RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #30 (Walt Frazier)

[DQuinn1575]

I think it's the right time to consider Artis Gilmore - he's good mention for both longevity and peak guys.

He played 1329 games in his career and only his last season was meaningless - even as an 37 years old man he posted healthy 17/9/2 in 34 mpg, along with 17 PER, 66 TS% and .143 WS/48. He made also an all-star team.

Before Gilmore, Kentucky led by Dampier and Issel were 44-40 team with good offense and poor defense. Rookie Gilmore was drafted and 1972 Colonels became 68-16 team with -4.4 defense (giant +7 leap). He posted 24/18/3/5 on 62 TS% as a rookie and won the MVP award.

They lost in playoffs against Rick Barry led NY Nets team in 6 games, but Gilmore played fantastic. He posted 22/18/4 on 61 TS% and shut down Billy Paultz to 13 ppg on 45 TS%, but Issel shot 41% from the field (48 TS%) and they lost in a close series. Gilmore posted 24/18 on 80 TS% in deciding game by the way.

I don't have any rookie Gilmore game, but you can see him here battling with Chamberlain:

Watch on YouTube

As for peak, he led dominant Colonels team (58 wins, -6.4 defense) to the title in 1975 while posting 24/18/3 on 60 TS% in playoffs. It was one of the best individual seasons in NBA history:

Watch on YouTube

Then his team lost Issel and he put up 24/15/2 on 65 TS% in playoffs, including narrow 7 games loss against much better Nuggets team.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

If you don't value ABA highly, then keep in mind that Gilmore wasn't bad in NBA at all. In his first season, he had to adjust to the NBA: in the first 16 games Bulls went 2-14 and Gilmore averaged only 17/13 on 52 TS%. After this very rough start, Bulls went 42-24 (52 wins pace, which would be 2nd in the league) in remaining games. This includes the second part of the season when Bulls went 27-14 (54 wins pace, the best in the league) when Gilmore averaged 21/14/3 on 60 TS% in only 37 mpg. He was MVP candidate in that season, but he wasn't recognised as such because of his and Bulls poor start. Then he went h2h against peak Bill Walton and played on even terms despite having significantly weaker supporting cast:

Watch on YouTube

In next two years, Gilmore averaged 23/13/3/2 on 61 TS% but his team got worse and worse. The last time he was the leader of strong team was in 1981 when similar situation to 1977 happened - Bulls had slow start with 10-19 record. They finished the season with 35-18 record (54 wins pace) and beating very solid Knicks team in playoffs. Then they got swept in playoffs by future champions, but I don't think you can have it against Gilmore. Gilmore averaged 18/10/2 on 70 TS% in this season and 18/11/2 on 64 TS% in playoffs.

Watch on YouTube

The last highlight of Gilmore's postseason play was his WCF series against Kareem in 1983 when he held his own against Jabbar with 20/14/2/3 on 62 TS% series. Spurs lost a close series in 6 games, but Gilmore got better and better, outplaying Jabbar in last two games:

Watch on YouTube

Gilmore is legitimate candidate at this point, as I don't think he's clearly worse player than Ewing and his longevity is even better.

What do you think about Gilmore? Do you think he wasn't good enough at his peak? If so, why?

I discount the ABA level of play, especially at center, as besides GIlmore the other 6-7 best centers were all in the NBA - besides Jabbar there is Unseld, Cowens, Reed, McAdoo - all of whom were NBA MVPs, as well as Lanier, Hayes. Looking at his win shares per 48 it goes from .226 to .174. Still pretty good, but real comparable to Lanier at .173 for example. and Dwight Howard weighs in at .173 and Mourning at .166 for example. Zelmo Beaty, who was an above average center in the NBA, competed well with Mel Daniels, his ws/48 was .157 then went to .264 and .232 first two ABA years.
Artis didn't have great team success, although not with great teams. The Bulls ended 77 with a 20-4 run, and he played well, but couldnt extend that the following year. In 81 he was teamed with Kenon, Theus, and Greenwood, but the team had limited success.
So I don't think the group that includes Cowens, Reed, Lanier, Mourning, Howard, Parish, GIlmore rate over Harden, Pippen, Havlicek, Frazier. And peak wise I would have Reed and Cowens peakwise over GIlmore, but have to look at combination of peak and career. I'm still at the point where I ask myself, can an NBA team win a title with this guy as the best player on the team? It's yes for Frazier, Havlicek, Cowens, Reed - I think it is yes for Harden.

[DQuinn1575]

I'm putting up a vote for Harden; he has 9 elite years in the modern era, and has been a scoring and passing machine. Team success hasn't been there, which is what keeps him from being ranked higher. But tons of points, efficiency, and playmaking. I think he is best choice out there. He was mvp, and has operated at the level of Curry, Durant, Paul, contemporaries who are all in. He has the best resume of any current player left, and right now the current era is probably the most underrepresented.

Havlicek is Pippen except he comes through in the clutch. Realized he led championship teams in playoff win shares both before and after Frazier - 3 times, which nobody else on the board is close to. All-around guy, played guard or forward,
great defender, played as piece of a team, or leader of a team. The guy did everything right, has longevity. Great athlete, just missed making the NFL, was in last cut of Cleveland Browns.

I'm taking Walt Frazier third - I need to look at the candidates closer, but love the combination of scoring, defense, and playmaking. He had a major impact in an era with some great Laker, Buck, Knick, Bullets team, and is one of the best two way players ever.

1. Harden
2. Havlicek
3. Frazier

[70sFan]

1st vote: Scottie Pippen
With Pettit, Mikan, and Curry already off the table, I'm pretty set on Pip as my #1 pick here.

Was he a great scorer? No, he wasn't......but he was a good one.
Was he a great rebounding SF? No, he wasn't......but he was a [really] good one.
Was he a great playmaking SF? Here I'd hedge toward yes. Not Lebron-level, or Bird-level either; but REALLY damn good in this regard. A stronger feature than his scoring or rebounding, imo.
Was he a great defensive SF? Duh.

Add all those things up, and this becomes somewhat the ultimate utility knife, and someone who is pretty portable on excellent teams, too. He's got the rep of the GOAT #2 for how he meshed with Jordan to form a dynasty.
He didn't mesh half-bad [at least in terms of play-style] with a contender/near-contender Rockets team, despite being arguably past his prime.
Then he meshed well as a MAJOR contributor with a contender-level Blazer team [despite being more definitively past his prime].

The end result has left him 13th all-time in playoff WS (NBA and ABA) and 8th in playoff VORP [since 1973]; he's 45th and 24th, respectively, in the rs in those metrics.
In his late prime and early post-prime, his league rank in RAPM was 6th in '97, 21st in '98, tied for 30th in '99, still solid [+2.5] in '00.
His rs pseudo-APM rank in '94-'96 were 18th, 5th, and 4th in the league.

And overall 15 seasons of actual "value added" for his career.


2nd vote: Elgin Baylor
Have been tossing around a lot of names [the circa-30 region of my ATL is VERY much a floating order.....I could see going a lot of different ways]. But I've decided I'm going with Baylor.
I think he's often dinged [around here] for being clearly a tier below his teammate Jerry West.......but West went in 17 places ago, so I don't think it's unreasonable at all to give Elgin some serious consideration here.

Ironically, I feel like his '62 campaign in particular exemplifies how good he was. This was the year he was mostly away from the team in service for the Army Reserves: so he didn't get to work-out or practice with the teams, only got to play a limited games. Fun story as to how big a deal Baylor was to fans: apparently the box-office would get calls ahead of Laker games asking if Baylor was playing that night......and games he dressed for averaged ~3,000 more fans [iirc] than the ones he missed.

Despite the unusual circumstances, Baylor averaged an absurd 38.3/18.6/4.6 per game.
Yes, pace was crazy. But still, even in pace adjusted per 100 possessions this came to an estimated 33.6 pts (@ +1.34% rTS), 16.3 reb, 4.1 ast, while playing a ridiculous 44.4 mpg.
And it's hard to ascribe little impact to this: the Lakers were 17-15 (which would be on pace for 43-44 wins in an 82-game season) without him, but 37-11 (on pace for just over 63 wins in an 82-game season) with him. Adding 20 wins to an already decent team is no small achievement.

This is also the year Baylor averaged 40.6 ppg (@ +3.1% rTS), 17.9 rpg, and 3.7 apg in the NBA Finals against Russell and the Celtics, taking them to 7 games (and losing game 7 by just 3 pts). This was the series in which [in game 5] Baylor scored an efficient 61 pts, while also grabbing 22 rebound [no one else not named Bill Russell was in within even 10 rebounds of him] in a 5-pt Laker victory.

And overall he's just got a lot of years in which he was really filling that stat-sheet, respectable WOWYR for this stage of the project, too. Led the Lakers to an unlikely finals appearance in his rookie year with really no noteworthy supporting cast, a number of accolades, and steady high-praise from contemporaries.
It's robust enough of a resume I've decided to go with him here.


3rd vote: Jason Kidd
Let me be the first to break the ice on another longevity giant. I could be swayed off of him. As I said above there are a number of names I'm tossing around, and this region of my list is very fluid. Although I'd like to see Pippen get this spot, I'd be more or less content with any one of Harden, Havlicek, or Gilmore, too.

I'm not quite ready for Reggie Miller yet, despite him being one of my all-time favorite players (I wore #31 for my highschool team, after Reggie Miller). If it comes to a runoff between Harden and anyone, I'll side with Harden EXCEPT against Havlicek......there I'm [for now] going with John by a hair.

I know that you are big on longevity and you rate defense higher than most, so could you explain me why do you leave Hondo from the list yet and why Baylor over him? It's an honest question, is there anything you don't like about Havlicek game or his career?

[Dutchball97]

Didn't have Ewing on my ballot so my vote remains the same as last round.

1. Kawhi Leonard - I value Kawhi's 2019 run very highly. Sure, he benefitted from having a solid team around him but if we're going to dicsount Kawhi's role for the Raptors you could just as well disqualify any player who isn't the primary ballhandler from this list. He was scoring like MJ, played great defense and had some amazing clutch moments. I think he has an argument for a top 15 peak with the 2019 season. It's not just a one-off like with Walton and Rose either. 2016, 2017 and 2020 are all very high level seasons and I'm higher on 2013-2015 Kawhi than most. If we're going to count seasons like 2013 and 2014 Curry as significant boosters in longevity, it'd be unfair to not do the same for Kawhi's early Spurs years. I understand the longevity advantage for players like Ewing and Harden is still too much for some but compared to other players with primes of around 5-7 years Kawhi really doesn't give up much on that front.

2. Elgin Baylor - Used to be really high on Baylor, then my view of him was tempered a bit by him arguably holding West and the Lakers as a whole back. Now I'm somewhere in the middle. Baylor was a truely elite player early on and after a disappointing couple of injury riddled years, he did also have a fairly strong end to his career.

3. Walt Frazier - I'm staying consistent with the type of careers I'm looking at here. Kawhi, Baylor and Frazier all have relatively short primes but they also all have in common that the good years they do have are ridiculously high level. I might switch Baylor and Frazier around for next round if I see some strong arguments for Frazier but the main thing is that Reed took the leading role early for the Knicks, while Baylor did his best work with West still coming up in the league. Other than that I think their primes are very similar with a consistency edge to Frazier.

[70sFan]

I discount the ABA level of play, especially at center, as besides GIlmore the other 6-7 best centers were all in the NBA - besides Jabbar there is Unseld, Cowens, Reed, McAdoo - all of whom were NBA MVPs, as well as Lanier, Hayes.

I mean, it depends on how you look at this.

Firstly, I don't see any reason to include Willis Reed who wasn't even all-star during Gilmore's career -he was done when Artis was a rookie.

Secondly, although I agree that center position was inarguably more stacked in the NBA, the ABA had more names than you give them credit for:

Zelmo Beaty
Mel Daniels
Dan Issel
Swen Nater

Beaty played in both leagues and had excellent career - better player than Hayes in my opinion. Nater wasn't all-timer, but he was solid in the NBA and in the ABA. There are others who adjusted well to the NBA - Billy Paultz, young Moses, Caldwell Jones...

Looking at his win shares per 48 it goes from .226 to .174. Still pretty good, but real comparable to Lanier at .173 for example. and Dwight Howard weighs in at .173 and Mourning at .166 for example.

I mean, you're comparing 1972-76 Gilmore to 1977-88 Gilmore. You include most of his past prime years and act like it's apples to apples comparison.

Here is the difference in advanced stats between the closest years:

PER:

1975: 22.6
1976: 23.5
1977: 21.6
1978: 23.5

WS/48:

1975: .222
1976: .220
1977: .203
1978: .188

BPM:

1975: 4.9
1976: 4.7
1977: 4.2
1978: 4.1

I mean, there is a difference but you have to keep in mind that Gilmore had far more talented team in Kentucky and WS are closely related to team success.

Also, I already mentioned that Gilmore had to adjust for the NBA at the beginning of 1976/77 season. Excluding rough start, he posted basically the same stats in 1977 and 1978 as he did in the ABA when you factor differences in pace and minutes.

Zelmo Beaty, who was an above average center in the NBA, competed well with Mel Daniels, his ws/48 was .157 then went to .264 and .232 first two ABA years.

Zelmo Beaty was 2 times all-star who reached his prime around 1968. Calling him above average center is an understatement.

So I don't think the group that includes Cowens, Reed, Lanier, Mourning, Howard, Parish, GIlmore rate over Harden, Pippen, Havlicek, Frazier.

I wouldn't have Mourning, Reed and Parish in the same tier as Cowens, Lanied, Gilmore and Howard. First two lacks longevity, Parish is clearly the worst player here.

And peak wise I would have Reed and Cowens peakwise over GIlmore, but have to look at combination of peak and career.

What's the case for Cowens over Gilmore peak-wise? I'm asking seriously.

I'm still at the point where I ask myself, can an NBA team win a title with this guy as the best player on the team? It's yes for Frazier, Havlicek, Cowens, Reed - I think it is yes for Harden.

Sorry, but you basically reward Reed for playing with stacked Knicks team and Cowens for playing with Havlicek and excellent roleplayers. Are going to tell me that Reed or Cowens would have got 1979 Bulls to the playoffs? Reed didn't have much success before his team got better, that's how it works. Gilmore had a lot of success in Kentucky because he had a great team, but Chicago had poorly structed roster and they were a poorly run franchise.

Past prime Gilmore almost led 1983 Spurs to the finals because for the first time in the NBA he had decent team around him.

You also ignore huge longevity advantage Gilmore has over all of the mentioned names.

[penbeast0]

...
I wouldn't have Mourning, Reed and Parish in the same tier as Cowens, Lanied, Gilmore and Howard. First two lacks longevity, Parish is clearly the worst player here....

I have Lanier behind Parish (and possibly others); he didn't look clueless and he could block shots but he didn't generally look high energy or engaged on that end like a Parish or Reed. He was one of those players who saved his energy for offense. There's a reason why, despite his great numbers, he was never selected to an All-NBA team (in addition to playing in the same league as Kareem which is arguably the biggest factor).

And indeed, his offensive stats were always excellent, but his defensive ratings outside of 1974 aren't impressive. Not a huge fan of Drtg but then you look at his team results and his Detroit teams were consistently poor defensively outside of 74 despite good defenders like Curtis Rowe. Don Adams, and Chris Ford. This is a center dominated age where most teams ran some variation of a post offense. I don't know what happened in 74, scouting reports talk about him dedicating himself to defense and then stay positive for a couple more years despite the team results going back to poor. I think of him as the Karl Anthony Towns of his day (though his defense was better than KATs) which is still a top 100 player, just not as high as you seem to rate him.

His first full year as a starter they were 16th/17 though they were bad before he came too. When Detroit traded him to Milwaukee, Detroit went from 15th/22, to 19th the year he was traded but then the first year he was gone all year rebounded to 7th in the league, their first top 10 year since 74 starting the immortal Kent Benson. Meanwhile, in Milwaukee, he was being platooned offense/defense with defensive specialist Harvey Catchings and then Alton Lister when Nelson wasn't playing small ball with someone like Pat Cummings or Mickey Johnson. Lanier was a great player, but he wasn't a great or even above average defender in my book.

[70sFan]

I have Lanier behind Parish (and possibly others); he didn't look clueless and he could block shots but he didn't generally look high energy or engaged on that end like a Parish or Reed. He was one of those players who saved his energy for offense. There's a reason why, despite his great numbers, he was never selected to an All-NBA team (in addition to playing in the same league as Kareem which is arguably the biggest factor).

I'd say that the main reason is him playing on much weaker teams than someone like Cowens.

And indeed, his offensive stats were always excellent, but his defensive ratings outside of 1974 aren't impressive. Not a huge fan of Drtg but then you look at his team results and his Detroit teams were consistently poor defensively outside of 74 despite good defenders like Curtis Rowe. Don Adams, and Chris Ford. This is a center dominated age where most teams ran some variation of a post offense. I don't know what happened in 74, scouting reports talk about him dedicating himself to defense and then stay positive for a couple more years despite the team results going back to poor.

It's true that Pistons teams were usually poor defensively, but I don't think you can count it against Lanier to the point of having him below someone like Parish. Lanier missed many games in his best seasons and the team was absolutely terrible without him. Besides, look at Pistons in 1980 when they traded Lanier - they became far worse on both ends of the floor. Milwaukee got far better for what it's worth and although I wouldn't give Lanier a lot of credit for that, he fit very well defensively in these 1980s Bucks teams.

By the way, Parish also anchored some weak Warriors teams defenses before he came to Boston (in particular 1980).

I think of him as the Karl Anthony Towns of his day (though his defense was better than KATs) which is still a top 100 player, just not as high as you seem to rate him.

I'd call his situation closer to Anthony Davis in Pelicans - Davis was never bad defensively yet Pelicans were terrible more times than not. I don't say that Lanier is as good as Davis defensively, but from what I've seen he was definitely above average.

His first full year as a starter they were 16th/17 though they were bad before he came too. When Detroit traded him to Milwaukee, Detroit went from 15th/22, to 19th the year he was traded but then the first year he was gone all year rebounded to 7th in the league, their first top 10 year since 74 starting the immortal Kent Benson. Meanwhile, in Milwaukee, he was being platooned offense/defense with defensive specialist Harvey Catchings and then Alton Lister when Nelson wasn't playing small ball with someone like Pat Cummings or Mickey Johnson. Lanier was a great player, but he wasn't a great or even above average defender in my book.

The difference between 1979 and 1980 Pistons defensively is much bigger than 4 spots:

1979 Pistons: +0.8 defense
1980 Pistons: +3.5 defense

There is more to that - here are opponents points scored before and after Lanier trade:

1980 Pistons with Lanier: 114.4 points allowed (+1.5 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
1980 Pistons without Lanier: 119.5 points allowed (+6.3 rDRtg assuming the same pace)

We don't have DRtgs for these samples unfortunately but I don't think Pistons played much faster without Lanier, certainly not to the point hat 5 ppg difference is insignifiant.

Actually, we can do the same for all Lanier seasons when he missed games:

1976 Pistons with Lanier: 106.8 points allowed (+3.2 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
1976 Pistons without Lanier: 103.5 points allowed (-0.1 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
3.3 worse

1977 Pistons with Lanier: 109.8 points allowed (+1.4 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
1977 Pistons without Lanier: 112.7 points allowed (+4.1 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
2.9 better

1978 Pistons with Lanier: 108.2 points allowed (-0.4 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
1978 Pistons without Lanier: 116.9 points allowed (+7.6 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
8.7 better

1979 Pistons with Lanier: 111.7 points allowed (+0.4 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
1979 Pistons without Lanier: 114.6 points allowed (+3.1 rDRtg assuming the same pace)
2.9 better

Lanier consistently made Pistons team better defensively (outside of 1976). In fact, Pistons were around average with Lanier in that period and absolutely terrible without him (again, assuming pace stays the same without Lanier). Granted, it's a rough estimate but I don't think we should count Pistons defensive weakness against Lanier.

[Owly]

...
I wouldn't have Mourning, Reed and Parish in the same tier as Cowens, Lanied, Gilmore and Howard. First two lacks longevity, Parish is clearly the worst player here....

I have Lanier behind Parish (and possibly others); he didn't look clueless and he could block shots but he didn't generally look high energy or engaged on that end like a Parish or Reed. He was one of those players who saved his energy for offense. There's a reason why, despite his great numbers, he was never selected to an All-NBA team (in addition to playing in the same league as Kareem which is arguably the biggest factor).

And indeed, his offensive stats were always excellent, but his defensive ratings outside of 1974 aren't impressive. Not a huge fan of Drtg but then you look at his team results and his Detroit teams were consistently poor defensively outside of 74 despite good defenders like Curtis Rowe. Don Adams, and Chris Ford. This is a center dominated age where most teams ran some variation of a post offense. I don't know what happened in 74, scouting reports talk about him dedicating himself to defense and then stay positive for a couple more years despite the team results going back to poor. I think of him as the Karl Anthony Towns of his day (though his defense was better than KATs) which is still a top 100 player, just not as high as you seem to rate him.

His first full year as a starter they were 16th/17 though they were bad before he came too. When Detroit traded him to Milwaukee, Detroit went from 15th/22, to 19th the year he was traded but then the first year he was gone all year rebounded to 7th in the league, their first top 10 year since 74 starting the immortal Kent Benson. Meanwhile, in Milwaukee, he was being platooned offense/defense with defensive specialist Harvey Catchings and then Alton Lister when Nelson wasn't playing small ball with someone like Pat Cummings or Mickey Johnson. Lanier was a great player, but he wasn't a great or even above average defender in my book.

You know we differ on Lanier ...

Outside of the one year he led the league...
The Hollander handbooks remain pretty constantly positive after '74 (when he lost some weight), not really just a couple of years.

The Bucks in net in year improvement upon Lanier's arrival is huge suggesting at worst non-harmful at that point on that end (versus Benson, I suppose ... and therefore circa, otoh, 10ppg better at at team offense level). Comparing versus '81 is a bit off given (a) other turnover from '79 or other Lanier Detroit teams (McAdoo basically gone, Long minutes way down [both bad defenders reputationaly and I would think especially at this point], Douglas gone, Money gone, coach changed, never mind internal turnover within '79) and the manner in which Detroit improved (elite turnover forcers in '81, not exactly a centers job).

Then too the fg% never seems to be the problem it's excessive fouling and sometimes not forcing turnovers. Lanier doesn't seem at a glance, to be the problem in either respect though I haven't delved deep (Douglas, K Porter, Eberhard and Money the worst fouling culprits).

You're pretty bullish on Curt Rowe too. He has all the same team level problems, more reputational teammate problems, lesser boxscore defense, though at least he isn't fouling, and his mixed defensive rep seems better in Detroit worse later [v limited sample here).

I don't think Lanier was put in a position to look good in terms of turnover, coaching turnover, coaching quality and teammates in these latter Pistons years.

His absence from All-NBA is very explainable, 2 teams, Kareem and various others as very strong competition often with better teams and so better team success and - a more genuine negative, though one that illustrated his net value in WoWY metrics - an inability to get to 70 games in many of his best years.

The better case for Parish is an underrated peak (led Boston in PER in '81) and longevity of quality (though you might have to not weight playoffs as high as most do, he trends down quite badly and has just two playoffs north of 20 PER, ditto .160 WS/48. whilst his two biggest minute runs trend around league average in boxscore composites).

[No-more-rings]

Since we're at the point where Walt Fraizer seems to be getting decent traction, i don't really understand why he tends to get overrated in these projects and often gets push in or close to the top 30. Yeah he went 38th in 2017 that seems more fair, but went 28th in 2014. I think he gets too much credit for the Knicks finals runs and titles. He's certainly one of the greatest defenders ever at point guard, but still likely below the Kidd/Payton level though Kidd's very likely 1st. I'm not sure he's that much better than Chris Paul honestly. His longevity is really lacking compared to a lot of guys, and i just don't see what's so special about his peak.

Those Knicks were pretty well balanced and deep teams, they didn't win because Frazier played at some all time great level. How impactful was his offense exactly? Reed was their defensive anchor, and since there's such a precedence on team ORTG anchored by guards in this project the Knicks were sometimes good but sometimes not and never special. 1970: 5th of 14 in ORTG, 1971: 8th of 17, 1972: 7th of 17, 1973: 3rd of 17, 1974: 10th of 17, 1975: 12th of 18, 1976 12th of 18.

On top Frazier's offense also doesn't strike me as that impressive in an all time sense. Also, i don't think we should ignore that that 1970-75 period was one the weakest eras in terms of both great teams and all time great players. Bill Russell was out of the league, Wilt was past his prime and then out of the league. Oscar was past his prime then out of the league, same for Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. Frazier's competition for all nba teams which he made 5 first teams so congrats to him, he was sometimes competing with guys like Nate Archibald, Pete Maravich and Jo Jo White. So i'ma say i don't think he'd make a single 1st team if his prime overlapped with Oscar and West.

Compare that to James Harden who i don't see Frazier's argument over him at all, made 6 first teams while constantly competing with Steph Curry, Westbrook, Cp3, Dame Lillard, Klay Thompson, Kyle Lowry and a few times some guys like Oladipo, Isaiah Thomas, Kemba Walker, Kyrie Irving etc. Harden made 1st team 6 out of 7 years against all that. Harden has played at a superstar level at least as long as Frazier, and simply blows him away as an offensive force.

[penbeast0]

Since we're at the point where Walt Fraizer seems to be getting decent traction, i don't really understand why he tends to get overrated in these projects and often gets push in or close to the top 30. Yeah he went 38th in 2017 that seems more fair, but went 28th in 2014. I think he gets too much credit for the Knicks finals runs and titles. He's certainly one of the greatest defenders ever at point guard, but still likely below the Kidd/Payton level though Kidd's very likely 1st. I'm not sure he's that much better than Chris Paul honestly. His longevity is really lacking compared to a lot of guys, and i just don't see what's so special about his peak.

Those Knicks were pretty well balanced and deep teams, they didn't win because Frazier played at some all time great level. How impactful was his offense exactly? Reed was their defensive anchor, and since there's such a precedence on team ORTG anchored by guards in this project the Knicks were sometimes good but sometimes not and never special. 1970: 5th of 14 in ORTG, 1971: 8th of 14, 1972: 7th of 14, 1973: 3rd of 17, 1974: 10th of 17, 1975: 12th of 18, 1976 12th of 18.

On top Frazier's offense also doesn't strike me as that impressive in an all time sense. Also, i don't think we should ignore that that 1970-75 period was one the weakest eras in terms of both great teams and all time great players. Bill Russell was out of the league, Wilt was past his prime and then out of the league. Oscar was past his prime then out of the league, same for Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. Frazier's competition for all nba teams which he made 5 first teams so congrats to him, he was sometimes competing with guys like Nate Archibald, Pete Maravich and Jo Jo White. So i'ma say i don't think he'd make a single 1st team if his prime overlapped with Oscar and West.

Compare that to James Harden who i don't see Frazier's argument over him at all, made 6 first teams while constantly competing with Steph Curry, Westbrook, Cp3, Dame Lillard, Klay Thompson, Kyle Lowry and a few times some guys like Oladipo, Isaiah Thomas, Kemba Walker, Kyrie Irving etc. Harden made 1st team 6 out of 7 years against all that. Harden has played at a superstar level at least as long as Frazier, and simply blows him away as an offensive force.

In the regular season . . .

[No-more-rings]

Since we're at the point where Walt Fraizer seems to be getting decent traction, i don't really understand why he tends to get overrated in these projects and often gets push in or close to the top 30. Yeah he went 38th in 2017 that seems more fair, but went 28th in 2014. I think he gets too much credit for the Knicks finals runs and titles. He's certainly one of the greatest defenders ever at point guard, but still likely below the Kidd/Payton level though Kidd's very likely 1st. I'm not sure he's that much better than Chris Paul honestly. His longevity is really lacking compared to a lot of guys, and i just don't see what's so special about his peak.

Those Knicks were pretty well balanced and deep teams, they didn't win because Frazier played at some all time great level. How impactful was his offense exactly? Reed was their defensive anchor, and since there's such a precedence on team ORTG anchored by guards in this project the Knicks were sometimes good but sometimes not and never special. 1970: 5th of 14 in ORTG, 1971: 8th of 14, 1972: 7th of 14, 1973: 3rd of 17, 1974: 10th of 17, 1975: 12th of 18, 1976 12th of 18.

On top Frazier's offense also doesn't strike me as that impressive in an all time sense. Also, i don't think we should ignore that that 1970-75 period was one the weakest eras in terms of both great teams and all time great players. Bill Russell was out of the league, Wilt was past his prime and then out of the league. Oscar was past his prime then out of the league, same for Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. Frazier's competition for all nba teams which he made 5 first teams so congrats to him, he was sometimes competing with guys like Nate Archibald, Pete Maravich and Jo Jo White. So i'ma say i don't think he'd make a single 1st team if his prime overlapped with Oscar and West.

Compare that to James Harden who i don't see Frazier's argument over him at all, made 6 first teams while constantly competing with Steph Curry, Westbrook, Cp3, Dame Lillard, Klay Thompson, Kyle Lowry and a few times some guys like Oladipo, Isaiah Thomas, Kemba Walker, Kyrie Irving etc. Harden made 1st team 6 out of 7 years against all that. Harden has played at a superstar level at least as long as Frazier, and simply blows him away as an offensive force.

In the regular season . . .

This is just one sentence, how am i supposed to respond? BTW, i noticed a few errors in the ORTG things i posted which i fixed but it doesn't move the needle on my overall point on that part.

[Cavsfansince84]

Those Knicks were pretty well balanced and deep teams, they didn't win because Frazier played at some all time great level. How impactful was his offense exactly? Reed was their defensive anchor, and since there's such a precedence on team ORTG anchored by guards in this project the Knicks were sometimes good but sometimes not and never special. 1970: 5th of 14 in ORTG, 1971: 8th of 17, 1972: 7th of 17, 1973: 3rd of 17, 1974: 10th of 17, 1975: 12th of 18, 1976 12th of 18.

On top Frazier's offense also doesn't strike me as that impressive in an all time sense. Also, i don't think we should ignore that that 1970-75 period was one the weakest eras in terms of both great teams and all time great players. Bill Russell was out of the league, Wilt was past his prime and then out of the league. Oscar was past his prime then out of the league, same for Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. Frazier's competition for all nba teams which he made 5 first teams so congrats to him, he was sometimes competing with guys like Nate Archibald, Pete Maravich and Jo Jo White. So i'ma say i don't think he'd make a single 1st team if his prime overlapped with Oscar and West.

Compare that to James Harden who i don't see Frazier's argument over him at all, made 6 first teams while constantly competing with Steph Curry, Westbrook, Cp3, Dame Lillard, Klay Thompson, Kyle Lowry and a few times some guys like Oladipo, Isaiah Thomas, Kemba Walker, Kyrie Irving etc. Harden made 1st team 6 out of 7 years against all that. Harden has played at a superstar level at least as long as Frazier, and simply blows him away as an offensive force.

A few statements here I disagree with. One, his scoring doesn't need to be all time great as a pg but even so he was leading those teams in scoring on very good efficiency. Second, he was leading those Knicks in win shares in both the rs and ps every year from 70-75 which I think shows he was somewhat clearly the most valuable player on them(some years by a wide margin in both rs/ps). Third, Reed only played in 99 games after 1971 and was 5th in ws/48 in those 73 playoffs(granted his impact likely was larger due to defense but its a point worth making I think). He was very good in those finals but only averaged 13/8/2 in the playoffs. I think Frazier is one of those guys that the more you dig into him the more impressed you become. Also, regarding the no strong teams comment. That is leaving me completely confused. You had the West/Wilt Lakers, Kareem Bucks and the Cowens/Hondo Celtics as their rivals. All teams winning huge amounts of games and respected as among the greatest teams of all time. Also to highlight Frazier in the playoffs this is something I posted in my vote: from 69-75 playoffs averaged 21.2/7.2rpg/6.4apg on 56.4% ts while playing great defense. Looks pretty impressive to me. All of that combined is why I still rate him above Harden(who is probably 4th or 5th on my current ballot).

[DQuinn1575]

Zelmo Beaty was 2 times all-star who reached his prime around 1968. Calling him above average center is an understatement.

All-Star teams in the 60s pre-expansion didnt mean as much as each team got 2 or 3 players, as there was a 3 player per team max. In 1966 the center in the West that Zelmo beat out was Leroy Ellis. Zelmo was 2 time all-star in 7 years in league that took 40% of the starters (10 out of 25) as all-stars. 1967 he gets beat out by Darrell Imhoff, 1969 Elvin Hayes. He makes all-star teams by beating out Leroy Ellis and loses out to Darrell Imhoff. And then goes to ABA and his fairly even with Mel Daniels. Gilmore should be by far by center in league, and should be winning more than one ABA title. He's playing with Issel, Dampier, and Mike Gale - who was good enough to start in 82 for an over .500 Golden State team. He didn't dominate the ABA like he should have; he wins his one title going against Tom Owens, Maurice Lucas an NBA power forward, and Len Elmore. They lose to a pretty good Denver team in 76, but the other showings are definitely a disappointment.

I think Cowens was better passer, defender, and more aggressive than GIlmore, as well as less turnover prone. The Celtics improved greatly his first 3 years he was there - the nucleus of Havlicek, White, Nelson, Chaney were already there and were sub 500 the year before. Gilmore obviously has longevity, not sure about tradeoff.

Lanier and Gilmore I get as pretty even. I watched your videos to see if my memory was faulty; they looked fairly even head-to-head.

I want to make sure Im not overlooking Parish; Im giving more credit to longevity than I have in the past, and he was a very key player on some great teams.

Yes, probably no one would have done well with the 79 Bulls. But 78 was a disappointment after 77, 81 could have been better with Theus and Kenon, and I wouldnt say he led San Antonio in 83 - how about helped lead when you are one of an ensemble group with MItchell, Gervin, Moore?

I dont know if GIlmore should be higher than Cowens, Mourning, Howard, Lanier, Parish - I'm just not ready to consider the group before

So i'ma say i don't think he'd make a single 1st team if his prime overlapped with Oscar and West.

Nobody did, thats why they are in the Top 15,-but look at how the Knicks fared against the Bucks and the Lakers in the early 70s when he did play against them. Conversely GIlmore doesnt ever make a 2nd team, and he didnt always get beat out by Jabbar and Moses.

[ZeppelinPage]

I think anyone questioning Walt Frazier being voted already needs to look more into his film--he can be argued as the greatest defensive PG ever. Frazier was so good at stealing the ball and forcing turnovers I think he was the true defensive anchor of that team (Knicks DRTG with Reed pre-Frazier was subpar to poor, they added Frazier and proceeded to be top 5 for most of his prime.)

[ZeppelinPage]

1. Kawhi Leonard - Some great playoff runs, finals performances, all-around incredibly productive and valuable player. Little over Frazier & Harden just from a production and value standpoint.

2. Walt Frazier - Less two-way impact but deserves a couple Finals MVPs while being one of the greatest guard defenders ever. Also quite a good passer and scorer. Harden will probably overtake him by retirement but I like Frazier here.

3. James Harden - Quite possibly the greatest offensive guard to play, and a bit underrated as a man-to-man defender. Playoff performance not as good as the ones above, but narratives have seemed to create a sense he is bad in the postseason which I don't find to be true.

[LA Bird]

Frazier was so good at stealing the ball and forcing turnovers I think he was the true defensive anchor of that team (Knicks DRTG with Reed pre-Frazier was subpar to poor, they added Frazier and proceeded to be top 5 for most of his prime.)

The addition of DeBusschere via the mid-season trade turned the Knicks into contenders (0.8 SRS -> 8.1 SRS) and their defense declined from top 5 to below average after his retirement in 74 even though Frazier was still in his prime. It's a group effort but if anyone was to get the credit on that team as defensive anchor, it would likely be DeBusschere over Frazier and Reed. Frazier was great at getting steals but in the one season where we have four factors data while those Knicks defense were still good, forcing turnovers were actually their biggest weakness as a team.

[ZeppelinPage]

Frazier was so good at stealing the ball and forcing turnovers I think he was the true defensive anchor of that team (Knicks DRTG with Reed pre-Frazier was subpar to poor, they added Frazier and proceeded to be top 5 for most of his prime.)

The addition of DeBusschere via the mid-season trade turned the Knicks into contenders (0.8 SRS -> 8.1 SRS) and their defense declined from top 5 to below average after his retirement in 74 even though Frazier was still in his prime. It's a group effort but if anyone was to get the credit on that team as defensive anchor, it would likely be DeBusschere over Frazier and Reed. Frazier was great at getting steals but in the one season where we have four factors data while those Knicks defense were still good, forcing turnovers were actually their biggest weakness as a team.

DeBusschere clearly made a rather large impact on both sides of the ball after that trade, no doubt. The Knicks were also a very good team of defenders across the board. Although I would point out that the Knicks were already a top 5 defensive team with Frazier and Reed alone, and adding another good defender in DeBusschere just took the defense to another level. From a film standpoint, Frazier seemed to pop out to me as an off-ball defender and shutting down opposing guards on-ball.

Frazier and DeBusschere are close in regards to DWS on the Knicks, with a slight edge to Frazier (which is pretty impressive for Frazier, as a guard.)

DeBusschere retiring and their defense falling off after '74 is more likely from Jerry Lucas and Willis Reed also retiring that year. Lucas was 2nd on their team in BPM that season. Losing all three was a massive blow and explains the 4 point loss in DRTG. I think an argument can be made for both, Frazier personally holds a little more weight for me though.

[Joao Saraiva]

Votes
James Harden
Kawih Leonard
Scottie Pippen

I'm giving it to James Harden here. I think he's getting a bit underrated due to a bit of lack of team success... but considering his rosters I can't say he has done too bad either.

Yes he has dropped a bit in the playoffs, but it's not like he has been really bad in some campaigns.

In OKC he was really important going to the 2012 finals since he was the ball handler in the 4th quarter a lot of times, and in the WCF he did an amazing job with that. People remember him for not having a good finals, but he was important to get there in the 1st place.

I also see 15, 18 and 20 as good campaigns. I can't fault him for CP3 being injured, or for losing to the Lakers when the duo with Westbrook didn't work.

He's not such a good fit as Harden or the defender Walt Frazier or Pippen or Kawih are, but I believe he tops all of them as an offensive weapon. The issue I have with Kawih has been longevity, since even when he doesn't get injured he misses a ton of games. Can't put him higher even tough he is a legit #1 option. Hope he adds some longevity to rise in the rankings. Even above Ewing and Pippen he seems a bit suspicious, but I beleive proving himself as a #1 option while the others didn't is something I can't ignore.

I think that despite not having the ring, Harden is a proven legit #1 option on a contender.

[Joao Saraiva]

Harden wins a ring he's gonna get uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup the rankings. I wished the same for CP3 but I feel it's too late for him.

With Harden I don't really root for him like I did for CP3, his game is just super boring to me. But I can't deny his greatness as an offensive force.

[trex_8063]

Hey, so, I don't want to spend a lot of time making negative arguments toward guys right now and so am largely looking to not take this any further but:

I see people are starting to push Baylor, and I feel I'd be remiss not to voice that I think this is still too high for Baylor.

I think the thing that crystalizes why I feel the need to stay stuff here is seeing people say stuff like "Well yeah he's worse than West, but West got in X spots ago."

I would like to clarify that the issue with Baylor isn't that he's a lot weaker than West, but that if you look at some of the data, it's hard to tell Baylor apart from a bunch of other contemporaries.

The stat I've been bringing to people's attention lately, because it's new, is TS Add.

Baylor's peak TS Add came in '60-61. Here's the TS Add Leaderboard for '60-61.

I remember maybe ~5-6 years ago there was a trend on this forum to [imho] put too much stock in TS% [and the directly associated WS/48].
I worry a similar trend may develop as a result of this latest thing [TS Add].

And really this “new” stat isn’t actually new. This is basically Moonbeam’s “Score+” rating, which I had issues with that I discussed with Moonbeam (and then made my own augmented version called “Modified Score+”). My modified version took into mind some very very practical considerations that his Score+ didn’t [and TS Add doesn’t either].

For instance, if we were looking at:
Player A who averages 10 pts/100 possessions [this is Ben Wallace rate of scoring] @ +1% rTS while playing ~24 mpg…….
…..and Player B who shoulders a massive load averaging 35 pts/100 @ +0.1% rTS while playing 40 mpg….

Score+ would rate Player A as the marginally better scorer (and so will TS Add). That seemed like a general flaw in the construct or usefulness of it, or at least should throw a HUGE amount of caution on using it to compare players of significantly different roles or circumstances.

As further more tangible/real examples of how taking TS Add at face-value may be inappropriate, I’ll note that among players who have at least FOUR! seasons better than Baylor's peak year according to this stat….is Buck Williams (a player with a career 12.8 ppg average, peaking at 18.3).

Among those with THREE seasons better than Baylor's peak year according to this stat? Tyson Chandler, Rudy Gobert, Darryl Dawkins, Otis Thorpe, Nene Hilario, and James Donaldson.
Two better? Clint Capela, Dave Twardzik, Steve Johnson, and DeAndre Jordan.
One better? Mark West.

If anyone believes Mark West was ever a better scorer or more valuable as a scorer than Elgin Baylor---if anyone believes he was ever even remotely close----well…...I’ve got the proverbial land in [where ever] to sell him.
Ditto with some of the other names.

As a couple fun facts: guess who else has one season better than Baylor's 3rd-best? Andris Biedrins! (short-list for worst scorers ever??)
And Artis Gilmore has TWO seasons better than Michael Jordan’s peak TS Add.

To me all of this^^^ is illustrating the limitation of usefulness of this new stat, particularly in comparing players of differing scoring roles….

And speaking of differing roles:
Larry Costello [‘61 is his peak season for TS Add, too, btw], that year was averaging only 18.6 pts/100 possessions [vs Baylor’s 31.1] AND was averaging 14 fewer mpg.

Howell is much closer, though still with some notable differences in both usage and playing time: he was +5.35% better TS relative to Baylor in ‘61, but while averaging a considerably less robust 23.4 pts/100, and playing 4.6 fewer mpg.

Twyman is the closest in scoring role, his pts/100 being a slightly close(ish) 26.7, though in 5.9 fewer mpg (he was +3.38% better than Baylor in TS that year, btw; this was with a pretty notable play-maker you may have heard of: Oscar Robertson).

Where Twyman is concerned, we actually do have some examples of him in a circumstance where he was having to shoulder pretty close to same usage as ‘61 Baylor AND without a truly notable playmaker (just like ‘61 Baylor): just look at the two years AFTER Stokes’s injury and BEFORE Robertson arrived.
Twyman averaged 28.2 pts/100 in ‘59 and 30.5 pts/100 in ‘60 (not quite as much as ‘61 Baylor, but fairly close). His rTS in both years were +2.20% and +2.40%, respectively [and averaging 37.7 and 40.3 mpg, respectively].
Baylor was +2.91% rTS in ‘61 while averaging 31.1 pts/100 in 42.9 mpg. So when Baylor was in a similar(ish) scoring role and similar(ish) circumstance [and noting they played the same position, too], Baylor was clearly better, if not by a massive margin.


The other guys who rated better than Baylor in TS Add in ‘61 were Wilt, Oscar, and Pettit……..OK. I’m fine with people taking any one of them for granted; and no shame on Baylor there.

Note that Baylor is 7th on that list well below guys like Jack Twyman and Bailey Howell who will likely get no Top 100 consideration but honestly may well have been more effective at basketball than Baylor.

Whoa, I’m definitely going to disagree with the bolded.
As I’ve attempted to support above, I think Baylor was a clearly better scorer than Twyman. Vs Howell is harder, due to a larger gap in roles and usage.

But scoring isn’t where player comparisons end.
Jack Twyman’s defensive reputation is neither here nor there [I’ve not really heard anything good or bad]. The one full game footage I’ve seen of prime Twyman he looked passable [neither good nor bad].
Howell’s got a somewhat more mediocre-poor reputation defensively, if I’m not mistaken (and I’ve not really seen anything on limited eye-test to turn me in the opposite direction).

Baylor I think is perhaps marginally under-appreciated as a defender, and I note the Laker defense improved by an instant -2.8 upon the arrival of rookie Elgin. Maybe just in being a strong and athletic guy who could stay in front of anyone in the league at that time, and by also boosting their DREB%??....

idk, though if I had to rate them defensively, I’d hedge toward Baylor > Twyman > Howell, though not big margins at all between each.

Rebounding is easily Baylor, and not overly close. His rate of rebounding is literally like double Twyman’s (Twyman at 9.0 reb/100, Baylor at 17.75 [again: in larger mpg, too]); and they play the same position…...it’s sort of like comparing Joe Ingles to Shawn Marion as a rebounder.
Even Howell (a PF) only averaged 14.3 reb/100 possession (also in slightly smaller mpg).

Playmaking is easily Baylor [an underappreciated aspect of his game]. In terms of assists, he averaged 4.55 ast/100. Twyman averaged 3.0/100 (and peaked at 3.4, btw), Howell averaged just 2.5/100 (his career-best was 3.1).
Baylor led the Lakers in apg in '61 (also in '59), btw, and peaked out in ast/100 at 5.7 (in '69).

Overall, I’m not convinced at all that they were comparable as ALL-AROUND players.

I'll also note that the Laker offense at that time was 7th out of 8th in the league with Jerry West & Rudy LaRusso on the roster. Those guys were young and all, but this is the same year rookie Oscar Robertson came into the league and instantly made the Cincinnati Royals the best offense around. Yeah Oscar is Oscar, but my point is that this was still a time where you reasonably could expect that an outlier talent could drop into the league and just be a tier ahead of those who came before, and Baylor showed no ability to do anything like this.

??
Then neither did West, I guess [so he's also not an outlier talent]???

What was meant to be a burn against the idea of Baylor being an outlier talent almost seems to work MORE against Jerry West.
Baylor as a rookie averaged 25/15/4 @ +3.1% rTS, while the team improved by 14 wins and +4.36 SRS (and made a surprising NBA Finals appearance).
Rookie Jerry West......did less.

Not that I think that that actually means anything [in the sense you're implying]. Some players are just more ready to hit the ground running in the NBA: like Oscar Robertson or Tim Duncan, or [to a slightly lesser degree] Chris Paul.
Other players need a little bit of time to get there: like Lebron or Steph Curry [or Jerry West needing that one year].


I get that there are things to criticize in Baylor (particular in respect to the usual [mainstream] vaunted opinion of him). I just don’t see the criticisms as terrible case-breaking in the 30s of the list.