RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #43 (Dolph Schayes)

[Doctor MJ]

Our system is now as follows:

1. We have a pool of Nominees you are to choose from for your Induction (main) vote to decide who next gets on the List. Choose your top vote, and if you'd like to, a second vote which will be used for runoff purposes if needed.

2. Nomination vote now works the same way.

3. You must include reasoning for each of your votes, though you may re-use your old words in a new post.

4. Post as much as they want, but when you do your official Vote make it really clear to me at the top of that post that that post is your Vote. And if you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same Vote post.

5. Anyone may post thoughts, but please only make a Vote post if you're on the Voter list. If you'd like to be added to the project, please ask in the General Thread for the project. Note that you will not be added immediately to the project now. If you express an interest during the #2 thread, for example, the earliest you'll be added to the Voter list is for the #3.

5. I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over). For this specific Vote, if people ask before the Deadline, I'll extend it.

Here's the list of the Voter Pool as it stands right now (and if I forgot anyone I approved, do let me know):

Spoiler:

AEnigma
Ambrose
ceilng raiser
ceoofkobefans
Clyde Frazier
Colbinii
cupcakesnake
Doctor MJ
Dooley
DQuinn1575
Dr Positivity
DraymondGold
Dutchball97
f4p
falcolombardi
Fundamentals21
Gibson22
HeartBreakKid
homecourtloss
iggymcfrack
LA Bird
JimmyFromNz
Joao Saraiva
lessthanjake
Lou Fan
Moonbeam
Narigo
OhayoKD
OldSchoolNoBull
penbeast0
Rishkar
rk2023
Samurai
ShaqAttac
Taj FTW
Tim Lehrbach
trelos6
trex_8063
ty 4191
ZeppelinPage

Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):

Elgin Baylor


Draymond Green


Dwight Howard


Dolph Schayes


Russell Westbrook


As requested, here's the current list so far along with the historical spreadsheet of previous projects:

Current List
Historical Spreadsheet

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm semi-surprised no one mentioned Willis Reed. I get his longevity is poor but he still has a good 6-7 seasons. I get that he might not have been the best guy on his team but he was pretty close to Frazier at least and his competitors weren't really "the guys" either in a traditional sense except Dolph.

Do y'all just feel he wasn't good enough?

[Clyde Frazier]

I'm semi-surprised no one mentioned Willis Reed. I get his longevity is poor but he still has a good 6-7 seasons. I get that he might not have been the best guy on his team but he was pretty close to Frazier at least and his competitors weren't really "the guys" either in a traditional sense except Dolph.

Do y'all just feel he wasn't good enough?

It's just longevity/durability for me. But he'll probably be next on my nomination after Drexler/Gervin.

[AEnigma]

Outside of team-related accomplishments, what gives him a better seven or eight years, or even clearly peak, than Mourning, Lanier, Cowens…

[penbeast0]

Outside of team-related accomplishments, what gives him a better seven or eight years, or even clearly peak, than Mourning, Lanier, Cowens…

Respectively, passing, defense, efficiency and rim protection. Reed was a player who, when healthy, was good at every aspect of the game. Mourning was a poor passer and highly turnover prone, Lanier was a poor to average defender, Cowens was an inefficient shooter and while an excellent man defender was not a rim protector. I'm not ready to support Reed as I see stronger candidates out there but Reed did not have their weaknesses.

[AEnigma]

Outside of team-related accomplishments, what gives him a better seven or eight years, or even clearly peak, than Mourning, Lanier, Cowens…

Mourning was a poor passer and highly turnover prone,

And a much better defender.

Lanier was a poor to average defender,

He was not, he just had bad team results and was generally not a high end defender.

Cowens was an inefficient shooter and while an excellent man defender was not a rim protector.

Reed was not a notable rim protector either and Cowens was a better playmaker.

Reed was a player who, when healthy, was good at every aspect of the game. I'm not ready to support Reed as I see stronger candidates out there but Reed did not have their weaknesses.

Nor did he have their higher end strengths. I am more interested in looking at the whole than at skill listing without weighing. When I ask what makes him better, it is not an inquiry as to whether he did anything better.

Reed was particularly good in 1969 and 1970, but Frazier and DeBusschere looked more important to how the team functioned (not that it makes DeBusschere “better”, because I do give credit to Reed’s flexibility; certainly the highest “portability” guy in this comparison). Of the three centres I listed, only Mourning looks somewhat comparable in how his status may outpace his real effect on the team, but I am a lot more confident in building a team specifically around his playstyle, and I do not think he is sufficiently disruptive to team basketball to make up for that.

And I say all that while liking Reed as a player more than Cowens and Mourning, so it is not as if I am looking for some excuse to move him down. I do not think he was sufficiently high impact to go here even if we pretend the lack of longevity does not matter.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Dolph Schayes
Vote 2 - Elgin Baylor
Nomination 1 - Clyde Drexler
Nomination 2 - George Gervin

What stands out most with Schayes was his ability to get to the line and hit at an elite %: his career FT rate is .512, with a career high .654 in '51 (league avg was .399 that yr). His career FT% was 84.9% on 7.9 attempts per game. The league avg typically hovered around 70-73% throughout his career.

From the footage I've seen, he had a consistent outside shot and good first step, with solid body control once he got into the lane. He also had a floater, which I find funny for some reason, but it was still effective. The Nationals were also one of the best defensive teams in the league during his prime (yes, only 8-10 teams, but routinely ranked in the top 1-3 in DRtg).

Again, his marked consistency and longevity relative to his era really impressed me. In '55, he led the Nationals to the NBA title in 7 games over the #1 SRS ranked Pistons. One can point to inferior competition, but I think a player who was considered one of the best in the game for as long as he was deserves a spot in the top 50.

Schayes retired having played the most seasons, games and minutes in league history (this includes NBL play). Some more insight on his playing style from a SLAM Magazine interview: 

SLAM: You were a big man who played like a guard. How did you develop those skills?

SCHAYES: By playing in the New York City schoolyards, where the game was all about movement. I happened to be tall, but I learned the fundamentals well—the give and go, setting picks, passing, fast breaks and everything else we called “New York style.” I was a center in college but I was a high-post guy, feeding cutters and rebounding. 

SLAM: Your range went out to 30 feet. How many more points would you have averaged with a three-point line?

SCHAYES: Quite a few, but I didn’t score out there as much as people think. My game was slashing to the basket, getting fouled and making three-point plays. But I hit enough deep shots to keep them honest and make them come out. The real secret to my success was I could shoot with either hand.

[iggymcfrack]

Glad to see Davis finally go in!!! Overdue and well-deserved! I’m gonna be voting for Westbrook, but my alternate is still up for grabs. I feel like Draymond is clearly better than Dwight and Baylor is probably a little ahead of Schayes. Not sure if Green has accomplished more in 22K minutes than Baylor did in 33K although I’m kinda leaning yes because just how do you play with all that talent in such a weak era and not win a ring? And then he misses the season and his team wins without him? Woof.

[penbeast0]

Vote: Dolph Schayes I think Baylor peaked higher but Schayes was just much more consistent for longer. Strongly considered Green but his resume (defense, inefficiency, inconsistent leadership) is weaker and he was never the main man that Schayes was.

Alt: Draymond Green Seems way too early but if I want to win a title, I take him over Baylor, Westbrook, or the other high volume scorers. Also considered Dwight Howard but (possibly like Green) it seems he needs such a specific combination of people around him to be great.

nomination: Kevin McHale: Scoring, defense, rings, consistency, a willingness to play roles that may not maximize his own value in order to help his team win.

alternative: Bobby Jones. More than a decade of straight 1st team All-Defense votes combined with high efficiency, though not high volume scoring, and good playmaking. Not a great rebounder for his position but could play 2-5 at either end. Probably the greatest glue guy in NBA history and in his time where he was the best player on his team (75 and 76 for example), his team was the best in the league both years though they came up short in the playoffs. Probably too early but haven't been convinced of anyone else here.

Willing to change to Jimmy Butler, maybe to Paul Pierce, always open to listen to arguments.

[Owly]

I'm semi-surprised no one mentioned Willis Reed. I get his longevity is poor but he still has a good 6-7 seasons. I get that he might not have been the best guy on his team but he was pretty close to Frazier at least and his competitors weren't really "the guys" either in a traditional sense except Dolph.

Do y'all just feel he wasn't good enough?

6-7 seasons sounds a touch bullish, to me at least.

Obviously the bar is fuzzy. What is "good"? So there's wiggle room.

But I'd say there are 4 seasons that PER and WS(/48) concur are at a high level (68-71). There's further one that PER likes a lot better than WS/48 (67) on a weaker team. Then there are no further seasons in which I would say there is concurrence that he is good, and often his minutes are limited. Playoff-only-wise, for whatever that's worth, it looks like 4 seasons (67-70).

[trelos6]

Vote: Dwight Howard



One of the best defensive players of all time. His peak was arguably a top 3 player in the league. Offensively,he was limited, but what he did was effective. Great catch radius. Some monster dunks. 20.7 pp75 on +8.7% rTS. In the playoffs, he was still 23.2 pp75 on +10.7% for his 3 year peak. He was a monster down low.

I have him with 3 weak MVP seasons, 8 All NBA, 9 All Star, and 12 All D.

Alternate vote: Dolph Schayes

Probably the second best player of the 50's. Schayes had 8 seasons over 10 WS, 7 seasons over .200 for WS/48. Compare that with Jason Kidd's 2 and 0 seasons, Stocktons 13 and 14, Miller's 11 and 5. Suggests he's in the ball park. Ultimately, I have him at 2 weak MVP level seasons, 8 All NBA Seasons, 12 All Star seasons. His peak 3yr PS was 25.3 pp75 on +7 rTS%, and regular season he was around 17-18 pp75 on +5-6 rTS%.

Nomination: Joel Embiid

Alt. Nom: Gary Payton

It comes down to Westbrook v Embiid. Guys like Pierce, McHale, Payton, Isiah, didn’t reach the heights of Westbrook or Embiid. One was a high octane play creator, the other a fantastic defensive presence. Both were force of will scorers. I think I’ll give the nod to Jojo. Although I can appreciate the Westbrook argument.

It was between Pierce and Payton. I’ll give it to Gary this round.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm semi-surprised no one mentioned Willis Reed. I get his longevity is poor but he still has a good 6-7 seasons. I get that he might not have been the best guy on his team but he was pretty close to Frazier at least and his competitors weren't really "the guys" either in a traditional sense except Dolph.

Do y'all just feel he wasn't good enough?

I think he's worth talking about 'round these ranks definitively. I mean I get it if folks rank Reed ahead of Frazier, so I definitely get him here.

Looking at my pre-project rough draft list, here are guys who are not yet nominated that I placed ahead of him:

Kevin McHale (been nominating him)
Paul Arizin (ditto)
Dave Cowens
Ray Allen
Isiah Thomas
George Gervin
Paul Pierce

Not really looking to justify that placement right now - always hoping to hear arguments that change my mind - but gives you a sense where I've been thinking about him.

In terms of contemporaries, to list some guys in order of my pre-project:

Kareem
Frazier
Havlicek
Barry
Cowens
Reed
Unseld
Hayes
Hawkins

So you can see on that, I have Reed ahead of the Bullet boys despite lesser longevity, but the contemporary rivals I've placed ahead of him all have longevity arguments over Reed. (Not necessarily that these guys were great longer, but those without that edge didn't have their prime so disrupted with massive injuries).

[Doctor MJ]

alternative: Bobby Jones. More than a decade of straight 1st team All-Defense votes combined with high efficiency, though not high volume scoring, and good playmaking. Not a great rebounder for his position but could play 2-5 at either end. Probably the greatest glue guy in NBA history and in his time where he was the best player on his team (75 and 76 for example), his team was the best in the league both years though they came up short in the playoffs. Probably too early but haven't been convinced of anyone else here.

Excited to discuss Bobby. Still currently have him lower on my list, but after my re-evaluation of Ginobili, I can't help but be continuing to think about Jones.

So, if we're comparing him to contemporaries that are still not voted in, who are we talking about? To list some guys out I didn't mention in my previous post:

Tiny Archibald
Dan Issel
Bob Lanier
George McGinnis
Bob McAdoo
Bill Walton
George Gervin
Gus Williams
Alex English
Dennis Johnson
David Thompson
Robert Parish

That's a lot of guys for any one person to feel they have to address, but I'm curious who are you debating between from the top of this group along with Jones?

[penbeast0]

alternative: Bobby Jones. More than a decade of straight 1st team All-Defense votes combined with high efficiency, though not high volume scoring, and good playmaking. Not a great rebounder for his position but could play 2-5 at either end. Probably the greatest glue guy in NBA history and in his time where he was the best player on his team (75 and 76 for example), his team was the best in the league both years though they came up short in the playoffs. Probably too early but haven't been convinced of anyone else here.

Excited to discuss Bobby. Still currently have him lower on my list, but after my re-evaluation of Ginobili, I can't help but be continuing to think about Jones.

So, if we're comparing him to contemporaries that are still not voted in, who are we talking about? To list some guys out I didn't mention in my previous post:

Tiny Archibald
Dan Issel
Bob Lanier
George McGinnis
Bob McAdoo
Bill Walton
George Gervin
Gus Williams
Alex English
Dennis Johnson
David Thompson
Robert Parish

That's a lot of guys for any one person to feel they have to address, but I'm curious who are you debating between from the top of this group along with Jones?

Easier to say guys I'm not considering:

Tiny -- loved him, favorite of everyone that watched him, just don't think he translates to wins that well. He was a rich man's Isaiah Thomas.
McGinnis -- immature man child with great talent, never seemed to understand the game that well, turnovers extremely high.
Issel/Lanier -- I think you need defense from your big man in their eras; I don't think either did it that well. McAdoo too but I think he was (a) more dynamic offensively, (b) better defensively, (c) translated better to the PF slot.
McAdoo/D.Thompson -- the early burnout and bad feelings it left put them below the top contenders here. Could include Dwight Howard here too.
Walton -- Top 20 peak, all time greatest sad injury career. I just can't put 1 full season, some partial seasons where he didn't make it to the playoffs, and 1 great reserve year in my top 100.


Parish/DJ -- could be put in here. I like Bobby Jones' defense better than either and DJ also left some hard feelings in Seattle and Phoenix though he matured and was a pros pro in Boston, albeit one who didn't show as well offensively.
Gervin/English -- should be considering both; both great offensive players (Gervin more so), English gives you more defense and playmaking so I him a little higher, both above Dominique Wilkins, Bernard King, or Mark Aquirre. Dantley should be in there with these two as well, maybe higher.

[AEnigma]

Calling McAdoo better defensively and more “dynamic” offensively than Lanier is a great encapsulation of how you seem to have some massive and inexplicable bias against Lanier. McAdoo was a better scorer. He also had a worse attitude, played on consistently better teams than what Lanier had on the Pistons*, played for better coaches, and affected every team he was on less than Lanier did… including the Pistons themselves! He was a better scorer, but despite the better infrastructure around him, he still ultimately won less throughout his prime!**

* Randy Smith and Jim McMillian were excellent costars in Buffalo, and with the Knicks he got a year of Frazier, two years of Earl, two years of Lonnie Shelton…

** 1974-79 McAdoo won 51.5% of his games with the Braves, Knicks, and Celtics, while 1974-79 Lanier won 52.4% of his games with the Pistons. 1974-78, 53.5% for McAdoo versus 54.3% for Lanier. 1974-77, 53.9% for McAdoo and 55.4% for Lanier. McAdoo has the edge for two-years and three-years, but Lanier has the one-year advantage, and I reiterate, Lanier throughout all of this played for worse coaches and on teams that were worse without him than McAdoo’s teams were without McAdoo.

[AEnigma]

I compiled all of this (and more) for the peaks project, so may as well bring it back.

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. 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.

I spent some time analyzing Lanier's teams stats with and without him in the second part of the 1970s. He came out fantastic (as WOWY stats show). I'm also starting to believe that his defense is undervalued due to his teams being consistently poor on that end:

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

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)
4.8 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.

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

Trimmer last season. Defense was his biggest improvement. He concentrated more on stopping other teams from penetrating and fourth in blocked shots with 247.

Such awesome grace has never before been present in a man of this size...Dainty movements coming from a man who sometimes weighs 280 suggests image of a ballerina elephant...The single most versatile offensive center--ever...Actually has more moves than Abdul-Jabbar, who has become almost strictly a hook man.

Has become a very intimidating defensive player who, like Dave Cowens, is not afraid to switch out on unsuspecting forwards and guards… He also clogs the middle nicely.

Can rebound, block shots, play defense, do everything but clean the kitchen floor… Injuries have been a problem, though, but he has always played hurt.

Lanier seals off the middle and is tough and aggressive.

Defensively he can be as imposing as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Bill Walton or Artis Gilmore.

In large samples Lanier was having a substantial impact in '76-'78. The difference with him to without him (per game in points diff) was ...

'76: 5.2
team points differential over the year -86 over 82 games, -1.05 per game
team points differential over 18 games without Lanier -92 over 18 games, -5.1 per game
team points differential over 64 games with Lanier +6 over 64 games, 0.1 per game

'77: 6.3
team points differential over the year -85 over 82 games, -1.04 per game
team points differential over 18 games without Lanier -107 over 18 games, -5.95 per game
team points differential over 64 games with Lanier 22 over 64 games, 0.35 per game

'78: 4.3
team points differential over the year -102 over 82 games, -1.24 per game
team points differential over 19 games without Lanier -100 over 19 games, -4.35 per game
team points differential over 63 games with Lanier -2 over 63 games, -0.05 per game

This is from a guy hitting his apex in '74. In '75 still more or less as healthy as he ever was (he was injured late in his NCAA career and the Pistons hurried him back in his rookie year, which may have altered his career trajectory, but I digress), he's still blocking more than two shots a game, and I think for those first two years of my span ('74, '75) he's having a larger impact overall and a larger impact on D (than for ’76-’78). But even if it were just at these levels, I just don't buy that his impact was exclusively offensive, and in later Pistons years I don't think Lanier was put in a position to look good in terms of turnover, coaching turnover, coaching quality and teammates.

The Bucks in net in year improvement upon Lanier's arrival is huge suggesting at worst non-harmful at that point on that end. Those games with Lanier, and Lanier played in them all, they go +287, or +11.04 per game. Before that point, over 56 games they had been +36 or 0.64 per game.

I can't think really of another angle to analyse this from. I'd guess he's portable as he can score from the post, he space the floor and shoot the J, and it seems like at his best (anecdotally) he could defend guys out on the floor as well as play a more conventional anchor, and his assist % is pretty strong for a big man

Short-version:
- Mid-70s boxscore composite "advanced" metrics not too far off Kareem (on a per-minute basis).
- Despite missing time in his prime, above metrics were at a high level for a long time.
- With-without splits from when injured during prime indicates significant impact.
- Post-prime splits after trade for the more stable team (Milwaukee) suggest (on a small, but non-trivial sample) huge impact.
- From '74 on, a prominent yearly publication far more bullish on Lanier's D

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.

I think the most I can say on Lanier is the more I got into (1) the numbers and (2) the year by year history rather than the big, broad strokes, after the fact histories (and related rankings), the more I thought "Isn't he better than much more fabled 70s centers (Reed, Unseld, Cowens)?" Instinctively I'd say maybe in Ewing's ballpark.

Bob Lanier's defense I've argued repeatedly wasn't that bad, as evidenced by 4 things:

(1) Ability to be part of an elite defensive team
(2) The reputation of his Detroit teams as being absolutely god awful on defense at the other positions
(3) His individual praise in old articles for defending elite centers well (at times)
(4) His defensive role/impact in Milwaukee

Lanier had the following team DRtg's (estimated before 1974)
Det 70 +4.3 (pre Lanier)
Det 71 +1.7
Det 72 +4.4
Det 73 +1.6
Det 74 -3.9
Det 75 +2.0
Det 76 +1.9 (64g)
Det 77 +0.8 (64g)
Det 78 +0.6 (63g)
Det 79 +0.8 (53g)
Det 80 +3.5 (Lanier plays 37 games before trade)
--
Mil 80 -2.4 (26g post trade at +11 MOV)
Mil 81 -3.7 (67g)
Mil 82 -4.6

I've always argued he wasn't as bad as made out to be...maybe average or even slightly above average. That's what he looks like on film to me. Yes, Curtis Rowe looks like a decent defender...but how can you say some of these teams are decent defensively? There was an SI (I think) article I read discussing their lack of effort on that end... https://vault.si.com/vault/1974/02/04/great-scott-he-did-some-ring-job

Lanier was on 7 teams between 0.6 and 2.0 points worse than league average...that's not "significantly worse than league average." And he's considered the meat of the Milwaukee interior after the trade... That's based on quotes from his teammates and opponents when he came to Mil in the early 80s. You can call him aging but the team was monstrous when he arrived. It almost reminds me of a lite version of Kevin Garnett from Minny to Boston the way he is talked about. Not equating their defensive value, but KG has showed us how powerful a role like that can be, even post-prime. (Of course the Bucks were 6th in DRtg in 83 w Lanier out half the year...but the C's were 2nd with KG missing 25 games in 09.)

Remember, Lanier's value is primarily on offense, which is why in 74 and 77 he finished top-4 in MVP voting. Over and over we see the value in that high-post big who can pass and stretch the defense with shooting, and that was Bob Lanier. The 75 Pistons were a top-5 offense. As were the 76 Pistons...which is interesting because there was no more Dave Bing.

Then we look at Mutombo, and here were his team DRtg's
Den 91 +6.8 (pre Deke)
Den 92 +0.6
Den 93 -1.7
Den 94 -4.0
Den 95 -0.1
Den 96 +0.5
Den 97 +4.5 (post)
--
Atl 96 +0.4 (pre)
Atl 97 -4.4
Atl 98 -0.7
Atl 99 -5.1
Atl 00 +3.8
Atl 01 +1.3 (leaves post AS)

Without delving any further into scheme and roster, we can see Mutombo joins a bad defensive team, has them around average , with one elite defensive team he anchors in 1994. Again in Atlanta, he joins an average defensive team from the year before, has another impact (this time to elite) and anchors 2 elite defensive teams. He also is part of a horrible defensive team in 2000 (with the same coach.)

We can see when Deke misses 11 games in 1992 (rookie year) the team is -13.1 (!) without him and -7.1 with him...with all the change being in ppg against. In 96 he misses 8 more games and this time, theoretically around his peak as a player, they are -1.4 without him and -2.9 with him. Small sample, but negligible change at a cursory glance on both sides of the ball. In 01, we can see the difference in Atlanta and Philly pre/post trade, and in Atlanta they were -8.7 post trade (-2.8 pre), but in Philadelphia, the 76ers closed the year +1.6 while going +5.5 without Mutombo. (ppg against almost identical.)

Huh? So even a 4-time DPOY and block master has:
(1) evidence of little to no defensive impact in certain situations
(2) has been part of many average defensive teams
(3) has even been part of a bad defensive team

So Lanier "anchored" an elite team in 74 (he blocked a career best 3.0 per game that year w/1.4 steals). We know there is in/out evidence of him having little effect, like Mutombo, and him having considerable defensive effect. He is part of a horrible team in 72. He also has many average defensive teams. I said it reminded me of Kevin Garnett, who without PM data wouldn't have the reputation in the community as being as damn impressive as he's been defensively because he played on so many bad defensive teams in Minnesota and as an aging part of Boston's team, he's been surrounded by so many notable defenders on paper (Perkins, Posey, Rondo, etc.) And even with that, it still takes extensive analysis by people like drza to separate exactly how impressive KG's defense is.

TLDR: Lanier shows similar trends to Mutombo ITO of defensive teams, so we shouldn't be quick to dismiss him as a bad defender.

With/Without Records/Wins added per season (pro-rated to 82 games)
‘75: 39-37 (.513) with Lanier, 1-5 (.167) without him/+28.4 wins
‘76: 30-34 (.469) with Lanier, 6-12 (.333) without him/+11.1 wins
‘77: 38-26 (.594) with Lanier, 6-12 (.333) without him/+21.4 wins
‘78: 31-32 (.492) with Lanier, 7-12 (.368) without him/+10.2 wins
‘79: 21-32 (396) with Lanier, 9-20 (.310) without him/+7.1 wins
‘80 Pistons: 9-28 (.243) with Lanier, 5-12 (.294) without
‘80 Pistons overall before trade (for Kent Benson): 14-40 (.259)
‘80 Pistons after trade: 2-26 (.071)
‘80 Bucks before obtaining Lanier: 29-27 (.518)
‘80 Bucks after obtaining Lanier: 20-6 (.769) (Lanier played all 26 games)
*‘81: 48/49-18/19 with Lanier, *11/12-3/4 without him
*he actually played 67 games, but game log data only recording 66 (48-18); is possible [likely] they won they other game he played in, making the with record 49-18 (.731) and 11-4 (.733) without. Would be -0.1 wins added in that instance.
‘82: 53-21 (.716) with Lanier, 2-6 (.250) without him/+38.2 wins

The above data spans eight years, SIX different head coaches, and a fair amount of supporting cast turnover.

So one way are another, Lanier's impact appears to have been pretty consistently substantial in nature (and was so across multiple settings). And while Lanier's lack of All-NBA honors will work against him for some people, I'd caution against thinking that this means he was scarcely ever a top 5-10 player: he finished 3rd in the MVP vote in '74, 4th in '77 (POST-merger), and had TWO other top 10 finishes, and received at least slight MVP consideration in a total SEVEN seasons.

And now we can add Moonbeam’s work to that.

Let me know how McAdoo or Reed show anything similar.

[trex_8063]

Once again glad to at least see my alternate get in, but definitely nothing has changed wrt to my primary vote. I personally feel we're overdue on Baylor (perhaps by a far bit at this point).

Induction Vote: Elgin Baylor

Piggy-backing on comments from post #28 of the #39 thread......

A partial case for Baylor follows:

Spoiler:

The opening salvo to get Elgin Baylor on the list of eligible candidates (from my archives):


I view him as a very good [not great] scorer in his era.......a modern(ish) comp [as a scorer only] maybe being Carmelo Anthony.

But although he's a touch shorter than Melo, I'm not sure he wouldn't be a slightly better rebounder, even in the modern era. I know the league was marginally shorter and a bit less athletic at that time, but Baylor's pre-injury rebounding numbers are resoundingly impressive. Here are his reb/100 possession estimates by year:
'59: 15.3
'60: 15.85
'61: 17.75
'62: 16.3
‘63: 13.9

For comparison, here are some notable big-time big-men and their reb/100 possession estimates for the same years (and relation to Baylor's avg):
Pettit
'59: 17.1 (+1.8)
'60: 16.9 (+1.05)
'61: 18.9 (+1.15)
'62: 17.1 (+0.8)
‘63: 16.0 (+2.1)

Wilt
'59: na
'60: 20.9 (+5.05)
'61: 20.7 (+2.95)
'62: 19.4 (+3.1)
‘63: 19.9 (+6.0)

Russell
'59: 20.2 (+4.9)
'60: 19.9 (+4.05)
'61: 19.3 (+1.55)
'62: 16.3 (+2.8)
‘63: 19.9 (+6.0)

Wayne Embry
'59: 15.5 (+0.2)
'60: 17.1 (+1.25)
'61: 15.1 (-2.65)
'62: 14.3 (-2.0)
‘63: 15.0 (+1.1)

Walter Dukes
'59: 16.7 (+1.4)
'60: 16.1 (+0.25)
'61: 19.2 (+1.45)
'62: 16.4 (+0.1)
‘63: 15.7 (+1.8)

Dolph Schayes
'59: 14.4 (-0.9)
'60: 13.2 (-2.65)
'61: 11.9 (-5.85)
'62: 11.05 (-5.25)

Bailey Howell
'59: na
'60: 13.1 (-2.75)
'61: 14.3 (-3.45)
'62: 13.5 (-2.8)
‘63: 12.2 (-1.7)

When viewing that I'd note two things: every single one of those guys is taller than Elgin, and every single one of them was more a low-post player on one or both ends (so presumably would more frequently [than Elgin] be in the position to grab rebounds). And yet he's at least in the neighborhood of all of them except for Wilt and Russell----who are both a) legitimately BIG and b) legitimately freakish athletes, and c) considered on the short-list of greatest rebounders ever (and even Russell isn't far ahead of him in '61, fwiw).
Otherwise Baylor's reasonably close to everyone else, and well ahead of Schayes and Howell (though admittedly Schayes is trickling into his post-prime for most of the years referenced here).

He was a thick strong guy, good at creating space with his lower body, could jump (isn't he labeled the "grandfather of hang-time" or some such?), and seems to have had great anticipation for where the rebound was going (a la Jerry Lucas, Fat Lever, and Jason Kidd). All this has me suspecting that Baylor would be special kind of rebounder for the SF position in any era (maybe likened to Shawn Marion in this regard).


Basic WOWY:
‘59: 33-37 (.471) with, 0-2 without
‘60: 23-47 (.329) with, 2-3 (.400) without
‘61: 34-39 (.466) with, 2-4 (.333) without
‘62: 37-11 (.771) with, 17-15 (.531) without **West missed only 5 games, no one else in the regular rotation missed more than 2 games
‘63: 52-28 (.650) with


The Lakers in ‘58 were 19-53 with an SRS of -5.78. And then they obtained rookie Elgin Baylor.
In ‘59--with Baylor being the only relevant player acquisition--they improved by 14 games to 33-39, SRS of -1.42 (+4.36 improvement); also made it to the finals (defeating the 2.89 SRS defending champion Hawks 4-2 along the way). That strikes me as indication of fairly significant impact.

The big criticism on Baylor has been his offensive efficiency (relative to his astronomical volume), and whether he was really “helping” the offense.

The Laker team offensive rating improved with rookie Baylor by +2.8 (+1.4 in rORTG terms) in ‘59. I won’t claim that Baylor always “helped the offense optimally” to the best of his abilities; but I do think he helped it. Obviously other metrics of offensive production/efficiency suggest Baylor was a “big deal” (more on that below)......but what I’m beginning to wonder about is whether or not Baylor had a defensive impact that hasn’t been properly appreciated.

Maybe his capability as a rebounder eliminated a lot of second-chance points for opponents????

idk, but something I noted is that the Laker team rDRTG improved by -2.8 in ‘59. In ‘58, they were 8th of 8 defensively, DRtg +4.5 over league avg and +2.5 over the next worse team.
In ‘59, improved to +1.7 over league avg (6th of 8).
They would continue to improve defensively over the next couple of seasons with acquisitions of Jerry West and aging Ray Felix. And then interestingly their defense appears to suffer slightly in ‘62 when Baylor misses significant games:
In ‘61, the Laker DRtg is -1.3 to league average (again: minus is good), 4th of 8.
In ‘62 Baylor misses 32 games and the Laker DRtg falls a little: just -0.3 vs league average (though still 4th of 9).
In ‘63: no more big Ray Felix in playing significant minutes in the middle and Jerry West misses 25 games (things you’d expect to hurt the team defense); they otherwise obtain guard Dick Barnett, and the only other change from the previous year is that Baylor is healthy (doesn’t miss a game)…….and the team DRtg improves to -1.2 vs league average (3rd of 9).
And then beginning in ‘64 (perhaps non-coincidentally just as Baylor begins to be significantly hampered by knee injuries, which causes his overall effectiveness to suffer, as seen by sudden drop in PER, etc), the Laker team DRtg takes a sudden dip……...And it would never recovery to a better than average team defense (even with big bodies like Darrall Imhoff and Mel Counts) until ‘69 when they obtained Wilt Chamberlain.

So I’m starting to wonder if Baylor had a bigger impact defensively than he’s typically given credit for.
And I sort of wonder if he isn't like Carmelo Anthony scoring, Shawn Marion on the glass, with defense somewhere in between (and a little better passer than either). That's an awfully good player.

Anyway…..
Otherwise, I promised some tidbits regarding his overall production and efficiency during his prime years:

In ‘59 and rookie Elgin Baylor had the 2nd-highest PER in the league, behind only a peak Bob Pettit.
In ‘60 he had the 2nd-highest PER in the league, behind only Wilt Chamberlain.
In ‘61: he had the highest PER (even ahead of Wilt, not to mention Pettit and rookie Oscar Robertson).
‘62 and ‘63: 2nd-best PER in the league both years, behind only Wilt Chamberlain (even ahead of triple-double season Robertson, as well as Pettit and Walt Bellamy’s insane rookie season).

That’s a super-impressive 5-year span. Yes, he drops off quite a bit after, but it’s not as though he faded into obscurity or ineffectiveness in subsequent years. He was a relevant player until ‘70. So…..


For another comparison:

Kevin Durant (‘10-’14) rs
Per 100 Possessions: 38.7 pts, 10.0 reb, 5.1 ast on 61.7% TS% (+8.0% on league avg)
26.9 PER, .250 WS/48 in 38.8 mpg

Elgin Baylor (‘59-’63) rs
Estimated Per 100 Possessions: 30.3 pts, 15.7 reb, 4.2 ast on 49.9 TS% (+2.7%)
26.1 PER, .195 WS/48 in 42.1 mpg


Kevin Durant (‘10-’14) playoffs
Per 100 Possessions: 35.8 pts, 10.2 reb, 5.2 ast on .583 TS% (+4.6%)
24.4 PER, .189 WS/48 in 42.3 mpg

Elgin Baylor (‘59-’63) playoffs
Estimated Per 100 Possessions: 30.4 pts, 13.2 reb, 3.5 ast on 51.2 TS% (+4.0%)
25.1 PER, .183 WS/48 in 44.0 mpg

Spoiler:

When thinking about what has driven improvement in the league......integration has helped, but I suspect most of us agree that probably the biggest factor is size of player pool.

And obviously things like scheming/coaching/strategy/analytics have helped toward getting players guided toward better and more effective outcomes. Skills training, shot mechanics, etc, have also evolved, improving the all-around quality of play. However, these latter things are all EXTRINSIC factors: they are things that players from 50-60 years ago would have absorbed if they had been immersed in them from day one (like today's players).

Otherwise, increasing the size of the player pool that the league can tap into is probably the largest driver of improved player quality.

And I think arguably the biggest driver in player pool size is the popularity of the game. As such, I think there is something to be said for those players who were, quite simply, big draws: the guys that put butts in seats, and who inspired the imaginations of younger generations of players.

I bring this up as another small plug for Elgin Baylor. In his time, he was certainly someone who fits this distinction. I'll offer one quote:

“.....Fans specifically came to see him [Baylor]. When he was on military duty and playing sporadically, they called the box office before games to ask if he would be appearing. The Lakers front office had run figures calculating Baylor’s ability to sell tickets, and they determined that in games when he did not play, the Lakers drew an average of 2,000 fewer fans. That amounted to approximately $6,000 per game, or $200,000 over the course of a season….”

I'd place the career of either of these guys ahead of that of Rick Barry. Will try to post more to that sentiment later.
Suffice to say that I think we're getting on toward long overdue for having Baylor at least listed among the nominees. I don't think his career is behind Barry's, and I simply have a very hard time seeing it FAR behind.

Alt. Induction Vote: Russell Westbrook
A box-office stuffer, better in his prime than he's sometimes given credit for, imo, though his reluctance to adapt later has been frustrating.
This one is close with Schayes for me. I might opt to switch, pending trends in voting, but will leave as such for now.


FOR PURPOSES OF ANY RUN-OFF, I go:
Baylor > Westbrook > Schayes > Howard >>> Green


Nomination: Clyde Drexler
Alt Nom: Paul Pierce

(fwiw, Pau Gasol is the other guy I'd really like to nominate, but he has no traction presently; so I'll go with Pierce instead)

[LA Bird]

Vote 1: Dolph Schayes
Vote 2: Russell Westbrook
Nom 1: Clyde Drexler
Nom 2: Paul Pierce

Reposting my writeup on Schayes:

Spoiler:

High peak, excellent longevity for his time, fairly all-rounded game, and won a title as the clear best player in the post shot clock era. Schayes was the original stretch big with 3pt range and his ten straight seasons being top 3 in the league in FT% is still the best in history barring Barry (whose FT form obviously doesn't translate to regular shots). Besides the outside shooting, Schayes also attacked the basket well even in his later years (he was 33 in the first video below) and by most reasonable thresholds, he is the GOAT FT merchant at 1.154 career free throws per field goal over regular season and playoffs combined.

His passing also passes the eye test to me. There is one play at 0:36 mark in the second video where he spots the cutter and delivers a perfect behind the back pass. Obviously that's just one highlight but his assist numbers are generally pretty good too. It is more common now with the rise of heliocentric guards in recent years but Schayes along with Wilt and LeBron are still the only non guards to have been top 5 in both points and assists per game in the same season and he did it in his rookie (NBA) year. In G5-G7 of the 1959 Eastern Finals against the Russell Celtics, Schayes had games of 7, 8, 9 assists and while I know high assists don't necessarily mean good passing, a PF getting those kind of numbers in crucial playoff games against a #1 defense still says a lot.

For team performance, Schayes' 54 Nationals was 1st in both regular season SRS and defensive rating, the only team to ever top prime Mikan's Lakers in either categories. Schayes was injured and practically out of half of the Finals but still put up solid numbers in a close G7 loss (18/13 on 51% TS vs Mikan's 11/15 on 38.2% TS). The Nationals go on to win the title the following season after Mikan's retirement. Schayes consistently rated above Pettit for non-box impact in Moonbeam's regressed WOWY and ElGee's WOWYR and he is one of the guys who maintained their box score numbers well in the postseason. If we look at WS/48, the 50s stars could be divided into two contrasting groups when it comes to playoffs resiliency:

Mikan (0.249 -> 0.254)
Schayes (0.192 -> 0.189)
Arizin (0.183 -> 0.183)

Johnston (0.241 -> 0.159)
Pettit (0.213 -> 0.159)
Macauley (0.196 -> 0.134)

Note that we are missing minutes data for playoffs before 1952 or Schayes would likely be above 0.200 for his career postseason WS/48, which would be 5th all time among retired players.

Obviously, era is a concern for Schayes and that's partly why I've not been pushing for him earlier. But Pettit was nominated in round #25 and I don't see him as being that much better than Schayes (if at all). Mikan's a better player no contest but his career is literally half the length of Schayes' - I don't think it's a stretch to argue the 2nd best player over the decade of the 50s should at least be nominated at this point.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Spoiler:

Baylor peaked higher than Schayes but his efficiency fell off after only his fifth season in 1963, after which he became more like a Melo-level high volume guy who declined even further in the playoffs. And no offense to Melo but he isn't the caliber of player making the top 100 list this time around. I still have Baylor around top 50 mainly off his peak but if we are going by short multi-year peaks, Davis/Westbrook/Howard are all very competitive too.

Also, I feel like the gap in league competition between Baylor and Schayes is overrated. The bulk of Baylor's career value came in the early 60s which overlapped the tail end of Schayes' prime. For example, I previously only mentioned Schayes' high assist numbers in the series against the 59 Celtics but overall, he performed better than Baylor did against the same opponent:

Baylor - 23/12 on 39% TS in a 4 game sweep
Schayes - 28/13 on 51% TS in a 7 game series

Obviously small sample size and Baylor left him in the dust from the year after but Schayes still played at an All Star level until 1961. This is not like Mikan vs Baylor where there's a clear gap in era between the two players.

TLDR: Schayes checks all the boxes (ring, accolades, skills, box/impact stats, playoff resiliency, longevity) and era-relative, looks comparable to Pettit who was voted in over ten spots ago already.

Re: Reed
I don't see him being in the discussion even among centers anytime soon. Lanier, Thurmond, Cowens, Mutombo, Mourning all clear him for careers and some of them even peaked higher too. Add in all the other candidates from other positions and I think it's another 15+ spots before Reed should get nominated.

[penbeast0]

...
Nomination: Clyde Drexler
Alt Nom: Paul Pierce

(fwiw, Pau Gasol is the other guy I'd really like to nominate, but he has no traction presently; so I'll go with Pierce instead)

Can we compare Drexler and Pierce to the great SFs of the 70s/80s, particularly Gervin, English, and Dantley?

All are primarily scorers, Drexler and English add playmaking, Gervin and Dantley may be weaker defenders, but certainly the primary value of each of the 5 is scoring. Thus we can look at TS Add as a quick 1st cut for scoring greatness:

Drexler -- long consistent career gives him a total TS Add of 420.2 but with only 1 season barely above 100 (100.8). I think he gets overrated by the "2nd best SG to MJ" thought process. If you are going to talk about what wings bring more outside of scoring, I'm voting Jimmy Butler over Drexler as the scoring is similar and Butler brings significantly more defense.

Jimmy Butler -- TS Add of 685.1, 3 seasons over 100.

Paul Pierce -- much better then Clyde (or Butler) at pure scoring with a total TS Add of 1771.8. 8 seasons above 100, none above 200.

Gervin -- 1687 total TS Add, below Pierce, but higher peak/prime 4 year stretch where he was 240+ twice and 290+ twice more. To be fair, this is the guy quoted as saying defense is for those who can't score.

English -- Does not come off as well as I had thought he would, only career total of 632.2 TS Add with 3 seasons over 100, peaking at 199.4.

Dantley -- Total TS Add of 3109.6 as arguably the best combination of volume and efficiency ever outside of Kareem. This includes one season over 400 and 3 more over 300.

So, it would seem that to put a Drexler (or English) in there, you need to be able to make a case against clearly superior scorers like Pierce or Dantley, or clearly superior at everything else players like Jimmy Butler. If you can, I'd like to hear it.

Note: Paul Arizin comes off well by this measure too, with a TS Add total of 1600.9 in only 10 seasons with 3 seasons above 200 and one above 300.

[iggymcfrack]

Vote: Russell Westbrook
All-time peak surrounded by an incredibly underrated 6 year prime where on/off numbers would paint him as at least an equal to KD if not the driving force of the team.

Alternate: Draymond Green
More proven impact compared to the older guys who didn't win anywhere near enough against weak competition.

Nominate: Joel Embiid
All-time regular season numbers that could theoretically have him threatening the top 15, and while the box numbers go down in the playoffs, the impact numbers do not. His sparkling regular season on/off of +10.4 goes up to +12.1 in the postseason when the lights shine brightest.