wailuaFC wrote:
Barry was not as good of a scorer, nor all around player. Scoring wise, Baylor had a higher career average (even including those two seasons after the knee injury when he averaged 10 and 12 ppg), a higher season best (38.3 to 35.6), and a higher scoring average per 36 minutes. As far as more all around players, youre trying to tell me a 6'5 small forward who was ble to average 13.5 rpg for his career and a career high of 19.8 isnt an all around player? Barry has the edge in assists sure, but only by .6 for his career, and dont forget baylor wasnt the ball handler on those laker teams, so there isnt much of an argument for baylor being a better all around player. And to be honest, making the finals 8 times is a bit more impressive then making it once and winning it that one time. Barry is awesome and he does get some extra credit for winning with one of if not the worst supporting casts ever, but just having one ring does not elevate him over Baylor IMO
Not to sound like I'm going against you, but:
Rick Barry was a bit more efficient as a scorer than Baylor: FG%, TS% and eFG%.
I would be most interested in how they'd measure up against each other as far as 100 possessions is concerned but that data is unavailable before 1973-74.
And deandre jordan has a better FG%, TS%, and eFG% then Durant, stats need to be taken with a grain of salt. The fact that despite the increase in volume that Baylor was able to stay relatively close to barry in those categories says something. Combine that with literally beating barry in every imaginable way to measure scoring (higher per game average, higher single game mark, higher career average, higher playoff average, higher finals average, etc) should tell you that baylor was the greater scorer. Rebounding isnt even a conversation. Despite the fact that baylor was playing with one of the more dominant ball handlers and playmakers of his generation, he only averaged a half an assist less per game then barry, who was given much more play making responsibility. Defense is too hard to quantify but neither were elite, call it a wash. Couple that with baylors teams consistently being in the finals (he played more then half of his career in the finals), Id say Baylor has the edge
Yeah man but that's a totally different comparison because they played totally different roles for their respective team. Baylor and Barry played the same roles for their respective teams so their stats can be compared on a equivalent level.
I'm not advocating Barry over Baylor, BTW. I'm just adding to the discussion itself.
Nate Thurmond was pretty damn good... he and Barry made a Finals together but lost to that great Philly team.
Barry played with a young Wilkes, a young Robert Parish, prime Nate Thurmond, multi-allstar Jeff Mullins. He didn't simply play with tomato cans his whole career.
Stephen is being obtuse.
that doesn't compare to West and Wilt. In comparison it's actually nothing.
When you are trying to evaluate and weigh multiple variables, especially in a contextual format, it's hard to do without formalizing your model in some way.
That could be a project for the board...formalizing a way to evaluate and rank players cross-era....
Taking a break from the board. Please reference my last post for more details if you are interested.
y2ktors wrote:
Not to sound like I'm going against you, but:
Rick Barry was a bit more efficient as a scorer than Baylor: FG%, TS% and eFG%.
I would be most interested in how they'd measure up against each other as far as 100 possessions is concerned but that data is unavailable before 1973-74.
And deandre jordan has a better FG%, TS%, and eFG% then Durant, stats need to be taken with a grain of salt. The fact that despite the increase in volume that Baylor was able to stay relatively close to barry in those categories says something. Combine that with literally beating barry in every imaginable way to measure scoring (higher per game average, higher single game mark, higher career average, higher playoff average, higher finals average, etc) should tell you that baylor was the greater scorer. Rebounding isnt even a conversation. Despite the fact that baylor was playing with one of the more dominant ball handlers and playmakers of his generation, he only averaged a half an assist less per game then barry, who was given much more play making responsibility. Defense is too hard to quantify but neither were elite, call it a wash. Couple that with baylors teams consistently being in the finals (he played more then half of his career in the finals), Id say Baylor has the edge
Yeah man but that's a totally different comparison because they played totally different roles for their respective team. Baylor and Barry played the same roles for their respective teams so their stats can be compared on a equivalent level.
I'm not advocating Barry over Baylor, BTW. I'm just adding to the discussion itself.
I know, my deandre Jordan durant comparison is actually for shits and giggles to troll the usage of advanced stats, but the rest of my points stand. While Barry was a very good player, really the only thing he has going for him in this discussion is his one ring which doesn't make up for all the other advantages Baylor has.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:stephen is right about Barry not having the usage. He just couldn't get the ball.
I mean just look at the 1967 Finals. He only averaged 39 shots per game. That's NOT enough. Give the man the ball!
Barry and Baylor's usage for their careers is not that close. Baylor averaged almost 4 more shots per game for their careers but only averaged about 3 more points. Barry's highest usage in terms of fg attempts was 28.7 in 66-67 and he averaged 35 ppg that year. Baylor's highest was 33.1 and averaged 38.3 ppg. If look at the years when barry's usga rate compared favorably with Baylor(mostly the aba years) he scores just as much as Baylor.
wailuaFC wrote:
And deandre jordan has a better FG%, TS%, and eFG% then Durant, stats need to be taken with a grain of salt. The fact that despite the increase in volume that Baylor was able to stay relatively close to barry in those categories says something. Combine that with literally beating barry in every imaginable way to measure scoring (higher per game average, higher single game mark, higher career average, higher playoff average, higher finals average, etc) should tell you that baylor was the greater scorer. Rebounding isnt even a conversation. Despite the fact that baylor was playing with one of the more dominant ball handlers and playmakers of his generation, he only averaged a half an assist less per game then barry, who was given much more play making responsibility. Defense is too hard to quantify but neither were elite, call it a wash. Couple that with baylors teams consistently being in the finals (he played more then half of his career in the finals), Id say Baylor has the edge
Yeah man but that's a totally different comparison because they played totally different roles for their respective team. Baylor and Barry played the same roles for their respective teams so their stats can be compared on a equivalent level.
I'm not advocating Barry over Baylor, BTW. I'm just adding to the discussion itself.
I know, my deandre Jordan durant comparison is actually for shits and giggles to troll the usage of advanced stats, but the rest of my points stand. While Barry was a very good player, really the only thing he has going for him in this discussion is his one ring which doesn't make up for all the other advantages Baylor has.
What huge advantages? Scoring is close if you compare there usage rates and field goal attempts. Playmaking favors Barry simply because he had more assists and less help around him. Barry has won something Baylor hasn't.
Baylor almost always had the best team in the west so it wasn't that great of an accomplishment to make the finals every year. In fact Baylor, not surprisingly always lost to the team that actually compete and match with the Lakers, the Celtics in the east. Barry never had the best team even when he won his title.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:stephen is right about Barry not having the usage. He just couldn't get the ball.
I mean just look at the 1967 Finals. He only averaged 39 shots per game. That's NOT enough. Give the man the ball!
Barry and Baylor's usage for their careers is not that close. Baylor averaged almost 4 more shots per game for their careers but only averaged about 3 more points. Barry's highest usage in terms of fg attempts was 28.7 in 66-67 and he averaged 35 ppg that year. Baylor's highest was 33.1 and averaged 38.3 ppg. If look at the years when barry's usga rate compared favorably with Baylor(mostly the aba years) he scores just as much as Baylor.
At the very least it's a wash on scoring, assists and defense, with Baylor carrying a large advantage in rebounding and winning.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Plus my vote is isn't even affecting the rankings at all. Baylor is going to win by a comfortable margin and Barry won't get picked for a while. I don't agree with it but board disagrees with me and that's okay. Im just trying to see the reasoning behind it.
It's why i will be abstaining from future voting for the time being.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:stephen is right about Barry not having the usage. He just couldn't get the ball.
I mean just look at the 1967 Finals. He only averaged 39 shots per game. That's NOT enough. Give the man the ball!
Barry and Baylor's usage for their careers is not that close. Baylor averaged almost 4 more shots per game for their careers but only averaged about 3 more points. Barry's highest usage in terms of fg attempts was 28.7 in 66-67 and he averaged 35 ppg that year. Baylor's highest was 33.1 and averaged 38.3 ppg. If look at the years when barry's usga rate compared favorably with Baylor(mostly the aba years) he scores just as much as Baylor.
Is that what usage rate measures?
And please share Baylor's and Barry's actual usage rates. I can't find any for Baylor.
Thanks in advance.
[Note: Thanks also for no longer perpetuating falsehoods about my previous posting history. I appreciate it.]
One other note that should be included...
Stephen has repeatedly used Wilt Chamberlain as a key teammate for Baylor. Well... that's true. They did play together.
Both guys played the entire 1969 season together. In 1970, Wilt missed 69 games*. In 1971, Baylor missed 79 games. And in 1972, he missed 72 games.
So, they did get to play about 80 or 90 regular season games together over their 4 seasons together.
* to be fair, Wilt returned for the playoffs. Those were the back-to-back Game 7 losses for the Lakers where Wilt shot 5 - 24 from the free throw line.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:stephen is right about Barry not having the usage. He just couldn't get the ball.
I mean just look at the 1967 Finals. He only averaged 39 shots per game. That's NOT enough. Give the man the ball!
Barry and Baylor's usage for their careers is not that close. Baylor averaged almost 4 more shots per game for their careers but only averaged about 3 more points. Barry's highest usage in terms of fg attempts was 28.7 in 66-67 and he averaged 35 ppg that year. Baylor's highest was 33.1 and averaged 38.3 ppg. If look at the years when barry's usga rate compared favorably with Baylor(mostly the aba years) he scores just as much as Baylor.
At the very least it's a wash on scoring, assists and defense, with Baylor carrying a large advantage in rebounding and winning.
I would agree with that. So if the stats are even or slightly favor Baylor then you have to look at other things to rank them which is why i don't see how Baylor can be ranked ahead of Barry.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:One other note that should be included...
Stephen has repeatedly used Wilt Chamberlain as a key teammate for Baylor. Well... that's true. They did play together.
Both guys played the entire 1969 season together. In 1970, Wilt missed 69 games*. In 1971, Baylor missed 79 games. And in 1972, he missed 72 games.
So, they did get to play about 80 or 90 regular season games together.
* to be fair, Wilt returned for the playoffs. Those were the back-to-back Game 7 losses for the Lakers where Wilt shot 5 - 24 from the free throw line.
Im aware that they didn't play to together much but they played together enough that the trio should have won a title together. I mean they absolutely should have beaten the Knicks in 1970. All three were healthy in that finals that year.
876Stephen wrote:
Barry and Baylor's usage for their careers is not that close. Baylor averaged almost 4 more shots per game for their careers but only averaged about 3 more points. Barry's highest usage in terms of fg attempts was 28.7 in 66-67 and he averaged 35 ppg that year. Baylor's highest was 33.1 and averaged 38.3 ppg. If look at the years when barry's usga rate compared favorably with Baylor(mostly the aba years) he scores just as much as Baylor.
At the very least it's a wash on scoring, assists and defense, with Baylor carrying a large advantage in rebounding and winning.
I would agree with that. So if the stats are even or slightly favor Baylor then you have to look at other things to rank them which is why i don't see how Baylor can be ranked ahead of Barry.
Because most people favor 8 Conference Championships over 2 CF's even if the records are 0-8 compared to 1-1 for the two. I think you'll find yourself deeply in the minority anywhere by trying to place Rick Barry above Elgin Baylor.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Bush4Ever wrote:When you are trying to evaluate and weigh multiple variables, especially in a contextual format, it's hard to do without formalizing your model in some way.
That could be a project for the board...formalizing a way to evaluate and rank players cross-era....
The question is: how?
There's incomplete data from every decade, mainly pre-merger, so analytically there are too many moving pieces.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:One other note that should be included...
Stephen has repeatedly used Wilt Chamberlain as a key teammate for Baylor. Well... that's true. They did play together.
Both guys played the entire 1969 season together. In 1970, Wilt missed 69 games*. In 1971, Baylor missed 79 games. And in 1972, he missed 72 games.
So, they did get to play about 80 or 90 regular season games together.
* to be fair, Wilt returned for the playoffs. Those were the back-to-back Game 7 losses for the Lakers where Wilt shot 5 - 24 from the free throw line.
Im aware that they didn't play to together much but they played together enough that the trio should have won a title together. I mean they absolutely should have beaten the Knicks in 1970. All three were healthy in that finals that year.
You do realize that that Knicks team had 4 future HOFers on it, right?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:One other note that should be included...
Stephen has repeatedly used Wilt Chamberlain as a key teammate for Baylor. Well... that's true. They did play together.
Both guys played the entire 1969 season together. In 1970, Wilt missed 69 games*. In 1971, Baylor missed 79 games. And in 1972, he missed 72 games.
So, they did get to play about 80 or 90 regular season games together over their 4 seasons together.
* to be fair, Wilt returned for the playoffs. Those were the back-to-back Game 7 losses for the Lakers where Wilt shot 5 - 24 from the free throw line.
Are you ignoring Baylor's shitty play in the 1969 finals as well? It wasn't all Wilt. They both, collectively let West down that year.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:One other note that should be included...
Stephen has repeatedly used Wilt Chamberlain as a key teammate for Baylor. Well... that's true. They did play together.
Both guys played the entire 1969 season together. In 1970, Wilt missed 69 games*. In 1971, Baylor missed 79 games. And in 1972, he missed 72 games.
So, they did get to play about 80 or 90 regular season games together.
* to be fair, Wilt returned for the playoffs. Those were the back-to-back Game 7 losses for the Lakers where Wilt shot 5 - 24 from the free throw line.
Im aware that they didn't play to together much but they played together enough that the trio should have won a title together. I mean they absolutely should have beaten the Knicks in 1970. All three were healthy in that finals that year.
You do realize that that Knicks team had 4 future HOFers on it, right?
4 future hofer's yes but none of them better than Wilt-West-Baylor three hofer's who are consensus top 20 players of all time.
