2014 Anger General Geatest of All Time: #20 selection

[876Stephen]

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.

Again Baylor conference titles are less impressive considering the only other team that could compete with the Lakers at the time was the Celtics in the east and vice versa. Russell has too many conference title to list but no cares about that because he won nba titles which always been the ultimate goal. Since Baylor didn't win nba titles you guys seem to be reaching for the next best thing which is conference titles. If were including that as an accomplishment then this list is very wrong.

[AbeVigodaLive]

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.

No more than you've "ignored" Baylor's 41 / 18 in the 1962 Finals.

For those interested, Baylor averaged 18/10/4 on 40% shooting in the 1969 Finals.

[AbeVigodaLive]

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.

Again Baylor conference titles are less impressive considering the only other team that could compete with the Lakers at the time was the Celtics in the east and vice versa. Russell has too many conference title to list but no cares about that because he won nba titles which always been the ultimate goal. Since Baylor didn't win nba titles you guys seem to be reaching for the next best thing which is conference titles. If were including that as an accomplishment then this list is very wrong.

Your post makes more sense if we were debating between Russell and Baylor at #20. We aren't.

Russell is at #2 for a reason.

[876Stephen]

Also Baylor had lots of bad finals. His rookie year he played shitty in the finals. His team was shitty and he was never going to win it but that doesn't excuse his poor play. 1966 finals he shot below 40%, which was bad even for that era. 1969 finals he shoots below 40% once again while West puts up 38-5-8 on 50% shooting.

And i'm mistaken. Baylor didn't play in one finals where the Lakers made it. I believe it was 1964, so i can't hold that one against him.

Still 0-7 isn't much better.

[876Stephen]

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.

Again Baylor conference titles are less impressive considering the only other team that could compete with the Lakers at the time was the Celtics in the east and vice versa. Russell has too many conference title to list but no cares about that because he won nba titles which always been the ultimate goal. Since Baylor didn't win nba titles you guys seem to be reaching for the next best thing which is conference titles. If were including that as an accomplishment then this list is very wrong.

Your post makes more sense if we were debating between Russell and Baylor at #20. We aren't.

Russell is at #2 for a reason.

It doesn't matter how far down we rank. I don't think conference titles should be used as a measuring stick for greatness.

[Bush4Ever]

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.

That's not quite what I meant. I meant more along the lines of how an instructor would grade a paper/essay/whatever:

For example (with a non-serious example with random numbers):

1. Winning 40 points
2. Statistics-Individual (40 points)
3. Accolades (20 points)

Then break down each of those components:

3. Accolades (20 points)
All-NBA (15 percent)
All-defense selections (10 percent)
MVPs (50 percent)
All-stars (25 percent)

But we might be a long way off from that type of discussion...

[876Stephen]

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.

No more than you've "ignored" Baylor's 41 / 18 in the 1962 Finals.

For those interested, Baylor averaged 18/10/4 on 40% shooting in the 1969 Finals.

Im not ignoring it but i will say that every time Baylor had a good finals, West also played well. In that 1962 finals 31 a game while shooting a much higher % than Baylor. West almost always held his weight and performed. Baylor did not always perform.

And again, you are reffering to one finals where Baylor played out of his mind and still lost. What about the other 6 times? How do you plan to excuse away those years?

[AbeVigodaLive]

Also Baylor had lots of bad finals. His rookie year he played shitty in the finals. His team was shitty and he was never going to win it but that doesn't excuse his poor play. 1966 finals he shot below 40%, which was bad even for that era. 1969 finals he shoots below 40% once again while West puts up 38-5-8 on 50% shooting.

And i'm mistaken. Baylor didn't play in one finals where the Lakers made it. I believe it was 1964, so i can't hold that one against him.

Still 0-7 isn't much better.

1959: 23 / 12 / ? (33% fg) rookie season
1962: 41 / 18 / 4 (43% fg)
1963: 34 / 15 / 4 (47% fg)
1966: 25 / 16 / 2 (40% fg)... it was the first year back for Baylor after doctors told him to retire. He averaged 17 / 9 in the regular season.
1968: 26 / 13 / 4 (47% fg)
1969: 18 / 10 / 4 (40% fg)
1970: 18 / 11 / 4 (49% fg)

Those are Baylor's Finals appearances. I'll let others be the judge in how shitty he was in the Finals.

[876Stephen]

Also Baylor had lots of bad finals. His rookie year he played shitty in the finals. His team was shitty and he was never going to win it but that doesn't excuse his poor play. 1966 finals he shot below 40%, which was bad even for that era. 1969 finals he shoots below 40% once again while West puts up 38-5-8 on 50% shooting.

And i'm mistaken. Baylor didn't play in one finals where the Lakers made it. I believe it was 1964, so i can't hold that one against him.

Still 0-7 isn't much better.

1959: 23 / 12 / ? (33% fg) rookie season
1962: 41 / 18 / 4 (43% fg)
1963: 34 / 15 / 4 (47% fg)
1966: 25 / 16 / 2 (40% fg)... it was the first year back for Baylor after doctors told him to retire. He averaged 17 ppg in the regular season.
1968: 26 / 13 / 4 (47% fg)
1969: 18 / 10 / 4 (40% fg)
1970: 18 / 11 / 4 (49% fg)

Those are Baylor's Finals appearances. I'll let others be the judge in how shitty he was in the Finals.

In terms of what he did in the regular season and how well he could have played, i'd say 59, 69 and 66 were not great finals by Baylor.

[elmouse03]

interesting and also great discussion.

[elmouse03]

Barry and Baylor are 6th and 7th in that order in playoff PPG.

Baylor though is 16th in total points while Barry is 28th.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Also Baylor had lots of bad finals. His rookie year he played shitty in the finals. His team was shitty and he was never going to win it but that doesn't excuse his poor play. 1966 finals he shot below 40%, which was bad even for that era. 1969 finals he shoots below 40% once again while West puts up 38-5-8 on 50% shooting.

And i'm mistaken. Baylor didn't play in one finals where the Lakers made it. I believe it was 1964, so i can't hold that one against him.

Still 0-7 isn't much better.

1959: 23 / 12 / ? (33% fg) rookie season
1962: 41 / 18 / 4 (43% fg)
1963: 34 / 15 / 4 (47% fg)
1966: 25 / 16 / 2 (40% fg)... it was the first year back for Baylor after doctors told him to retire. He averaged 17 ppg in the regular season.
1968: 26 / 13 / 4 (47% fg)
1969: 18 / 10 / 4 (40% fg)
1970: 18 / 11 / 4 (49% fg)

Those are Baylor's Finals appearances. I'll let others be the judge in how shitty he was in the Finals.

In terms of what he did in the regular season and how well he could have played, i'd say 59, 69 and 66 were not great finals by Baylor.

Considering Baylor averaged 8 more points and 6 more rebounds in the 1966 Finals with the same shooting percentage than he did during the regular season...

[876Stephen]

1959: 23 / 12 / ? (33% fg) rookie season
1962: 41 / 18 / 4 (43% fg)
1963: 34 / 15 / 4 (47% fg)
1966: 25 / 16 / 2 (40% fg)... it was the first year back for Baylor after doctors told him to retire. He averaged 17 ppg in the regular season.
1968: 26 / 13 / 4 (47% fg)
1969: 18 / 10 / 4 (40% fg)
1970: 18 / 11 / 4 (49% fg)

Those are Baylor's Finals appearances. I'll let others be the judge in how shitty he was in the Finals.

In terms of what he did in the regular season and how well he could have played, i'd say 59, 69 and 66 were not great finals by Baylor.

Considering Baylor averaged 8 more points and 6 more rebounds in the 1966 Finals with the same shooting percentage than he did during the regular season...

Im talking shooting wise. He was bad all year in 1966.

[AbeVigodaLive]

In terms of what he did in the regular season and how well he could have played, i'd say 59, 69 and 66 were not great finals by Baylor.

Considering Baylor averaged 8 more points and 6 more rebounds in the 1966 Finals with the same shooting percentage than he did during the regular season...

Im talking shooting wise. He was bad all year in 1966.

So you're recanting what you just wrote? Again?

[Y2K]

Let's get some opinions and analysis on dirk.

[876Stephen]

Considering Baylor averaged 8 more points and 6 more rebounds in the 1966 Finals with the same shooting percentage than he did during the regular season...

Im talking shooting wise. He was bad all year in 1966.

So you're recanting what you just wrote? Again?

Yeah, pretty much. Nothing else needs to be said.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Im talking shooting wise. He was bad all year in 1966.

So you're recanting what you just wrote? Again?

Yeah, pretty much. Nothing else needs to be said.

ummmm... ok. So you also recant that stuff about Kidd and Nash and LeBron James too?

[Havlicekstealsit]

Let's get some opinions and analysis on dirk.

Dirk had zero All-Stars on his team the season he won the Finals.

Twenty times Dirk has made a late 4th quarter/OT field goal to give the Mavs the lead.

Higher ppg/rpg in playoffs than regular season.

Multiple 40-point playoff games (some in closeout games).

Top 10 all-time in offensive win shares.

Arguably one of the most clutch playoff performers in history.

[876Stephen]

So you're recanting what you just wrote? Again?

Yeah, pretty much. Nothing else needs to be said.

ummmm... ok. So you also recant that stuff about Kidd and Nash and LeBron James too?

I somewhat recant my opnion of Baylor in 1966 finals. Injuries and other things impeded his abilities that year. I don't recant my opinion of Baylor being 0-7 or Kidd being greater Nash or the hypocritical Lebron bashing.

[Y2K]

Let's get some opinions and analysis on dirk.

Dirk had zero All-Stars on his team the season he won the Finals.

Twenty times Dirk has made a late 4th quarter/OT field goal to give the Mavs the lead.

Higher ppg/rpg in playoffs than regular season.

Multiple 40-point playoff games (some in closeout games).

Top 10 all-time in offensive win shares.

Arguably one of the most clutch playoff performers in history.

Usually as the competition gets tougher, ala the playoffs, ones efficiency usually drops a bit. Dirk's efficiency really didn't do that.

There is only 3 instances that I can think of off the top of my head where Dirk struggled:

2006 Finals
2007 vs Golden state
2011 Finals (He won FMVP anyways)

I see no one with a stronger case than Dirk for this spot. It has zero to do with KG.