast/100 @ ~58.5-59% TS.
If we again search ‘05-’17 for seasons of at least 29 pt/100s, 12.5 reb/100, 4 ast/100 @ 59% TS while playing at least 33 mpg (Schayes was playing a whopping 39.6 mpg this year and didn’t miss a game), we come up with just four seasons in the last 13 years: ‘14 Kevin Love, ‘07 Pau Gasol, ‘07 Dirk Nowitzki, and ‘10 Carlos Boozer (who, it should be noted, was awful defensively); none of them played as many mpg as Schayes did.

The modern analogous statline for his ‘58 marks might look like ~29.5 pts/100, 11 to 11.5 reb/100, and 3.5 or so ast/100 @ ~59.5% TS. Search the last 13 seasons for those with at least 33 mpg (Schayes played a monsterous 40.5 mpg that year), we come up with just 7 [very noteworthy] seasons: ‘13 and ‘17 Lebron James, ‘16 and ‘17 Kevin Durant, ‘17 Karl-Anthony Towns (terrible defensively, fwiw), ‘07 Dirk Nowitzki, and ‘17 Giannis Antetokounmpo.
Might also be worth noting that approximately one of every 6 games played in ‘57 and ‘58 were against Russell and the Celtics, too.

A search of a statline analogous to his ‘56 campaign yields three seasons of Dirk (‘05, ‘07, ‘08), two seasons of Carlos Boozer (‘07 and ‘08), ‘14 Kevin Love, ‘07 Tim Duncan, ‘14 Blake Griffin, and ‘05 Shaquille O’Neal.

In short, Schayes was routinely putting up extremely dominant [relative to league] seasons year after year thru the heart of his prime.

I also want to look at his ‘60 season, as I think it bears relevance wrt his ability to play in more competitive times:
*In ‘60 the NBA was on its way to being integrated, at least 25% black at that time (I don’t have the exact proportion for that year, but I have stats for ‘55 (7.7% black), ‘61 (28.0% black), and ‘67 (49.6% black)).
**It included guys like Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain (who Schayes would have been facing literally 1 of every 3 games), as well as Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit, etc, all in their primes.
***Schayes is actually getting marginally long in the tooth at this point (would turn 32 by the end of the season).
…...And still Schayes would average an estimated 23.25 pts/100, 13.2 reb/100, 3.5 ast/100 @ +3.26% rTS, while playing 36.5 mpg and not missing a single game in ‘60. Personally, I think that reflects well on his potential to compete at a high level in a more competitive league.

He’s certainly got the honors and accolades: a 12-time All-Star (only one of those questionable at all), 12-time All-NBA (6 times 1st), is 55th all-time in ABA/NBA history in MVP award shares despite the fact that the MVP was not even awarded his first 6 seasons (including 2-3 of his very best years); finished in the top 10 in MVP vote six times, three times in top 5 (as high as #2 to only Bill Russell in ‘58).

He’s got a title (in the shotclock era) as the clear best player, too.

Full game footage is hard to come by, but everything I’ve read indicates his defensive reputation is “OK”.

So I’m gonna go this way….

1st vote: Dolph Schayes
2nd vote: Pau Gasol

Will try to post later about why I think Gasol should have serious traction by now.

I like this. Nice job in advocating for him - it's a different approach than what I used but I like it.

If guys I'm advocating for get in, I'll be supporting Gasol inside the Top 50.

Post #14 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:00 pm

Vote 1 - Willis Reed

Vote 2 - Dolph Schayes

Reasoning: viewtopic.php?p=58642160#p58642160

Post #15 » by **Outside** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:18 pm

micahclay wrote:...
Defense - The value of a defensive big man (4/5) is higher than the value of a defensive perimeter player (1/2/3).

Offense - The value of an offensive perimeter player is higher than the value of an offensive big man. Again, this can be demonstrated a couple of ways.

Offense vs defense – Offensive players have a higher capacity to affect the game (or at least do so more frequently), but the scarcity of defenders who can produce at that level makes those defenders at least equally valuable (aka scarcity theory).

Playstyle – Except for situations where a team is so weak it needs a player to “carry them,” a team-friendly playstyle is most preferred.

Longevity/peak – Unless there is a clear advantage in peak, assuming levels similar to one another, the player with more effective longevity is more highly valued.

Intangibles – Intangibles clearly affect a player/team, so they must be considered when analyzing the greatness of a player, for better or worse.

Era – The player must be considered in the context of the era in which they played, and any “era translation” must be done consistently in all directions in context as well.

Some thoughts on some of these to add on, before I continue:

1. Axioms 1/2/3 are why I value ATG defensive anchors so much, and axiom 4 is why I view inefficiency as less valuable by default. In my first post on the project, I made the following distinctions (assuming equal levels of talent - obviously the hierarchy is not used in the instance of a GOAT level player) -

...

Therefore IF shots in the lane are most effective, and IF they are the shots that demonstrably CAN be altered, it follows that players who can alter shots the most effectively are HIGHLY valuable.

The best rim protectors of the past 4 years or so have altered the oppFG% <5 ft. by between 10-15% (sometimes more). The average fg% for teams in that range was roughly 60%. 60% gives a rate of 1.2ppp, which is the same efficacy as a 40% 3 pt. shooter. This means that the best rim protectors of the last few years have shifted the ppp of shots at the rim from 1.2ppp to anywhere from 0.9-1.0ppp.

This means the most elite rim protectors make shots at the rim nearly as inefficient as midrange shots.

Now, imagine the players who were even better rim protectors than Gobert - Russell, Robinson, Hakeem, Mutombo - and then all of a sudden, the massive RAPM scores of Deke start to make a lot of sense. Could Deke have altered oppFG% by near 20%, and thus made shots at the rim LESS efficient than midrange shots? Quite possibly, as there have been some players over the last few years who have been in the high teens. Deke exhibited massive anti-gravity, and accompanied it with arguably GOAT level rim protection.

For all of the reasons above, my vote is:
1. Dikembe Mutombo
2. Alonzo Mourning

First off, I appreciate the analysis. I don't agree with all of it, but I agree with a lot of it. Plus, explaining WHY you value what you do is a great place to start a discussion, and you make your case well.

It's currently fashionable to think that big men are passe, that they've been relegated to the dustbin of history by the rise of three-point shooting, that rim-protecting defensive anchors don't have value when so much of game is happening outside the three-point line, but I don't think that's true. Of course the position has evolved, as it has for all players, and a relatively immobile Mark Eaton type would get run off the court, but the best rim protecting defensive anchors have been agile and athletic -- Bill Russell being the first name that comes to mind. Mark Eaton was a one-trick pony who was a decent but not great rebounder, used his size to defend a spot around the basket but wasn't otherwise a good defender, wasn't a scorer, had poor hands, wasn't a facilitator, but had a successful career paired with an all-time great power forward.

Mutombo, on the other hand, didn't have Russell-level athleticism, but he was closer to that end of the rim-protecting scale than to the Eaton end. Plus he had what, in my view, is a defining characteristic for the anti-gravity you describe -- a fierce defensive mindset. It's an attitude that this is my key, this is my end of the court, don't bring that **** inside. It's a competitiveness that is focused and taken to badger-level intensity. Combine that with size, length, and athleticism, and you've got something special.

In addition to shotblocking, that mindset usually includes rebounding. It's a fanatical ownership of that end of the court, that you're not going to get a shot off against me, I own this 15-foot bubble around the rim and this rebound is mine.

Garnett is the most recent example that comes to mind. Howard knocked on that door, but there was too much other stuff going on in his head to achieve that all-consuming sense of defensive purpose that defines players capable of anti-gravity. Russell had all that plus a singular basketball IQ.

To support the case for Mutombo in a recent thread (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=58630118#p58630118), Trex posted a video of Mutombo's 31 blocks in a five-game series against Seattle. Trex was countering an argument that Mutombo was "stiff and not a fluid athlete" by showing that early Mutombo wasn't that way. Because Mutombo had such a long career, people tend to remember him in his later years, when his athleticism had diminished, but early Deke was quick and agile.

Which, of course, brings me to Thurmond. I'm assuming you didn't see Thurmond play, or you would've at least had him in the discussion, because he checks all the anti-gravity boxes -- shotblocker/rim protector, individual defender, help defender, rebounder, mindset. If only I could post a video of the time he blocked 42 shots in three games or point to the stats showing he averaged 7.2 blocks per game from 1964-65 to 1972-73, but alas, those games weren't recorded on video tape and those stats weren't kept.

I get the offensive efficiency and era arguments against Nate, but oh man, that anti-gravity. He and Steph are my two favorite players, and they're like a yin and yang -- Steph has incredible gravity on the offensive end, warping the game with his three-point shooting, and has made himself into a credible defender, while Nate had incredible anti-gravity on the defensive end, warping the game with his tenacity as a defender, shotblocker, and rebounder, and made himself into a credible offensive option.

Thurmond had superior anti-gravity, but Mutombo had superior longevity and efficiency. I firmly believe Nate was the better player, but I need to give Mutombo his due.

Post #16 » by **penbeast0** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:50 pm

micahclay wrote:...
Offense - The value of an offensive perimeter player is higher than the value of an offensive big man. Again, this can be demonstrated a couple of ways....

I would love to hear a demonstration of this in a couple of ways because I am far from sure it is true.

(a) It is true that in today's game, the value of perimeter players RELATIVE to post players is higher than it has ever been before because of modern zone defenses and tactics.
(b) It is true that there are less high scoring bigs in the league today than there were in prior eras and some of them work on the perimeter

(c) I don't believe this is a historical fact; particularly before the 3 point line, post scorers were more efficient generally than perimeter scorers and most offenses were built around the gravity of a primary post player.
(d) I still think a great post scorer dominates and has a high gravity effect today, just much less focus on this sort of player both in the league and in teaching because it is a lot easier to find an oustanding 6-0 to 6-8 player than one 6-11 or taller.

Winsome Gerbil · Post #17 » by **Winsome Gerbil** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:12 pm

Oh, where were we?

That's right, I remember now:

45) Allen Iverson
46) Russell Westbrook

THKNKG · Post #18 » by **THKNKG** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:31 pm

Outside wrote:
micahclay wrote:...
Defense - The value of a defensive big man (4/5) is higher than the value of a defensive perimeter player (1/2/3).

Offense - The value of an offensive perimeter player is higher than the value of an offensive big man. Again, this can be demonstrated a couple of ways.

Offense vs defense – Offensive players have a higher capacity to affect the game (or at least do so more frequently), but the scarcity of defenders who can produce at that level makes those defenders at least equally valuable (aka scarcity theory).

Playstyle – Except for situations where a team is so weak it needs a player to “carry them,” a team-friendly playstyle is most preferred.

Longevity/peak – Unless there is a clear advantage in peak, assuming levels similar to one another, the player with more effective longevity is more highly valued.

Intangibles – Intangibles clearly affect a player/team, so they must be considered when analyzing the greatness of a player, for better or worse.

Era – The player must be considered in the context of the era in which they played, and any “era translation” must be done consistently in all directions in context as well.

Some thoughts on some of these to add on, before I continue:

1. Axioms 1/2/3 are why I value ATG defensive anchors so much, and axiom 4 is why I view inefficiency as less valuable by default. In my first post on the project, I made the following distinctions (assuming equal levels of talent - obviously the hierarchy is not used in the instance of a GOAT level player) -

...

Therefore IF shots in the lane are most effective, and IF they are the shots that demonstrably CAN be altered, it follows that players who can alter shots the most effectively are HIGHLY valuable.

The best rim protectors of the past 4 years or so have altered the oppFG% <5 ft. by between 10-15% (sometimes more). The average fg% for teams in that range was roughly 60%. 60% gives a rate of 1.2ppp, which is the same efficacy as a 40% 3 pt. shooter. This means that the best rim protectors of the last few years have shifted the ppp of shots at the rim from 1.2ppp to anywhere from 0.9-1.0ppp.

This means the most elite rim protectors make shots at the rim nearly as inefficient as midrange shots.

Now, imagine the players who were even better rim protectors than Gobert - Russell, Robinson, Hakeem, Mutombo - and then all of a sudden, the massive RAPM scores of Deke start to make a lot of sense. Could Deke have altered oppFG% by near 20%, and thus made shots at the rim LESS efficient than midrange shots? Quite possibly, as there have been some players over the last few years who have been in the high teens. Deke exhibited massive anti-gravity, and accompanied it with arguably GOAT level rim protection.

For all of the reasons above, my vote is:
1. Dikembe Mutombo
2. Alonzo Mourning

First off, I appreciate the analysis. I don't agree with all of it, but I agree with a lot of it. Plus, explaining WHY you value what you do is a great place to start a discussion, and you make your case well.

It's currently fashionable to think that big men are passe, that they've been relegated to the dustbin of history by the rise of three-point shooting, that rim-protecting defensive anchors don't have value when so much of game is happening outside the three-point line, but I don't think that's true. Of course the position has evolved, as it has for all players, and a relatively immobile Mark Eaton type would get run off the court, but the best rim protecting defensive anchors have been agile and athletic -- Bill Russell being the first name that comes to mind. Mark Eaton was a one-trick pony who was a decent but not great rebounder, used his size to defend a spot around the basket but wasn't otherwise a good defender, wasn't a scorer, had poor hands, wasn't a facilitator, but had a successful career paired with an all-time great power forward.

Mutombo, on the other hand, didn't have Russell-level athleticism, but he was closer to that end of the rim-protecting scale than to the Eaton end. Plus he had what, in my view, is a defining characteristic for the anti-gravity you describe -- a fierce defensive mindset. It's an attitude that this is my key, this is my end of the court, don't bring that **** inside. It's a competitiveness that is focused and taken to badger-level intensity. Combine that with size, length, and athleticism, and you've got something special.

In addition to shotblocking, that mindset usually includes rebounding. It's a fanatical ownership of that end of the court, that you're not going to get a shot off against me, I own this 15-foot bubble around the rim and this rebound is mine.

Garnett is the most recent example that comes to mind. Howard knocked on that door, but there was too much other stuff going on in his head to achieve that all-consuming sense of defensive purpose that defines players capable of anti-gravity. Russell had all that plus a singular basketball IQ.

To support the case for Mutombo in a recent thread (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=58630118#p58630118), Trex posted a video of Mutombo's 31 blocks in a five-game series against Seattle. Trex was countering an argument that Mutombo was "stiff and not a fluid athlete" by showing that early Mutombo wasn't that way. Because Mutombo had such a long career, people tend to remember him in his later years, when his athleticism had diminished, but early Deke was quick and agile.

Which, of course, brings me to Thurmond. I'm assuming you didn't see Thurmond play, or you would've at least had him in the discussion, because he checks all the anti-gravity boxes -- shotblocker/rim protector, individual defender, help defender, rebounder, mindset. If only I could post a video of the time he blocked 42 shots in three games or point to the stats showing he averaged 7.2 blocks per game from 1964-65 to 1972-73, but alas, those games weren't recorded on video tape and those stats weren't kept.

I get the offensive efficiency and era arguments against Nate, but oh man, that anti-gravity. He and Steph are my two favorite players, and they're like a yin and yang -- Steph has incredible gravity on the offensive end, warping the game with his three-point shooting, and has made himself into a credible defender, while Nate had incredible anti-gravity on the defensive end, warping the game with his tenacity as a defender, shotblocker, and rebounder, and made himself into a credible offensive option.

Thurmond had superior anti-gravity, but Mutombo had superior longevity and efficiency. I firmly believe Nate was the better player, but I need to give Mutombo his due.

Great response, thanks. I wouldn't say Thurmond was out of contention for me, but I would say that his efficiency issues are a problem to some degree - I'm still attempting to flesh that out in my mind though. I'm not convinced that Nate had superior anti-gravity, though. Can you elaborate as to why you think that?

Post #19 » by **trex_8063** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:38 pm

Winsome Gerbil wrote:Oh, where were we?

That's right, I remember now:

45) Allen Iverson
46) Russell Westbrook

Just a reminder to add some content, even if it's just a cut-and-paste of priors.

Winsome Gerbil · Post #20 » by **Winsome Gerbil** » Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:18 pm

As an aside Dolph Schayes over Bob Cousy doesn't make much sense. All of the weaknesses, none of the groundbreaking and winning.