RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #41 (Dolph Schayes)

[trex_8063]

Thru post #20:

Isiah Thomas - 3 (Baski, Hal14, Odinn21)
Kawhi Leonard - 2 (Dutchball97, ZeppelinPage)
Bob Cousy - 1 (Magic Is Magic)
Dolph Schayes - 1 (Cavsfansince84)
Pau Gasol - 1 (trex_8063)


Probably about 23 hours left for this one, looking at my schedule tomorrow.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm glad to see Gilmore in

Have anyone consider Paul Arizin and Bob McAdoo at this point? Both peaked quite high and their longevity aren't terrible.

Arizin is around this range for me. I have him ahead of Cousy but behind Schayes so it'll be a couple spots before I'll vote him at least.

McAdoo honestly not sure. There are probably at least a couple bigs left ahead of him for me.

Right now I probably have my next 4(not on my current ballot) tentatively as Pierce, Pau, Arizin and Allen. Cousy is the guy I am most conflicted about right now. Arizin's combination of scoring dominance, efficiency and accolades is pretty impressive. He also had a tremendous playoff run when his team won the title and lost two prime years to military service(which I think is different than losing it to injury or something like that). Add in Anthony Davis as well as a guy I will consider very soon. I don't see much of any argument for Kawhi over AD either unless we are going to say his Toronto run(which I only value slightly ahead of AD's run last year) makes up for AD's 3 full seasons as an elite player to Kawhi's 3 as a great 3&D player. Metric wise AD comes out ahead and I think he's a slightly better intangibles guy as well chemistry wise. Both miss a lot of games so that is a push.

[Cavsfansince84]

I also want to say with regard to the slight traction that is emerging for Westbrook that I don't plan to consider him until probably at least the 47-50 range due to what I think are such serious flaws in his game and bb iq. I think that overrides the gaudy box score stats to a large degree in favor of other guys who had long careers where imo their strengths added as much more to winning without the serious drawbacks that WB has; namely the super high usage(higher career usage % than Kobe) while being a mostly inefficient(career ts+ of 97) scorer, the high turnovers and just the need to play hero ball that imo is a very bad trait for a pg, more so one that played with one of the most gifted scorers of all time. Also I think defensively he's just sort of out there. Which is bad considering he has the size, length and athleticism to probably be all nba level defensively. He's a tough one to rate to some degree but as of now I think he leans too much towards 'me first' to put him above guys who won more and did so as the second or co #1 options on title teams even if they don't have the accolades which WB has garnered with his style of play.

[eminence]

1 - Dolph Schayes - Great longevity, strong defender imo, skilled offensively, last great set shooter. If you don't think he's tough enough think about being a Jewish kid named Adolph growing up in the 40's. Only a tier 2 peak, but stayed at that level for an abnormally long time period (especially for the era) while the league was undergoing a huge amount of growth.

2 - Russell Westbrook - A guy I'd classify as having a tier 1.5 peak, trickiness in fitting his playstyle alongside some team concepts. Aging poorly making him look bad (maybe he'll bounce back?). But really for a solid half decade+ with the Thunder he was thought of quite highly and helped lead some very high level squads. Personally I've always thought of '16 as his peak, not '17.

3 - Paul Pierce - Not super sold on this one, Pau Gasol, Mutombo, Manu, Ray, a couple of others all in consideration here. Prefer the 2nd tier peak guys with strong longevity over the higher tier peak guys with poor longevity (Kawhi/Davis/Walton/etc). Anywho, Paul Pierce was just a solid all-around player, had mediocre success leading his own teams, but combined with more talent joined something approaching a mini-dynasty.

[Odinn21]

I also want to say with regard to the slight traction that is emerging for Westbrook that I don't plan to consider him until probably at least the 47-50 range due to what I think are such serious flaws in his game and bb iq. I think that overrides the gaudy box score stats to a large degree in favor of other guys who had long careers where imo their strengths added as much more to winning without the serious drawbacks that WB has; namely the super high usage(higher career usage % than Kobe) while being a mostly inefficient(career ts+ of 97) scorer, the high turnovers and just the need to play hero ball that imo is a very bad trait for a pg, more so one that played with one of the most gifted scorers of all time. Also I think defensively he's just sort of out there. Which is bad considering he has the size, length and athleticism to probably be all nba level defensively. He's a tough one to rate to some degree but as of now I think he leans too much towards 'me first' to put him above guys who won more and did so as the second or co #1 options on title teams even if they don't have the accolades which WB has garnered with his style of play.

I mean isn't your point of kind of (at least somewhat) mute knowing how 2016 playoffs played out for the Thunder? Durant was indeed one of the most gifted scorers of all time as you put it, and it was Westbrook's quality that made the team go up against the 73W Warriors while Durant was massively underperforming.

What I see is, you knock the player down because he could be better/greater with higher IQ. The part after the because is accurate indeed. But it shouldn't prevent you from to seeing it as it is. This is like saying "if O'Neal wasn't lazy and insecure, he'd be greater, so I'm going to leave him out of the top 10".

[Cavsfansince84]

I mean isn't your point of kind of (at least somewhat) mute knowing how 2016 playoffs played out for the Thunder? Durant was indeed one of the most gifted scorers of all time as you put it, and it was Westbrook's quality that made the team go up against the 73W Warriors while Durant was massively underperforming.

What I see is, you knock the player down because he could be better/greater with higher IQ. The part after the because is accurate indeed. But it shouldn't prevent you from to seeing it as it is. This is like saying "if O'Neal wasn't lazy and insecure, he'd be greater, so I'm going to leave him out of the top 10".

Couldn't it also be reasoned that WB's play over the last 3 games was a big part of them unraveling in that series? That's the part of what makes him hard to gauge as a player in these sorts of projects is the mixture of spectacularly good and spectacularly bad. I judge that playoff run as a wcf appearance which has the context of how it was almost won but ultimately lost. Which was due in part to the Thunder sort of wilting under the pressure and GS stepping up. I also think its worth noting for that series that Durant averaged 3.3 more ppg on 3.0% higher ts. I think that series is a bit of a black spot on both of them tbh. This is compared to guys like Pierce and Pau who won a ring or two as a clear top 2 option and had better longevity than WB has had so far and who I also think are better chemistry guys.

[eminence]

I also want to say with regard to the slight traction that is emerging for Westbrook that I don't plan to consider him until probably at least the 47-50 range due to what I think are such serious flaws in his game and bb iq. I think that overrides the gaudy box score stats to a large degree in favor of other guys who had long careers where imo their strengths added as much more to winning without the serious drawbacks that WB has; namely the super high usage(higher career usage % than Kobe) while being a mostly inefficient(career ts+ of 97) scorer, the high turnovers and just the need to play hero ball that imo is a very bad trait for a pg, more so one that played with one of the most gifted scorers of all time. Also I think defensively he's just sort of out there. Which is bad considering he has the size, length and athleticism to probably be all nba level defensively. He's a tough one to rate to some degree but as of now I think he leans too much towards 'me first' to put him above guys who won more and did so as the second or co #1 options on title teams even if they don't have the accolades which WB has garnered with his style of play.

I mean isn't your point of kind of (at least somewhat) mute knowing how 2016 playoffs played out for the Thunder? Durant was indeed one of the most gifted scorers of all time as you put it, and it was Westbrook's quality that made the team go up against the 73W Warriors while Durant was massively underperforming.

What I see is, you knock the player down because he could be better/greater with higher IQ. The part after the because is accurate indeed. But it shouldn't prevent you from to seeing it as it is. This is like saying "if O'Neal wasn't lazy and insecure, he'd be greater, so I'm going to leave him out of the top 10".

Ehh, I'm not sure on this take, Durant performed relatively well against the Warriors. Durant's truly poor performance in those playoffs was almost entirely against the Mavs in the 1st round.

[eminence]

Also, I would very narrowly take Thomas over Kawhi.

[Baski]

Sidenote and mini complaint: This board often slam causal fans for using the ringz argument but a title was basically the only difference between 2020 Kawhi going #8 in POY and 2019 Kawhi going #1. He had similar box score stats (RS and PO) over the two years and he was actually a better defender and passer in 2020. If the Sixers hadn't choked in the playoffs without Embiid, 2019 Kawhi goes out in the second round just like 2020 Kawhi and few would think of voting him #1 POY with his load managed regular season. I personally think Kawhi's 2019 season was overrated and 2020 was underrated and have both in the 3-5 range for the year.

omg, I'm so on-board with the gist of this paragraph. That he won POY for '19 was one that sort of made me blink, and really illustrated the apparent disconnect I have with many others wrt how heavily they weigh the playoffs:

His playoff run may have been great, but with missed games factored into the equation, and noting how he coasted defensively all year [in the rs], I'm skeptical he was even a top 10 player during the rs.
How can I rate someone #1 for the year if he's not even top 10 for the larger sample?

And it's not like he was clearly far and away better than anyone else in the playoffs. Nikola Jokic had a helluva playoff run [albeit shorter], probably superior statistically, for example. And Kawhi's own teammate [Lowry] had a higher playoff RAPM according to gitlab (though I am skeptical of that source).

Just wanted to chip in and agree on this. That was a weird season with the vacuum at the top spot that just had to be filled and the injuries and drama all year.
It's not super crazy that he got the #1 spot because everyone else had something they could be docked for, but the drastic drop from 2019 to 2020, where he arguably played better over the season, is kind of telling.

Surely the fresh wounds from the Dennis saga kept me from being swept away by the 2017 Westbrook-esque campaign for Kawhi, but it's nice seeing I wasn't being completely unreasonable.

[Odinn21]

Couldn't it also be reasoned that WB's play over the last 3 games was a big part of them unraveling in that series?

Other than game 7, I don't think Westbrook played particularly bad in the last 3 games. But, yes, his performance had a drop and it was one of the contributing factors to unravelling.

That's the part of what makes him hard to gauge as a player in these sorts of projects is the mixture of spectacularly good and spectacularly bad. I judge that playoff run as a wcf appearance which has the context of how it was almost won but ultimately lost. Which was due in part to the Thunder sort of wilting under the pressure and GS stepping up.

Well, as long as they provide still a positive impact, I'm not against players going at it aggressively even though they are not efficient. That's one of the things helps enabling of complementary pieces in a team.
I guess that's the reason why I'm bigger on players like Westbrook, Kidd, Hayes more than the norm in here.

I also think its worth noting for that series that Durant averaged 3.3 more ppg on 3.0% higher ts. I think that series is a bit of a black spot on both of them tbh.

Comparing their usual selves and performances, 3.3 more ppg on 3.0% higher ts is more of a negative on Durant's part. .539 ts performance on a .530 ts team is not good for Durant whose impact mostly coming from his scoring. At least Westbrook's part was bigger than scoring.

Ehh, I'm not sure on this take, Durant performed relatively well against the Warriors. Durant's truly poor performance in those playoffs was almost entirely against the Mavs in the 1st round.

I don't agree because as I said, Durant's efficiency was just average.
Also, in the games the Thunder built a 3-1 lead, Westbrook was the better player. And he wasn't worse enough in the last 3 games to lose the best Thunder player title against the Warriors in that series.

[Cavsfansince84]

.

[Cavsfansince84]

.

I wouldn't overly focus on just 2016 either regarding Westbrook. He's very erratic and that's my main problem is that from a pg I think that's the last position you really want a guy who will have huge usage, decent to terrible efficiency and this need to try and play hero ball along with not really being a great decision maker. Its a very volatile combination to have as your team's leader. He's sort of like what Isiah would be with more athleticism and shot taking but worse shooting and decision making.

[DQuinn1575]

doing it again - hopefully Kawhi gets in - a lot of the posters here know more about him then me. He's going against Isiah, loved watching both of the guys play.

voting for Kawhi 1st - impacful player who was twice finals MVP, and is won of the winningest RS players of all-time. I know he hasnt played as long as others, and doesnt have the body of work - but that is why he is 40, and not 30

Sam Jones - tremendous playoff performer. See prior posts, will dive into more detail when Kawhi gets picked.

Dolph Schayes - dominance in his era - will take a harder loook at some others for the next vote. I'm really happy with my top two here, but may change my mind on this one later.


1. Kawhi
2. Sam Jones
3. Dolph Schayes

[Doctor MJ]

I'm glad to see Gilmore in

Have anyone consider Paul Arizin and Bob McAdoo at this point? Both peaked quite high and their longevity aren't terrible.

Me too!

Re: Arizin. I could seriously consider Arizin at any point really. Because he's from such an early era, it's highly debatable where he should go. I'll say though that while I consider Arizin to be superior as a player than any other remaining from his era, I heard some good arguments in earlier threads that Schayes body of work should place him ahead of Arizin. Undecided, but more discussion along these lines would be welcome.

Re: McAdoo. He's on my mind, but I'm afraid there are guys from his era that are in front of him. I've mentioned guys like Unseld, Cowens, and Reed who to me just seem like they accomplished something bigger in their career. I don't mean to disparage McAdoo's peak, which I think deserves a great deal of respect, but I doubt I'll take him over them.

I'll also say that I'd be inclined to put Hawkins over McAdoo. I consider Hawkins superior at his best - better overall team player, and even in scoring its still debatable, and to put longevity in perspective here: Hawkins had 6 WS or more in his first 8 years, while McAdoo only had 6 total seasons along these lines.

[Doctor MJ]

On an unrelated note, how are people looking at Jokic for this list? Some people have started tentatively talking about AD and Giannis but the three of them are all very comparable in terms of total games in the play-offs along with their WS and VORP play-off totals. While Jokic clearly is the least accomplished of the three in terms of the regular season, I still see them in one tier. I've been quite clear about my disdain for focus on the regular season but even if you care about it, it's not like Jokic in the regular season is miles behind Giannis and AD either.

With AD and Giannis possibly coming up soon and nobody talking about Jokic yet I was wondering how others view them comparatively.

Jokic is a guy who might make my Top 100, but it's still unclear to me.

Re: AD. Remember that AD made All-NBA 1st team before Jokic was in the league, and that to this point Jokic has only played 5 years (with only two as an all-star), and no one has made the Top 100 with only 5 years of experience since 2006 (when both Wade & LeBron made it after only 3 seasons). Add to that, that for me at least, AD achieved something last year that puts his #1 accomplishment well above Jokic's top accomplishment.

Re: Giannis. More debatable here. Giannis' 2 MVPs seem to put this out of reach, but I ended up ranking Jokic higher than Giannis in my POY last year because of Giannis' playoff struggles. Still, I wouldn't have even considered this a debate before the 2nd round this year, so it seems a bit much to let that round dictate so much.

There are also other 21st century players to consider still. By draft year:

2001 - Gasol, Parker
2003 - Melo
2004 - Howard, Iguodala
2006 - Lowry
2007 - Gasol
2008 - Westbrook
2009 - Griffin
2010 - George
2011 - Kawhi, Klay, Butler
2012 - AD, Lillard, Green
2013 - Giannis

Not saying I'd pick all these guys ahead of him, but all of them are in the conversation.

Fun fact on Melo, who has been a regular in the Top 100 for years, but I've never voted for:

Jokic has already won more series for the Nuggets than Melo did.

[Doctor MJ]

Oh also, I think I've got to have Bill Walton ahead of Jokic still for the moment.

[Odinn21]

I'm a bit sad that Reed got injured against the Lakers in 1970 NBA Finals.
He was truly having a historic run, an all-time great run, and against an all-time great individual competition at that. He was 21/18/3 against Unseld, 28/12/3 against Abdul-Jabbar and 32/15/4 against Chamberlain until his injury. Overall he was 26/15/3 against those legends. Then his injury in game 5 and his attempt to return and boost his team's morale in game 7 hurt his averages and now, that awesome run mostly goes unnoticed.
And it wasn't an outlier for him. He was 28/15/1 against Unseld and 24/14/2 against Russell in the previous playoffs.

It's a real shame that that injury costed him so much. It wasn't just the finals series, he wasn't quite the same after.

I think he's in a similar boat to Kawhi Leonard. His quality is definitely up there, I'd probably put 1969 or 1970 Reed as the same tier as 2017 or 2019 Leonard even though I'd rate Leonard slightly higher. But his number of good seasons, his prime duration, they don't stack up. Such a shame. Even though he played at C, he was more like a PF from the '00s, he had range, low and high post moves, he wasn't afraid to play face up, his way to set up screens, his movement in general, he was just different than his time.

[70sFan]

I'm a bit sad that Reed got injured against the Lakers in 1970 NBA Finals.
He was truly having a historic run, an all-time great run, and against an all-time great individual competition at that. He was 21/18/3 against Unseld, 28/12/3 against Abdul-Jabbar and 32/15/4 against Chamberlain until his injury. Overall he was 26/15/3 against those legends. Then his injury in game 5 and his attempt to return and boost his team's morale in game 7 hurt his averages and now, that awesome run mostly goes unnoticed.
And it wasn't an outlier for him. He was 28/15/1 against Unseld and 24/14/2 against Russell in the previous playoffs.

It's a real shame that that injury costed him so much. It wasn't just the finals series, he wasn't quite the same after.

I think he's in a similar boat to Kawhi Leonard. His quality is definitely up there, I'd probably put 1969 or 1970 Reed as the same tier as 2017 or 2019 Leonard even though I'd rate Leonard slightly higher. But his number of good seasons, his prime duration, they don't stack up. Such a shame. Even though he played at C, he was more like a PF from the '00s, he had range, low and high post moves, he wasn't afraid to play face up, his way to set up screens, his movement in general, he was just different than his time.

Reed's peak definitely should get more recognition, he was fatnastic player. This game shows his skilslet better than any other I've seen:

Watch on YouTube

[trex_8063]

Have anyone consider Paul Arizin and Bob McAdoo at this point? Both peaked quite high and their longevity aren't terrible.

McAdoo - no, not yet for me. His prime is quite short (like 6 seasons), so his longevity actually isn't all that good [particularly considering all the injury troubles thru his later years]; and his peak two years seem sort of outlier to the rest of his prime, too, fwiw. The fact that it occurred in a rather diluted 70s league doesn't help tremendously.
Not that he's eons away for me, but he's not particularly close either.

Arizin - sort of the same as for McAdoo. His prime's a little longer, though I think he peaked a little lower, too. Among guys of that era, without a doubt Schayes is the guy who deserves the serious traction. Though I've not given him my vote(s), I'd not be the least bit upset if he's picked this thread or next (I'm really waffling on my 3rd pick actually [Westbrook, Payton, also thinking about Schayes, among others]).

Oh also, I think I've got to have Bill Walton ahead of Jokic still for the moment.

Yeah, I kinda think I still have Walton marginally ahead, too (both outside my top 100 [you know I'm a longevity guy]). Jokic is close now; I'm fairly certain I'll have him ahead of Walton after '21. EDIT: btw, don't see a vote from you.


My gut is leaning toward Pau Gasol or Paul Pierce (which is why they're my top two picks). Other guys I'm thinking hard on [this section of my ATL, and really ALL sections that follow is seriously jumbled/close] include:

Dolph Schayes - A monster of the early era, whose stat-line held up reasonably well as the league quickly evolved [despite him getting on in years]. Had his peak in the shotclock era, and has a true NBA player size/build, with versatile skillset (outside shooting, passing, ambidextrous finisher, decent defensive instincts, etc). He's in my top 45, and tbh I'm thinking hard on moving him up and possibly making him one of my three picks.....I begin to feel like I'm reaching a little to place others ahead of him.
I'd also note that while Bob Cousy won the 1957 MVP, he basically just won a popularity contest......imo, Dolph Schayes, Bob Pettit, and probably Neil Johnston all had a better claim to the award (not to mention Bill Russell, though I'd personally exclude his candidacy against these guys given he missed a third of the season [and rookie Bill wasn't yet the Bill we'd come to know]).
Imagine if Dolph won the '57 MVP.....tbh, I don't think he'd still be on the table. At least one member of the active voter pool has explicitly declared such things are a major factor in his criteria/consideration; and as much as the most of us try to ignore such factors or declare they don't matter, they do [at least a very tiny bit].
With an MVP tacked on to his legacy, I suspect Schayes would have gone somewhere in the 35-40 range.
And the other factor I've actually not previously considered [which I need to] is that he had one pretty notable year in the NBL ['49], before his BAA/NBA career that's usually considered (was the NBL Rookie of the Year, and appears to be [probably] the best player on a pretty good team). I'll be considering that.....it could be enough of a tipping point factor to move him up a couple spots in my ATL.

Russell Westbrook - my current [tenuous] 3rd pick. Fairly big peak [though I do NOT think he deserved his MVP]; a decent floor-raiser capable of shouldering some insane volume in a variety of way, though lacking offensive efficiency, and struggling to mesh with other on-ball stars. Longevity isn't terrible, considering how good he was out of the gates.

Gary Payton - a player who, until very recently, I had ranked in the early-mid 30s of my list. Unfortunately, as I look closer, I struggle to find the reasons why I had him ahead of various other players. Not that he isn't a great player [he is], but we're barely outside the top 40 EVER, so there are A LOT of great players still on the table. I could still be convinced to switch back to him, if someone wants to make the case; he's definitely in the forefront of my candidates. Excellent two-way player who had very good longevity.

Robert Parish - Obviously never a superstar, but quite a lot of years at an All-Star or borderline All-Star level, peaking at roughly All-NBA 3rd Team [if maybe not borderline 2nd Team] level. And tremendous overall longevity:
*he came into the league a decent player
**could be said he had like a 13-year prime
***played 21 seasons, and was a legitimately useful role player [not merely "filling a garbage roster spot"] as far as his 18th season
****and durable throughout: note Parish is still to this day #1 all-time in career rs games played [1,611]. Recall he not only surpassed KAJ to get there, but iron men like Karl Malone, John Stockton, and Jason Kidd failed to catch him on that too.
ALL of his career is post-merger, too, btw. Remarkable.

Dwight Howard - Has at least a semi-tenable case as the best peak left on the table (or at least there very close with guys like Kawhi, AD, and Giannis [+/- others]). Put together a number of other statistically big(ish) [if somewhat unequal in terms of impact] seasons before/after his back injury. And just got himself a ring as a valuable 6th/7th man.

Isiah Thomas - Prime Zeke I see as roughly similar in quality as a peak John Wall [which is decidedly good, but not great]. Obv Isiah had much better durability [and subsequent longevity--->which is actually pretty good overall] compared to Wall, better playoff resiliency (or even upward scalability), and certain intangible qualities that made him the undisputed leader and figurehead of a near-dynasty. Thru his qualities as a player, leader, and certainly with fortune simply smiling on him in terms of circumstance, he was able to obtain some pretty notable legacy points (by way of titles, a FMVP). It's enough to give him traction here for me.

+/- others on my radar, including Ray Allen, Kevin McHale, and maybe Chauncey Billups and yes......Kawhi Leonard.

[trex_8063]

42. Russell Westbrook

fwiw, I've just changed my 3rd vote to Westbrook, and could even see slipping him up higher. Awhile back I had Gary Payton in my early-mid 30s, though I think it was a hold-over from prior list orders. The more I look at him in comparison to some others, the more trouble I have with my placement of him. So I've bumped him [again] in favour of Westbrook.

fwiw, I just changed it again, as this is a very fluid portion of my list [not 100% married to any order]. Going with Dolph Schayes for my 3rd vote (though Westbrook is coming right up).