Elgin Baylor - as good as Oscar Robertson

[dhsilv2]

Given what WS tells us here, I'm not really sure I can get along with any argument for Baylor. The few games I've seen similarly paint these two are massively separate.

WS, a minutes related stat, isn't telling the story as well as you think. And looking at a few games, depending on years, obviously doesn't paint an accurate picture

Not sure where minute weighted really matters here. One player without minutes weighted at 4 top 10 seasons in his career, the other player had 11. One player had 9 top 5 seasons the other player had 5. The gap here is massive. While the eye test is limited, with players from this era the gap is much like with WS pretty massive.

[Owly]

I am not really discussing career, and pretty explicitly mention peaks in the post. All my stats are about peaks, and in the peaks project he’s rated 20 spots below Oscar

Elgin Baylor led the league in PER during Wilt’s prime, and was the only player to top Wilt. He took multiple teams singlehandedly to the Finals, showing his game is suitable for tougher competition. But Jerry West gets all the credit, despite Baylor being clearly superior during their early 60s runs.

Conclusion:
Elgin Baylor led teams to the Finals 3 times as the best player, only to be beaten by the Celtics dynasty.

Elgin Baylor is clearly at minimum a top 25 player of all time, and putting him below Pippen/Pettit (whom he beat multiple times with far worse teams) is absurd.

Note here: repeated references to multiple seasons, citing him "below Pippen/Pettit" in a complaint that Baylor "is, on this board, the most underrated star in history" wouldn't make much sense as a peak argument, since Pippen went unranked in the last top 40 peaks and Pettit ranked a spot behind Baylor, conversely it could apply to the career based rankings here (2017 edition: Pettit (24), Pippen (30), Baylor (32)).

Broadly I would be inclined to agree that Baylor is probably a little underrated here based on "our" rankings. That said a lot of your argument puzzles me. Especially this section.

1962 season injury:
Much of the criticism of Baylor’s play as being worse than West comes from criticism over 1962, how he missed much of the season and his team won more than with him without Jerry West. It ignores the fact they went 37-11 with him, and 17-15 without him (when Jerry West led the team). The SRS difference is that of a lottery team vs a title contender with the Celtics dynasty.

It appears to be referring to Baylor's absence as a result of injury, rather than armed service duty. It then alludes to arguments (again within the context of a post saying specifically that RealGM underrates Baylor) apparently made that aren't cited or quoted so one cannot tell if these arguments were made (and if so, by whom or whether they have been represented accurately) or whether they have been invented. Finally, and this is a minor gripe, the SRS difference between with and without Baylor is stated but no number (nor even methodology) is given. One can plausibly believe it to be reasonably large given the difference between their record with and without him, but it would be better practice to actually give the number you're citing.

[euroleague]

I am not really discussing career, and pretty explicitly mention peaks in the post. All my stats are about peaks, and in the peaks project he’s rated 20 spots below Oscar

Elgin Baylor led the league in PER during Wilt’s prime, and was the only player to top Wilt. He took multiple teams singlehandedly to the Finals, showing his game is suitable for tougher competition. But Jerry West gets all the credit, despite Baylor being clearly superior during their early 60s runs.

Conclusion:
Elgin Baylor led teams to the Finals 3 times as the best player, only to be beaten by the Celtics dynasty.

Elgin Baylor is clearly at minimum a top 25 player of all time, and putting him below Pippen/Pettit (whom he beat multiple times with far worse teams) is absurd.

Note here: repeated references to multiple seasons, citing him "below Pippen/Pettit" in a complaint that Baylor "is, on this board, the most underrated star in history" wouldn't make much sense as a peak argument, since Pippen went unranked in the last top 40 peaks and Pettit ranked a spot behind Baylor, conversely it could apply to the career based rankings here (2017 edition: Pettit (24), Pippen (30), Baylor (32)).

Broadly I would be inclined to agree that Baylor is probably a little underrated here based on "our" rankings. That said a lot of your argument puzzles me. Especially this section.

1962 season injury:
Much of the criticism of Baylor’s play as being worse than West comes from criticism over 1962, how he missed much of the season and his team won more than with him without Jerry West. It ignores the fact they went 37-11 with him, and 17-15 without him (when Jerry West led the team). The SRS difference is that of a lottery team vs a title contender with the Celtics dynasty.

It appears to be referring to Baylor's absence as a result of injury, rather than armed service duty. It then alludes to arguments (again within the context of a post saying specifically that RealGM underrates Baylor) apparently made that aren't cited or quoted so one cannot tell if these arguments were made (and if so, by whom or whether they have been represented accurately) or whether they have been invented. Finally, and this is a minor gripe, the SRS difference between with and without Baylor is stated but no number (nor even methodology) is given. One can plausibly believe it to be reasonably large given the difference between their record with and without him, but it would be better practice to actually give the number you're citing.

You seem to have misunderstood the context of every bolder statement - so I will tell you it directly

He is talking about an Oscar vs Elgin comparison. I explicitly mention peak in my post. Which I said.

In my topic introduction, I say he’s the most underrated star. This isn’t conditional, nor is it related to Oscar Robertson

Regarding military service - the cause of the absence isn’t being discussed, simply the result. I refer to all absences as injuries by default, as they take the player out of the game. Mental health - injury. Oversleeping - injury. Drug abuse - injury. Called to family funeral/personal issues/other duty - injury... his other duty is indeed military.

I hope that eliminates your confusion, and you can alter your focus to the point of the topic, and not grammatical details.

[Owly]

I am not really discussing career, and pretty explicitly mention peaks in the post. All my stats are about peaks, and in the peaks project he’s rated 20 spots below Oscar

Elgin Baylor led the league in PER during Wilt’s prime, and was the only player to top Wilt. He took multiple teams singlehandedly to the Finals, showing his game is suitable for tougher competition. But Jerry West gets all the credit, despite Baylor being clearly superior during their early 60s runs.

Conclusion:
Elgin Baylor led teams to the Finals 3 times as the best player, only to be beaten by the Celtics dynasty.

Elgin Baylor is clearly at minimum a top 25 player of all time, and putting him below Pippen/Pettit (whom he beat multiple times with far worse teams) is absurd.

Note here: repeated references to multiple seasons, citing him "below Pippen/Pettit" in a complaint that Baylor "is, on this board, the most underrated star in history" wouldn't make much sense as a peak argument, since Pippen went unranked in the last top 40 peaks and Pettit ranked a spot behind Baylor, conversely it could apply to the career based rankings here (2017 edition: Pettit (24), Pippen (30), Baylor (32)).

Broadly I would be inclined to agree that Baylor is probably a little underrated here based on "our" rankings. That said a lot of your argument puzzles me. Especially this section.

1962 season injury:
Much of the criticism of Baylor’s play as being worse than West comes from criticism over 1962, how he missed much of the season and his team won more than with him without Jerry West. It ignores the fact they went 37-11 with him, and 17-15 without him (when Jerry West led the team). The SRS difference is that of a lottery team vs a title contender with the Celtics dynasty.

It appears to be referring to Baylor's absence as a result of injury, rather than armed service duty. It then alludes to arguments (again within the context of a post saying specifically that RealGM underrates Baylor) apparently made that aren't cited or quoted so one cannot tell if these arguments were made (and if so, by whom or whether they have been represented accurately) or whether they have been invented. Finally, and this is a minor gripe, the SRS difference between with and without Baylor is stated but no number (nor even methodology) is given. One can plausibly believe it to be reasonably large given the difference between their record with and without him, but it would be better practice to actually give the number you're citing.

You seem to have misunderstood the context of every bolder statement - so I will tell you it directly

He is talking about an Oscar vs Elgin comparison. I explicitly mention peak in my post. Which I said.

In my topic introduction, I say he’s the most underrated star. This isn’t conditional, nor is it related to Oscar Robertson

Regarding military service - the cause of the absence isn’t being discussed, simply the result. I refer to all absences as injuries by default, as they take the player out of the game. Mental health - injury. Oversleeping - injury. Drug abuse - injury. Called to family funeral/personal issues/other duty - injury... his other duty is indeed military.

I hope that eliminates your confusion, and you can alter your focus to the point of the topic, and not grammatical details.

There was no confusion.

Military service is not an injury.

Elgin Baylor is, on this board, the most underrated star in history.

This statement is explicitly limited to this board. There can be no other reason to use the phrase "on this board". But temporarily accepting your premise that it wasn't about this board, regarding the two areas where that came up: (a) which list of peaks were you referring to that places Baylor behind Pippen and (b) what is the external source of

criticism of Baylor’s play as being worse than West comes from criticism over 1962, how he missed much of the season and his team won more than with him without Jerry West [sic]

You do mention peak in your opening post. That isn't disputed. Your later claim was that you were "not really discussing career," which, as I have highlighted, isn't backed up by what you posted.

Your apparent explanation for ... something is that "he" is talking about Oscar versus Baylor. Who "he" is and what this explains is unclear.

[pandrade83]

he was more like LBJ of the 60s.

always got to the finals and lost to super-strong Celtics
great driving to the basket, great passer (but not quite as good), better rebounder

LBJ just had 12 years of peak, to Baylor's 5

This is the second post where you mentioned that Baylor was a “great passer”. I have no idea where you came up with this. He averaged 3.5 pace-adjusted APG while averaging 40 MPG for his career.

That’s the same as someone like Karl Malone, Antoine Walker, Alex English, Jamal Crawford, Vernon Maxwell, or Gordon Hayward. And all of those players did it in less minutes of course. What on earth gives you the idea he was a great passer? He was a good volume scorer and rebounder. That was about it.

He was a great passer he just probably wasn't utilized in offenses enough. He could have averaged more assists if the offense called for it. They counted assists differently back then, I forget which years it was though.

Watch on YouTube

There's been some odd pro-Baylor arguments made - but this is one of the strangest. Since this is about peaks, he peaked at PER & Ws/48 in '61 so let's use that.

In '61, he finished 2nd in fga to Wilt & was 6 fga/gm ahead of 3rd. This was West's rookie year and he wasn't as heavily involved yet. Baylor was 8th in apg and was 52% of 1st.

By contrast, Lebron was 2nd this year & 89% of 1st (since Baylor is being called the Lebron of the 60's). That's not really at all comparable. It's also noteworthy that they lost to Pettit's Hawks this year.

[penbeast0]

Baylor v. Oscar: Even for their positions, Oscar has a massive playmaking advantage; he was the greatest playmaker ever to that point and it wasn't close. It shows in his assist totals, even deflated by the stricter assist rules of the day. It shows in his ability to elevate offenses in Cincinnati and Milwaukee. Oscar also has strong advantages in efficiency and durability. In terms of scoring volumes and rebounding, both are on a similar level relative to their peers, but overall Oscar was on a level that only Russell, Wilt, and West reached in the 60s.

In terms of Baylor v. Pettit it is much closer. Baylor was a much more creative scorer, Pettit's rebounding advantage is partially negated by his playing F/C v. Baylor's combo forward. Baylor IS a better playmaker than Pettit. Pettit is the better defender by a little from what I can tell and, again, has a strong durability edge. In terms of clutch play, Pettit has more of a playoff numbers drop than Baylor but, on the other hand, he has the ring which he won with arguably the greatest 4th quarter dominance in the history of the NBA finals for that one glorious year. If they had been perfect contemporaries posting the numbers they did, it would be very close but Pettit posted 60s level numbers in a 50s league where the league's numbers were much worse (Baylor did too but for less time and later). He proved those numbers weren't just inflated by weak competition by continuing to post equivalent numbers into the mid 60s, numbers equal to those Baylor posted. Thus overall, the edge should go to Pettit.

[Jiminy Glick]

This is the second post where you mentioned that Baylor was a “great passer”. I have no idea where you came up with this. He averaged 3.5 pace-adjusted APG while averaging 40 MPG for his career.

That’s the same as someone like Karl Malone, Antoine Walker, Alex English, Jamal Crawford, Vernon Maxwell, or Gordon Hayward. And all of those players did it in less minutes of course. What on earth gives you the idea he was a great passer? He was a good volume scorer and rebounder. That was about it.

He was a great passer he just probably wasn't utilized in offenses enough. He could have averaged more assists if the offense called for it. They counted assists differently back then, I forget which years it was though.

Watch on YouTube

There's been some odd pro-Baylor arguments made - but this is one of the strangest. Since this is about peaks, he peaked at PER & Ws/48 in '61 so let's use that.

In '61, he finished 2nd in fga to Wilt & was 6 fga/gm ahead of 3rd. This was West's rookie year and he wasn't as heavily involved yet. Baylor was 8th in apg and was 52% of 1st.

By contrast, Lebron was 2nd this year & 89% of 1st (since Baylor is being called the Lebron of the 60's). That's not really at all comparable. It's also noteworthy that they lost to Pettit's Hawks this year.

In terms of running the offense.

[migya]

What I find hard to comprehend is how some people can say that one player was not that good compared to another player in the same era, especially when that era is one of the first and low on overall talent, and yet the stats and overall evidence really didn't show that much difference.

Stars of the first 20 years of the nba have overblown stats largely because the overall talent was low of the nba as a whole and the stars got the ball all the time but that applies too all stars/players of that time period.

Baylor was obviously one of the greatest of his time period and though it is near impossible to compare across eras, by Robertson, Chamberlain and West being ranked so high alltime, Baylor has to as well. For me he is a top 5 SF alltime and at least top 25 overall alltime.

[pandrade83]

He was a great passer he just probably wasn't utilized in offenses enough. He could have averaged more assists if the offense called for it. They counted assists differently back then, I forget which years it was though.

Watch on YouTube

There's been some odd pro-Baylor arguments made - but this is one of the strangest. Since this is about peaks, he peaked at PER & Ws/48 in '61 so let's use that.

In '61, he finished 2nd in fga to Wilt & was 6 fga/gm ahead of 3rd. This was West's rookie year and he wasn't as heavily involved yet. Baylor was 8th in apg and was 52% of 1st.

By contrast, Lebron was 2nd this year & 89% of 1st (since Baylor is being called the Lebron of the 60's). That's not really at all comparable. It's also noteworthy that they lost to Pettit's Hawks this year.

In terms of running the offense.

I get that in later years - particularly post knee injury - West was the one running the offense. But in the early years & pre-West - there is nothing about the team performance that indicates Baylor augmented the team performance at a high level - furthermore when you have the ball as much as Baylor did, it's hard to say you don't have a heavy influence on how the offense is structured.

[Jiminy Glick]

There's been some odd pro-Baylor arguments made - but this is one of the strangest. Since this is about peaks, he peaked at PER & Ws/48 in '61 so let's use that.

In '61, he finished 2nd in fga to Wilt & was 6 fga/gm ahead of 3rd. This was West's rookie year and he wasn't as heavily involved yet. Baylor was 8th in apg and was 52% of 1st.

By contrast, Lebron was 2nd this year & 89% of 1st (since Baylor is being called the Lebron of the 60's). That's not really at all comparable. It's also noteworthy that they lost to Pettit's Hawks this year.

In terms of running the offense.

I get that in later years - particularly post knee injury - West was the one running the offense. But in the early years & pre-West - there is nothing about the team performance that indicates Baylor augmented the team performance at a high level - furthermore when you have the ball as much as Baylor did, it's hard to say you don't have a heavy influence on how the offense is structured.

That is true.

[70sFan]

I definitely agree that Elgin is underrared. Terrific scorer with one of the most versatile scoring skillset I've ever seen. People talk about his inefficiency but in reality when he was in his prime (until injuries) he was clearly above average in rTS% and he improved in playoffs. He reminds me Kobe in that way that he's not the most efficient scorer but he's unstoppable due to variety of ways to score the basket.
I also agree that he's great passer for a forward. He's also one of the best ballhandlers I've ever seen at SF position. He could really play as a lead ballhandler in stretches. That wasn't used often because West was better at running the offense than him, but he could do that.
Another thing is his rebounding ability. Adjusted to pace, he's still among the very best at SF position and this ability didn't leave him after 1965.

On the other hand, I can't agree with some points. He's clearly not as good as Oscar and even in terms of peaks, Big O was definitely better offensive player.
He's not LeBron of the 1960s, he's secondary superstar of this decade behind Russell, Wilt, Oscar and West. He's in tier with Bob Pettit and Barkley comparison impact-wise is quite good. Certainly great player at his peak, but a bit below the very best.
Lastly, his longevity is too weak to be even considered over West or Oscar. I don't agree that he became trash after 1965, that's not true. He became Melo-level player from Barkley-level player though, that's significant dropoff.

[Johnlac1]

Super overrated. Had 4 or 5 good peak years in the very early days of the league. Never managed to win a single ring which is like never going to the conference finals in an 8-team league. Basically just a bulk scorer who wasn’t particularly efficient and didn’t create for others or contribute anything significant on defense.

He was a better ballhandler and passer than West, and one of top rebounders in the league despite being only 6'5.
Baylor did take a lot of low percentage shots when that was common.
But at the age of 35 during the '69-70 season he averaged about 24 ppg, 10 rebounds while shooting close to 49% from the floor.
The Lakers barely missed titles with West and Baylor four times......'62,'66,'69, '70.
But while West and Baylor were the only superstars on the Lakers, the Celtics usually had three. Plus, Red Auerback outclassed all the other coaches and GMs in the league.
Just a fluke that Baylor didn't end up with at least two three titles. It was one of the NBA's biggest ironies that the Lakers won a title in '72 while Baylor had retired earlier in the season.

[iggymcfrack]

Super overrated. Had 4 or 5 good peak years in the very early days of the league. Never managed to win a single ring which is like never going to the conference finals in an 8-team league. Basically just a bulk scorer who wasn’t particularly efficient and didn’t create for others or contribute anything significant on defense.

He was a better ballhandler and passer than West, and one of top rebounders in the league despite being only 6'5.
Baylor did take a lot of low percentage shots when that was common.
But at the age of 35 during the '69-70 season he averaged about 24 ppg, 10 rebounds while shooting close to 49% from the floor.
The Lakers barely missed titles with West and Baylor four times......'62,'66,'69, '70.
But while West and Baylor were the only superstars on the Lakers, the Celtics usually had three. Plus, Red Auerback outclassed all the other coaches and GMs in the league.
Just a fluke that Baylor didn't end up with at least two three titles. It was one of the NBA's biggest ironies that the Lakers won a title in '72 while Baylor had retired earlier in the season.

You’ve gotta really be stretching the definition of “superstar” to get to 3. I’d say more like 1.5. Bill Russell obviously and then maaaaaybe you can count Sam Jones in the early years and Havlicek a year or two at the end. A lot of those Celtics players get more credit than they deserve though just because the Lakers choked against them/weren’t good enough to beat them year after year. Replace Elgin Baylor with someone like Scottie Pippen, and maybe the Celtics only ever win 4 or 5 rings and people like KC Jones and Tommy Heinsohn are just lots footnotes in the annals of history.

[migya]

Super overrated. Had 4 or 5 good peak years in the very early days of the league. Never managed to win a single ring which is like never going to the conference finals in an 8-team league. Basically just a bulk scorer who wasn’t particularly efficient and didn’t create for others or contribute anything significant on defense.

He was a better ballhandler and passer than West, and one of top rebounders in the league despite being only 6'5.
Baylor did take a lot of low percentage shots when that was common.
But at the age of 35 during the '69-70 season he averaged about 24 ppg, 10 rebounds while shooting close to 49% from the floor.
The Lakers barely missed titles with West and Baylor four times......'62,'66,'69, '70.
But while West and Baylor were the only superstars on the Lakers, the Celtics usually had three. Plus, Red Auerback outclassed all the other coaches and GMs in the league.
Just a fluke that Baylor didn't end up with at least two three titles. It was one of the NBA's biggest ironies that the Lakers won a title in '72 while Baylor had retired earlier in the season.

You’ve gotta really be stretching the definition of “superstar” to get to 3. I’d say more like 1.5. Bill Russell obviously and then maaaaaybe you can count Sam Jones in the early years and Havlicek a year or two at the end. A lot of those Celtics players get more credit than they deserve though just because the Lakers choked against them/weren’t good enough to beat them year after year. Replace Elgin Baylor with someone like Scottie Pippen, and maybe the Celtics only ever win 4 or 5 rings and people like KC Jones and Tommy Heinsohn are just lots footnotes in the annals of history.

Kidding? Boston had the best roster for years, that's why they won so much. Sam Jones was a star without doubt in his days and Havlicek is considered by many to be ahead of Pippen and Erving among SFs alltime. Cousy was a star and the first true great PG.

[iggymcfrack]

He was a better ballhandler and passer than West, and one of top rebounders in the league despite being only 6'5.
Baylor did take a lot of low percentage shots when that was common.
But at the age of 35 during the '69-70 season he averaged about 24 ppg, 10 rebounds while shooting close to 49% from the floor.
The Lakers barely missed titles with West and Baylor four times......'62,'66,'69, '70.
But while West and Baylor were the only superstars on the Lakers, the Celtics usually had three. Plus, Red Auerback outclassed all the other coaches and GMs in the league.
Just a fluke that Baylor didn't end up with at least two three titles. It was one of the NBA's biggest ironies that the Lakers won a title in '72 while Baylor had retired earlier in the season.

You’ve gotta really be stretching the definition of “superstar” to get to 3. I’d say more like 1.5. Bill Russell obviously and then maaaaaybe you can count Sam Jones in the early years and Havlicek a year or two at the end. A lot of those Celtics players get more credit than they deserve though just because the Lakers choked against them/weren’t good enough to beat them year after year. Replace Elgin Baylor with someone like Scottie Pippen, and maybe the Celtics only ever win 4 or 5 rings and people like KC Jones and Tommy Heinsohn are just lots footnotes in the annals of history.

Kidding? Boston had the best roster for years, that's why they won so much. Sam Jones was a star without doubt in his days and Havlicek is considered by many to be ahead of Pippen and Erving among SFs alltime. Cousy was a star and the first true great PG.

By the time Baylor entered the league, Cousy was nothing special. He had a playoff PER of 15.2 for the 5 seasons they played together. Havlicek's not considered a better SF than Pippen and Erving by anyone but idiots and 70s stans, and he didn't really peak until '70 when Baylor was already 35. If that's Baylor's excuse for not winning a ring, it's pretty weak.

[migya]

You’ve gotta really be stretching the definition of “superstar” to get to 3. I’d say more like 1.5. Bill Russell obviously and then maaaaaybe you can count Sam Jones in the early years and Havlicek a year or two at the end. A lot of those Celtics players get more credit than they deserve though just because the Lakers choked against them/weren’t good enough to beat them year after year. Replace Elgin Baylor with someone like Scottie Pippen, and maybe the Celtics only ever win 4 or 5 rings and people like KC Jones and Tommy Heinsohn are just lots footnotes in the annals of history.

Kidding? Boston had the best roster for years, that's why they won so much. Sam Jones was a star without doubt in his days and Havlicek is considered by many to be ahead of Pippen and Erving among SFs alltime. Cousy was a star and the first true great PG.

By the time Baylor entered the league, Cousy was nothing special. He had a playoff PER of 15.2 for the 5 seasons they played together. Havlicek's not considered a better SF than Pippen and Erving by anyone but idiots and 70s stans, and he didn't really peak until '70 when Baylor was already 35. If that's Baylor's excuse for not winning a ring, it's pretty weak.

Suppose Stockton, Karl Malone, Barkley, Ewing, CP and Iverson are also not stars because they couldn't win a championship..........

[iggymcfrack]

Kidding? Boston had the best roster for years, that's why they won so much. Sam Jones was a star without doubt in his days and Havlicek is considered by many to be ahead of Pippen and Erving among SFs alltime. Cousy was a star and the first true great PG.

By the time Baylor entered the league, Cousy was nothing special. He had a playoff PER of 15.2 for the 5 seasons they played together. Havlicek's not considered a better SF than Pippen and Erving by anyone but idiots and 70s stans, and he didn't really peak until '70 when Baylor was already 35. If that's Baylor's excuse for not winning a ring, it's pretty weak.

Suppose Stockton, Karl Malone, Barkley, Ewing, CP and Iverson are also not stars because they couldn't win a championship..........

All of them except Paul made the Finals in a 27+ team league and Paul basically made the Finals last year. That's like winning a ring in the '60s. The point is that Baylor only had to beat one good team to win a ring each year and he still failed. Elgin Baylor never beat one single 50-win team in the playoffs his entire career.