RealGM Top 100 List #21

[ElGee]

I have no doubt that even before Riley Ewing was GOAT level defender, he just wasn't used in right way or hadn't proper supporting cast at the beginning of his career (similar situation to KG in Minny). But we still could see his massive defensive impact.

In 1986 he missed 32 games. Without him NYK's r_drtg was +1.8 (18/19 place in the NBA), with him -3.4, so 3rd best defense that year, behind only loaded Celtics frontcourt (Walton, McHale, Parish, Bird) and Bucks (Pressey, Moncrief, Lister). Ahead of teams like Jazz (Eaton) or Rockets (Hakeem). Seems like massive impact on defense, especially if we consider that was Ewing's rookie year!

In 1987 he missed 19 games, without him NYk's r_drtg was +8.2 (one of the worst defenses ever, dead last that year, more that 4 drtg points behind second worst team), with +1.6 (15th place), so still worse than league average, but big improvement over what Knicks were without him.

I'm not wild at looking at O/DRtg splits from WOWY runs, at least not without digging in to the lineup structure and offensive rebounding strategy. That said, you are ignoring some major confounders wrt Ewing.

86 plays 18 games and misses 17 with Cummings Out and healthy lineup: -0.9 Drtg with, +1.5 without.
87 plays 31 games with healthy team and misses 6: +2.2 DRtg with, +3.0 without
87 plays 14 games and misses 6 without Cartwright and healthy team: +6.6 DRtg with, +7.2 without.

I did not consider young Ewing a "GOAT-level" defender before this data, and I certainly don't after. He looked undisciplined to me, and statistically his blk% and deb% are not what they would be starting in 1988. His best run on this front is actually in 98, when the Knicks post a -2.0 defense without Ewing for 55 games, and in the 21 games he played a -9.1 DRtg. I do find Ewing's Riley/Van Gundy-years defense to be quite impressive, although he lacks a little mobility for my liking compared to say, Robinson or Hakeem.

[lorak]

I did not consider young Ewing a "GOAT-level" defender before this data, and I certainly don't after.

I'm not saying he was GOAT level defender in his first (no one was, even Russell) or second year. I'm saying he was at that level already before Riley, but team defensive results weren't so good because of factors outside of Ewing's control (coaches, roster). I used his first two with/without runs just to show that from the beginning of his career he had positive impact on defense. And he obviously developed a lot after these two years.

[penbeast0]

Some quick notes:

Wade and longevity. 11 seasons is plenty of longevity, I don't think wade should be penalized for that. Injuries are a bigger issue, not longevity but durability. I think you can legitimately give an ironman player like Bob Pettit (he had 2 broken bones in his BACK and never played less than 70 games in a season until his final year?) a bonus for playing through injuries. But I'd rather have a good 8-10 year prime as a top 10 guy than a shorter prime filled out with a lot of years of being an average or below average player. Frazier gets an edge over Wade here too, no serious injuries his first 8 years in the league averaging almost 80g/season.

Baylor v. Pettit. Elgin was a terrific player but even in his prime, he was not clearly better than contemporary Bob Pettit and Pettit dominated more (as shown by 2 MVPs), stayed healthier, and was just a slightly superior team winner even in their shared prime years. As for Elgin's rebounding, it was terrific but Pettit is #3 all-time behind only Wilt and Russell. Got to give Elgin his props though. . . he's a local boy from Spingarn HS

[E-Balla]

Knicks Defense RS and PO

85-86
5th of 23 Drtg

-Ewing’s rookie year and he only played 50 games, the team jumped from 19th in Drtg to 5th.
There were other roster changes though which I haven’t fully analyzed yet to be even handed.
No Playoff berth

18-32 with Ewing
5-27 without

I want to see deep analysis on if it was the offense or defense that fell apart without him.

Personally I put Pat as a top 5 defender ever (speaking over his whole career) along with Deke, Russell, Hakeem, and Duncan.

[E-Balla]

I have no doubt that even before Riley Ewing was GOAT level defender, he just wasn't used in right way or hadn't proper supporting cast at the beginning of his career (similar situation to KG in Minny). But we still could see his massive defensive impact.

In 1986 he missed 32 games. Without him NYK's r_drtg was +1.8 (18/19 place in the NBA), with him -3.4, so 3rd best defense that year, behind only loaded Celtics frontcourt (Walton, McHale, Parish, Bird) and Bucks (Pressey, Moncrief, Lister). Ahead of teams like Jazz (Eaton) or Rockets (Hakeem). Seems like massive impact on defense, especially if we consider that was Ewing's rookie year!

In 1987 he missed 19 games, without him NYk's r_drtg was +8.2 (one of the worst defenses ever, dead last that year, more that 4 drtg points behind second worst team), with +1.6 (15th place), so still worse than league average, but big improvement over what Knicks were without him.

I'm not wild at looking at O/DRtg splits from WOWY runs, at least not without digging in to the lineup structure and offensive rebounding strategy. That said, you are ignoring some major confounders wrt Ewing.

86 plays 18 games and misses 17 with Cummings Out and healthy lineup: -0.9 Drtg with, +1.5 without.
87 plays 31 games with healthy team and misses 6: +2.2 DRtg with, +3.0 without
87 plays 14 games and misses 6 without Cartwright and healthy team: +6.6 DRtg with, +7.2 without.

I did not consider young Ewing a "GOAT-level" defender before this data, and I certainly don't after. He looked undisciplined to me, and statistically his blk% and deb% are not what they would be starting in 1988. His best run on this front is actually in 98, when the Knicks post a -2.0 defense without Ewing for 55 games, and in the 21 games he played a -9.1 DRtg. I do find Ewing's Riley/Van Gundy-years defense to be quite impressive, although he lacks a little mobility for my liking compared to say, Robinson or Hakeem.

I understand the love for mobility but a guy like Deke has way less mobility than both of those guys and he was still a better defender. I feel mobility is being overrated because without rim protection mobility needs a defensive system full of smart switches and players to flourish (think of how bad KGs Minnesota teams were on that end despite having someone that good). Meanwhile with a great rim protector you literally just need to make sure that if your guy gets around you he goes toward the defender. I think Pat was meaner and nastier than Robinson (so I place Pat over him defensively) and Hakeem also flourished because he wasn't afraid to scare players away.

[colts18]

Here are Amare's numbers from 08-10 with and without Nash on the court.

Per 36 minutes
Nash On: 25 PPG, 57.3 FG%, 63.6 TS%, 9 Reb, 1.5 AST-2.5 TOV, +6 +/- per 36
Nash off: 21 PPG, 52.8 FG%, 60.8 TS%, 8 Reb, 1.1 AST-2.7 TOV, -3.7 +/- per 36

Nash had a pretty big effect on Amare in those years.

[Basketballefan]

Here are Amare's numbers from 08-10 with and without Nash on the court.

Per 36 minutes
Nash On: 25 PPG, 57.3 FG%, 63.6 TS%, 9 Reb, 1.5 AST-2.5 TOV, +6 +/- per 36
Nash off: 21 PPG, 52.8 FG%, 60.8 TS%, 8 Reb, 1.1 AST-2.7 TOV, -3.7 +/- per 36

Nash had a pretty big effect on Amare in those years.

Well sure, but then Amare went to New York and averaged 25 8 without him.

[E-Balla]

Here are Amare's numbers from 08-10 with and without Nash on the court.

Per 36 minutes
Nash On: 25 PPG, 57.3 FG%, 63.6 TS%, 9 Reb, 1.5 AST-2.5 TOV, +6 +/- per 36
Nash off: 21 PPG, 52.8 FG%, 60.8 TS%, 8 Reb, 1.1 AST-2.7 TOV, -3.7 +/- per 36

Nash had a pretty big effect on Amare in those years.

Well sure, but then Amare went to New York and averaged 25 8 without him.

Amare 2010: 24.1 pp36, 61.5 TS%, 27.3 USG%, 117 ORTG, 22.6 PER
Amare 2011: 24.7 pp36, 56.5TS%, 30.9 USG%, 109 ORTG, 22.7 PER

By himself Amare was still great but not anywhere as efficient.

[Basketballefan]

Here are Amare's numbers from 08-10 with and without Nash on the court.

Per 36 minutes
Nash On: 25 PPG, 57.3 FG%, 63.6 TS%, 9 Reb, 1.5 AST-2.5 TOV, +6 +/- per 36
Nash off: 21 PPG, 52.8 FG%, 60.8 TS%, 8 Reb, 1.1 AST-2.7 TOV, -3.7 +/- per 36

Nash had a pretty big effect on Amare in those years.

Well sure, but then Amare went to New York and averaged 25 8 without him.

Amare 2010: 24.1 pp36, 61.5 TS%, 27.3 USG%, 117 ORTG, 22.6 PER
Amare 2011: 24.7 pp36, 56.5TS%, 30.9 USG%, 109 ORTG, 22.7 PER

By himself Amare was still great but not anywhere as efficient.

I'm not disagreeing that Nash made him better. Im just saying even without him, Amare was still an elite pf.

[90sAllDecade]

It turns out that one bad year the Knicks played defense, was not only because Ewing and Cartwright were injured; but Hubie Brown was misusing Ewing.

He tried to make him a power forward (despite being a dominant anchor at center for Georgetown in college) and copy Houston's Twin Towers and was later fired mid season:

Spoiler:

The centers of the storm The Patrick Ewing-Bill Cartwright axis is not working out for the Knicks

11/24/1986

New York Knicks coach Hubie Brown can be an impatient, unforgiving
sort. Sometimes, in fits of pique, he calls his players the most
awful names. If you don't play the game according to Hubie's rules,
you hear about it, and if your mother doesn't like it that way, you
can leave her home. This m.o. used to work for Brown. But times
change.

Hubie has never called Patrick Ewing any of those names, not to
his face anyway, even as the Knicks stumbled out of the gate this
season and left New York wondering where their messiah had gone.
Calling Ewing names would be dumb. And while Hubie is a lot of
things, dumb isn't one of them, even if he has turned the best young
defensive center in the game into an uncertain forward just so the
Knicks can play that trendy new NBA board game called Twin Towers.
Twin Towers was supposed to be fun, new wave, a breakthrough in
the boredom- killing business. It hasn't been that way in New York.
When the Knicks got off to a 1-6 start, Knick fans began to get
impatient with Brown. Between yawns, they began to call him names.
Ewing is guaranteed to be paid $17 million over 6 years, and
could earn $30 million over 10 if certain criteria are met. He
insists that he alone can't be the messiah, and he might be right
about that. But every reverend from Pat Robertson to Jesse Jackson
knows that 17 mil should buy a lot of / salvation. Somebody ought to
tell Hubie that messiahs don't play forward in New York. Never have.
The Knicks made Willis Reed a forward in 1965 when Walt Bellamy came
to town as the center. It wasn't until they traded Bellamy and put
Reed back in the middle that the vaunted Knicks of the early '70s
took shape.

Because the current Knicks aren't likely to trade their 7 ft. 1
in. center, Bill Cartwright, Ewing, the more mobile of the towers,
draws the short straw on defense. Through four years at Georgetown
and one in New York, the painted rectangle was Ewing's turf. He was
the ultimate air-traffic controller. In those days one tower was
plenty. While he was becoming the NBA's Rookie of the Year last
season, his Knick teammates took to calling him Beast. Then came
Cartwright's return from two seasons of injuries and Hubie's bright
idea, which left Ewing chasing smaller, quicker forwards around the
floor.

It fell to Ernie Grunfeld, a former Knick forward who is a member
of their radio broadcast team, to take Ewing aside and explain
things. ''Look, Patrick,'' said Grunfeld, ''you've got to do what got
you where you are. You've got to intimidate again. You've got to put
the fear into people around the basket. Please. No more Mr. Nice
Guy.''

It would have been more appropriate if this good advice had come
directly from the coach, but while Ewing dutifully obeys Brown's
directives, he also says they ''have no relationship'' outside of
that. It didn't matter on Nov. 11 at Madison Sqaure Garden. Ewing did
what only he can do: He took control of the game without scoring
points. And the Knicks slogged to their second win, 111-105, over
the Phoenix Suns. ''They won because he dominated,'' said Grunfeld.
''And the way Patrick dominates doesn't always show up in the box
score.'' The box score showed that Ewing scored just 7 points, but he
had 11 rebounds and, of the Knicks' 13 team rebounds, he was
responsible for at least 10. The box score also credited him with
five blocked shots, but he had altered or discouraged at least that
many more.

Still, Brown fulminated, ''That's the first time this year he's
played like that. This is Game 8. When the big guy can play without
pain, then we'll jell. I don't know when that will be. Ask him.''
Brown pointed toward Ewing as the former center padded by. See, Hubie
doesn't ask. Hubie tells.

Ewing had kept two ice bags on his knees for 15 minutes after the
Phoenix game. And yes, he had arthroscopic surgery on his right knee
last March 14, which kept him on the shelf for 32 games. But he
says, ''I'm tired of people asking about my knees. They don't keep me
from playing. Hey, I couldn't wait for the season to start. But I'm a
center. That's what I am. I'm not a forward. I miss being inside. I'm
going out chasing guys like Xavier McDaniel and Terry Cummings. It's
rough. That's not me.''

Brown is a great X's and O's coach, as anybody who has ever talked
with Hubie knows. But in trying to make sure he can match up with the
Celtics and Rockets (he can't), Brown puts the Knicks at risk against
teams like Milwaukee, a relatively small mobile outfit with plenty of
good shooters, to whom the Knicks lost on Friday, 106-103. With Ewing
in the corner instead of down low piling up blocks and rebounds, the
Knicks' transition game simply did not exist. And since he was out
chasing Cummings far from the paint, Ewing got only four rebounds and
one block all night.

The Knicks' lack of a transition game, though, is hardly their
only shortcoming. Take their backcourt -- please. Until last week
only Rory Sparrow could dribble, change direction and look up at the
same time -- until the Knicks acquired Gerald Henderson from Seattle
for a second-round draft pick in 1990 and a probable switch of
first-rounders in '87. Gerald Wilkins has talent but often fails to
control it, and Trent Tucker adds little to the corps. No one can
shoot with consistency, which is an imperative on a team that can't
-- or isn't allowed to -- run.

The Knicks struggle so hard it's exhausting just watching them try
to score. There is no vitality to their game. No gun. No run. No fun.
There is a lot of fear, though. They are playing not to make a
mistake, not to break Hubie's sacred plays, while the coach does the
Big Shoe Dance on the sideline.

As Hubie watched in Milwaukee on Friday night, Ewing got the ball
down low with five seconds left. The Knicks were down by one. Ewing
deftly spun past Cummings and powered up to the ring. Center Jack
Sikma came over to help, but he knew better. A foul could cost the
Bucks three points. ''I wasn't even going to go up,'' said Sikma.
''What for? In fact, I turned my head. I didn't look. Then there was
the ball trickling off the rim.''

It was an attitude shot. Ewing blew it. ''It felt like Patrick was
confused,'' said Cummings. The old Ewing would have brought the Mecca
down with a concussive slam that people could have told their
grandchildren about. This Ewing, this tentative forward person,
tried a half layup. He missed.

Brown has always been at his best coaching overachievers, mutts,
guys who couldn't be sure they weren't all those horrible things that
Hubie was calling them. But now he has got a dominant center, a
messiah. He's coaching talent, which isn't easy to do if your ego
gets in the way. When you're coaching talent, you don't change it.
You adapt yourself, you change. Hubie hasn't. He has heard that Ewing
is unhappy playing forward, and this is what he told Newsday's Gary
Binford about that: ''Some great names in basketball -- Bob Thornton,
(Chris) McNealy, James Bailey, (Ken) Bannister, Eddie Wilkins and Ron
Cavenall -- have been able to play both positions. So I don't want to
hear that crap. It's the dumbest thing I ever heard of. . . . If it's
so hard, how come these Einsteins could do it?. . . I don't want to
hear that (Ewing's) out of position.''

''Hubie's teams tend to be slow starters,'' says Knicks G.M.
Scotty Stirling. ''Just wait. By January, this team will bear
absolutely no resemblance to the team you see now.''
If the Knicks don't get better, and soon, that new look could have
something to do with a new center -- and a new coach.

http://www.si.com/vault/1986/11/24/1144 ... the-knicks

[FJS]

I'm going to read your opinions because i'm undecided .

[DQuinn1575]

It turns out that one bad year the Knicks played defense, was not only because Ewing and Cartwright were injured; but Hubie Brown was misusing Ewing.

He tried to make him a power forward (despite being a dominant anchor at center for Georgetown in college) and copy Houston's Twin Towers and was later fired mid season:

So, Bernard King is hurt, plays 6 games - what was Hubie supposed to do with Cartwright and Ewing?

Cartwright was 2nd/3rd best player on team, with ts% of .617 - was #3 pick in draft and good enough to be starting center on NBA champ team 13 years later.

He was coming off 2 years of injuries, so he didn't have much trade value.

I'm not saying Ewing was used well here, but is it really Hubie's fault that he tried to put his 2 best players on the floor?

He does get traded for Oakley, which worked out for both teams.

Maybe this should be a knock on Ewing, since others adapted to this type of situation, and he did not.

[Doctor MJ]

Elgin Baylor
I do feel Baylor should be getting some traction by this point: one of the greatest volume scorers of his era while simultaneously probably being THE greatest rebounder ever from the SF position.
The Lakers in '58 were a dismal 19-53 (.264).......Rookie Elgin Baylor arrives and finishes 4th in league in scoring, 3rd in rebounding, 8th in assists and the Lakers jump to 33-39 (.458) AND make a trip to the NBA finals (one of EIGHT finals appearances Baylor would make in his career).

tbh, only has about 5 seasons that I'd feel comfortable classifying as his prime ('59-'63):
rs: 32.0 ppg/16.7 rpg/4.4 apg; 26.1 PER, .195 WS/48 in a huge 42.1 mpg
ps: 33.6 ppg/14.6 rpg/3.9 apg; 25.1 PER, .183 WS/48 in a huge 44.0 mpg

After that his knee problems would become problematic, although he was STILL so damn good that he continued to garner All-NBA 1st Team nods (would 10 times receive that distinction).
He's 23rd all-time in MVP Award Shares, and a very symmetrical 23rd all-time in RealGM RPoY shares (while being up against Russell, Wilt, West, Robertson---who are ALL already voted in, and none worse than #15---for basically his whole career, as well as a few years up against Pettit).

Well, I'm sorry to be a hater here, but I'd be remiss if I didn't chime in.

I'll say up front I have no real qualms about giving Baylor credit for his early years, but as far as the honors he was "STILL so damn good" for later on, I think those honors are largely about a small league with not many players being afforded the primacy to put up big stats.

You've probably heard me talk about Baylor's efficiency issues before, but let me break it down more concretely.

The table has the following column all through Baylor's prime.
Year - NBA season in question
Lakers TS - True Shooting % of the Laker team
Baylor TS - True Shooting % of Baylor
FGA Primacy - Where Baylor ranked in terms of FGA per minute on his team
All-NBA - What All-NBA team Baylor made

Code: Select all

Year  Lakers TS   Baylor TS  FGA Primacy All-NBA   
'59   46.1        48.8       1st         1st
'60   44.4        48.9       1st         1st
'61   46.2        49.8       1st         1st
'62   48.7        49.2       1st         1st
'63   50.0        51.9       1st         1st
'64   50.3        48.7       1st         1st
'65   50.0        46.3       1st         1st
'66   50.5        45.6       2nd        none
'67   50.1        49.1       1st         1st
'68   52.8        50.5       1st         1st
'69   51.1        50.0       1st         1st
'70   51.2        53.7       2nd        none


Basic observations:
From '59 to '63, Baylor was more efficient than his team.
From '64 to '69, Baylor was less efficient than his team.
In '70 we finally see Baylor make a leap in efficiency after being basically static his whole career.

From '59 to '69, Baylor's shooting MO was pretty similar. He remained the first shooting option while he was on the floor except in '66 where he was really, really nowhere near 100% where Jerry West just barely beat him out.
In '70 he took another step back in primacy, and as mentioned, that was when his efficiency jumped.

He made All-NBA first team in all the years he had top primacy on the Lakers. He missed it in '66 and he missed it in '70, the two years he didn't shoot the most. In fairness though, Baylor missed time in '70, else I'm sure he would have made it.

What I see:
Basically from '64 on Baylor was playing in a way he should not have. The team would have been better if he'd played a different role letting the vastly more effective Jerry West score more, but he didn't. I think there were clearly two main results to this as far as what Baylor was:

1) Baylor was less valuable than he would have been if he played smarter.
2) Baylor was more highly rated than he should have been because he scored a lot.

Sadly, Baylor was probably more highly rated playing the dumb way than he would have been playing the smart way because people were so fixated on how much he scored.

I look at all of this and I don't see "And he was so good he was still Top 5 in the world". No, what I see is a guy in a small league where very few players are allowed to shoot as much as he did being credited for often hurting his team.

Let's take a look at '65. Granted this isn't a random year, but I want you to see how deep this went. In '65 Baylor made All-NBA 1st team. Here's the list of the top 5 FGA primacy scores in the league among those playing big minutes with their FGA/36 and their TS%:

Code: Select all

Player              FGA/36   TS%
1. Wilt Chamberlain 22.7     51.3
2. Sam Jones        22.7     50.3
3. Elgin Baylor     22.4     46.3
4. Jerry West       19.4     57.2
5. Bob Pettit       18.9     51.0


Basic observations:
-You've got 3 guys are around the same efficiency, one guy way behind and one guy way ahead.
-Wilt, it should be noted was injured. His efficiency was typically way higher.
-Pettit, it must be noted was on his last season, and was clearly below his previous standards.

What I see:
Baylor was painfully ineffectual by any NBA standards of the time, yet he still made All-NBA 1st team.
Baylor's inefficiency is particularly astonishing given that he had the league's best scorer right next to him. Baylor's inefficiency mixed with volume hurt the Lakers even more than it would have hurt other teams.

Finally, Baylor's being brought as Pettit is still being discussed. I'm sure many don't realize this, but when I talk about Pettit's scaling with the times in terms of efficiency, the criticism of Baylor being inefficient next to the Laker team note that this quite literally would NEVER have applied to Pettit.

Pettit was always more efficient than the Laker team of the same year, and even if you bump him forward in time a few years, the Lakers don't pass him up until his very last season.

So yeah, the scale of Baylor's issues here within his team context are mind-boggling. The only reason he got his later accolades (which amount to half of his total) is because people were quite literally clueless about efficiency back then. I try not to make assertions along the lines of "They were dumb back then, I know better now", but we see how numbers affect perception. Once people get used to efficiency, they do see the importance and they do care. They didn't have the same access back then, and the result was that Baylor got judged as if he were creating all those points out of nothing as opposed to taking opportunities away from his teammates.

When you then compare Baylor to the list of available candidates at this point, to me it's just no contest. Most of these guys are on here because they were doing great things for their team most of their career, and Baylor just wasn't. What he has to offer is maybe 5 years of true superstar impact before a massive drop. And yes injuries were part of the drop, but he was never very efficient before the injuries, and afterward he showed the mentally he wasn't able to to tell that he was chucking shots he shouldn't be, so to me he's basically exactly the kind of old generation guy you worry about being able to thrive in the modern game.

Alright, /rant

[E-Balla]

The craziest thing about Pat's career is that from day one he was dealing with major knee issues. His first two seasons both ended with surgery on them. And I've found articles from the 89 offseason talking about his knee issues and Sam Bowie's legs in the same article like both of them would be plagued (he had season ending knee surgeries in 86, 87, and surgery on the opposite knee in the 89 offseason - in between he constantly had knee issues). Still Pat threw those giant knee pads on and played a long career full of injuries but lacking in DNPs. I found the only season he had knee surgery in the summer (July of 89) he followed with his best season. Strange to think that someone who played a career like his could've been better if he was healthy more.

I think I settled on a vote for Walt Frazier. Of all the modern era guys (modern era being post merger where Walt did still play albeit at a lower level than the early 70s) he has the longest stretch as an elite player (69-76, hurt in 76) compared to Nash (05-10) and Wade (05-12 with many injuries all through there) and prime for prime he's there with Nash (Wade being a step over both of them). Among the early guys (Baylor and Pettit) I'm seeing Baylor over Pettit mainly because when both were in their primes (59-64) they were about even as players. That gives me no reason to see 55-58 Pettit as better (especially considering it was a different league compared to the mid 60s) and Baylor has the postseason and longevity advantage.

I'm not sure where Pat ranks in all of this. He might be my vote here but I'm not sure about what to say with his postseason defense. It was amazing (possibly 2nd best ever) but is it enough to make up for Walt, Pettit and Wade's postseason play on both ends (IMO Pat wasn't great offensively in the postseason. Good but not great)?

My rough rankings for the net few spots will be:
Walt
Wade
Ewing
Baylor
Pettit
Nash

[E-Balla]

It turns out that one bad year the Knicks played defense, was not only because Ewing and Cartwright were injured; but Hubie Brown was misusing Ewing.

He tried to make him a power forward (despite being a dominant anchor at center for Georgetown in college) and copy Houston's Twin Towers and was later fired mid season:

So, Bernard King is hurt, plays 6 games - what was Hubie supposed to do with Cartwright and Ewing?

Cartwright was 2nd/3rd best player on team, with ts% of .617 - was #3 pick in draft and good enough to be starting center on NBA champ team 13 years later.

He was coming off 2 years of injuries, so he didn't have much trade value.

I'm not saying Ewing was used well here, but is it really Hubie's fault that he tried to put his 2 best players on the floor?

He does get traded for Oakley, which worked out for both teams.

Maybe this should be a knock on Ewing, since others adapted to this type of situation, and he did not.

Who else adapted besides Duncan? Hakeem was used still at Center because Ralph was insanely quick for a 7-4 guy, Robinson was used at center because Duncan was less established and he adjusted immediately, Kareem was never asked to try anything like this (along with Shaq, Wilt, etc.). If Ewing was next to a Sampson or Duncan (at PF) there would've been no issue.

[Clyde Frazier]

Interesting to see Ewing getting this much traction so far. I actually thought i'd be fighting some people who bizarrely don't consider him a top 10 center of all time, but this is a pleasant surprise. Still not sure who i'm voting for, and I'm not quite leaning toward him either.

Frazier vs. Ewing is interesting, too, as Frazier was more accomplished and shined during those championship runs, but Ewing had a longer career with less help along the way. The burden Ewing felt carrying the franchise on his back during his prime years was huge. Can't say the same for Frazier, who was part of one of the great true "teams" in NBA history.

[Basketballefan]

Where are the Wade supporters when they're needed!??

[Jim Naismith]

Interesting fact:

Elgin Baylor retired nine games into the 1971-72 season.

Despite (or because of) Baylor's absence, the Lakers won the next 33 games.

This was the longest winning streak ever in the NBA — and in American professional sports.

The Lakers subsequently won the NBA championship, their first since 1954.

[penbeast0]

Early votes (and not many of them one day in . . . )

Pettit – penbeast0, Jim Naismith
Ewing – ronnymac2, ShaqAttack3234,
Wade – Basketballefan

[E-Balla]

Elgin Baylor
I do feel Baylor should be getting some traction by this point: one of the greatest volume scorers of his era while simultaneously probably being THE greatest rebounder ever from the SF position.
The Lakers in '58 were a dismal 19-53 (.264).......Rookie Elgin Baylor arrives and finishes 4th in league in scoring, 3rd in rebounding, 8th in assists and the Lakers jump to 33-39 (.458) AND make a trip to the NBA finals (one of EIGHT finals appearances Baylor would make in his career).

tbh, only has about 5 seasons that I'd feel comfortable classifying as his prime ('59-'63):
rs: 32.0 ppg/16.7 rpg/4.4 apg; 26.1 PER, .195 WS/48 in a huge 42.1 mpg
ps: 33.6 ppg/14.6 rpg/3.9 apg; 25.1 PER, .183 WS/48 in a huge 44.0 mpg

After that his knee problems would become problematic, although he was STILL so damn good that he continued to garner All-NBA 1st Team nods (would 10 times receive that distinction).
He's 23rd all-time in MVP Award Shares, and a very symmetrical 23rd all-time in RealGM RPoY shares (while being up against Russell, Wilt, West, Robertson---who are ALL already voted in, and none worse than #15---for basically his whole career, as well as a few years up against Pettit).

Well, I'm sorry to be a hater here, but I'd be remiss if I didn't chime in.

I'll say up front I have no real qualms about giving Baylor credit for his early years, but as far as the honors he was "STILL so damn good" for later on, I think those honors are largely about a small league with not many players being afforded the primacy to put up big stats.

You've probably heard me talk about Baylor's efficiency issues before, but let me break it down more concretely.

The table has the following column all through Baylor's prime.
Year - NBA season in question
Lakers TS - True Shooting % of the Laker team
Baylor TS - True Shooting % of Baylor
FGA Primacy - Where Baylor ranked in terms of FGA per minute on his team
All-NBA - What All-NBA team Baylor made

Code: Select all

Year  Lakers TS   Baylor TS  FGA Primacy All-NBA   
'59   46.1        48.8       1st         1st
'60   44.4        48.9       1st         1st
'61   46.2        49.8       1st         1st
'62   48.7        49.2       1st         1st
'63   50.0        51.9       1st         1st
'64   50.3        48.7       1st         1st
'65   50.0        46.3       1st         1st
'66   50.5        45.6       2nd        none
'67   50.1        49.1       1st         1st
'68   52.8        50.5       1st         1st
'69   51.1        50.0       1st         1st
'70   51.2        53.7       2nd        none


Basic observations:
From '59 to '63, Baylor was more efficient than his team.
From '64 to '69, Baylor was less efficient than his team.
In '70 we finally see Baylor make a leap in efficiency after being basically static his whole career.

From '59 to '69, Baylor's shooting MO was pretty similar. He remained the first shooting option while he was on the floor except in '66 where he was really, really nowhere near 100% where Jerry West just barely beat him out.
In '70 he took another step back in primacy, and as mentioned, that was when his efficiency jumped.

He made All-NBA first team in all the years he had top primacy on the Lakers. He missed it in '66 and he missed it in '70, the two years he didn't shoot the most. In fairness though, Baylor missed time in '70, else I'm sure he would have made it.

What I see:
Basically from '64 on Baylor was playing in a way he should not have. The team would have been better if he'd played a different role letting the vastly more effective Jerry West score more, but he didn't. I think there were clearly two main results to this as far as what Baylor was:

1) Baylor was less valuable than he would have been if he played smarter.
2) Baylor was more highly rated than he should have been because he scored a lot.

Sadly, Baylor was probably more highly rated playing the dumb way than he would have been playing the smart way because people were so fixated on how much he scored.

I look at all of this and I don't see "And he was so good he was still Top 5 in the world". No, what I see is a guy in a small league where very few players are allowed to shoot as much as he did being credited for often hurting his team.

Let's take a look at '65. Granted this isn't a random year, but I want you to see how deep this went. In '65 Baylor made All-NBA 1st team. Here's the list of the top 5 FGA primacy scores in the league among those playing big minutes with their FGA/36 and their TS%:

Code: Select all

Player              FGA/36   TS%
1. Wilt Chamberlain 22.7     51.3
2. Sam Jones        22.7     50.3
3. Elgin Baylor     22.4     46.3
4. Jerry West       19.4     57.2
5. Bob Pettit       18.9     51.0


Basic observations:
-You've got 3 guys are around the same efficiency, one guy way behind and one guy way ahead.
-Wilt, it should be noted was injured. His efficiency was typically way higher.
-Pettit, it must be noted was on his last season, and was clearly below his previous standards.

What I see:
Baylor was painfully ineffectual by any NBA standards of the time, yet he still made All-NBA 1st team.
Baylor's inefficiency is particularly astonishing given that he had the league's best scorer right next to him. Baylor's inefficiency mixed with volume hurt the Lakers even more than it would have hurt other teams.

Finally, Baylor's being brought as Pettit is still being discussed. I'm sure many don't realize this, but when I talk about Pettit's scaling with the times in terms of efficiency, the criticism of Baylor being inefficient next to the Laker team note that this quite literally would NEVER have applied to Pettit.

Pettit was always more efficient than the Laker team of the same year, and even if you bump him forward in time a few years, the Lakers don't pass him up until his very last season.

So yeah, the scale of Baylor's issues here within his team context are mind-boggling. The only reason he got his later accolades (which amount to half of his total) is because people were quite literally clueless about efficiency back then. I try not to make assertions along the lines of "They were dumb back then, I know better now", but we see how numbers affect perception. Once people get used to efficiency, they do see the importance and they do care. They didn't have the same access back then, and the result was that Baylor got judged as if he were creating all those points out of nothing as opposed to taking opportunities away from his teammates.

When you then compare Baylor to the list of available candidates at this point, to me it's just no contest. Most of these guys are on here because they were doing great things for their team most of their career, and Baylor just wasn't. What he has to offer is maybe 5 years of true superstar impact before a massive drop. And yes injuries were part of the drop, but he was never very efficient before the injuries, and afterward he showed the mentally he wasn't able to to tell that he was chucking shots he shouldn't be, so to me he's basically exactly the kind of old generation guy you worry about being able to thrive in the modern game.

Alright, /rant

This guy was a SF not a coach. He took the shots they gave him and from 59-63 (his true prime) he was always 1st or 2nd in PER, and other than his rookie year (where he made the Finals) he always was more efficient in the playoffs (from 60-63 he averaged 33.8 ppg on 50.1 TS in the regular season and 35.8 ppg on 52.1 TS in the playoffs). In 64 he underperformed (1 series) but in 66 and 68 (he was hurt in 65 and 67) he was more efficient in the postseason just like his early career. How can we let this slide for someone like Duncan or Hakeem and not Baylor (not saying you Doc because you were hard on Hakeem and Duncan just stating it for people like me who had that logic when it came to them)?