ISH All time top 25 Forwards voting. #14. Scottie Pippen vs Elgin Baylor.

[Kblaze8855]

26. Webber
25. Dantley
24. King
23. Cunningham
22. Worthy
21. Jerry Lucas
20.Paul Pierce
19.Dolph Schayes
18.Paul Arizin
17.Dennis Rodman
16.Dominique Wilkins
15. Elvin Hayes
14. Kevin Mchale
13. ?



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zvhq9trr4gI/TG1D4fF5WgI/AAAAAAAABns/y-fSUNQPkjs/s1600/p1_pippen_getty.jpg

7 time all star
7 time all NBA(3 first teams)
6 time NBA champion
10 time all defensive team(8 first teams)
Led the NBA in steals in 1994
Career 16/6/5 player with individual season highs of 22/9/7(3 steals and 1 block)



This being his third vote scottie is past the quotes.


http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/521/elginbaylor.jpg

11 time all star
10 time all NBA first team
Top 3 in MVP voting 4 times
Top 5 in scoring for 10 seasons in a row peaking at #2 to wilt twice
Holds NBA finals record for single game scoring(61 points)
Career 27/14/4 player with individual season highs of 38/20/5




I wanted to give you one of Jerry Wests gushing with love quotes but I felt another Laker might not be taken as serious. So...

[Kblaze8855]

For such a storied player its hard to point out the accolades for Elgin. he never led the league in...anything(he did lead the playoffs in scoring 4 times though).

Never won an award other than ROY and an ASG mvp.

And lost in the finals like 8 times. At one point he had lost like 4 game 7s to the Celtics by a total of 7 points...

Hes literally a couple shots from most people putting him in the top 6-10 all time.

[D.J.]

Elgin Baylor


Even though I'd rather have Scottie on my team. But you don't necessarily take the better individual talent. Pippen provided more mismatches and was more versatile, especially on D.

Baylor was just a flat out more dominant individual talent. These are his accolades:


-10x All-NBA 1st team
-7x Top 5 in MVP voting
-4x Top 3 in MVP voting
-Runner up for MVP in '63
-Career 27.4 PPG
-3x 30+ PPG
-Peak of 38.3 PPG
-2x runner up for scoring title
-8x Top 5 in PPG
-4x Top 5 in RPG
-6x Top 10 in APG
-Led league in PER in '61
-4x runner up for PER


Even though I'd rather have Pippen on my team for his two-way play and his dominant perimeter D, Elgin was just the better individual talent and also more dominant offensively. Scottie's D(as great as it was) isn't enough for me to put him above Elgin.

[Smoke117]

This is one of those bob Cousy vs Dwyane Wade match ups. If were talking reality Scottie Pippen would run circles around Elgin baylor in modern basketball and frankly because i'm just biased, Scottie Pippen.

[Fatal9]

I'm kind of always a little skeptical of Baylor's impact.

Before Jerry West became "Jerry West", the Lakers won 33, 25 and 36 games. Had their best season the year he missed half the season due to military service. And for whatever reason the best Laker teams (record wise) always end up coming when one of them would miss significant amount of time, so I don't know if Baylor was as good as a Scottie with fitting his game together with another star. Maybe it's because from what I've seen of Elgin, he's a guy who kind of needs to control/pound the ball to score (would have been really interesting to see his turnover numbers), not necessarily the best fit along another perimeter star (Pippen controlled the ball too but he does it not so much to score but to run the offense, would have probably been a great fit with a catch and shoot guy like West). Then looking at his missed games near the end of his career...Lakers seemed better without him in '70 (28-26 with, 18-10 without) and finally in his final year, he leaves the team and they go on the longest winning streak in NBA history though he wasn't really "Elgin Baylor" by that point. Just a lot of questionable years through out his career like that.

As 60s continued and league wide efficiency rose, Elgin's didn't...would take 26 shots to average 27 in some years, just took a lot of shots and often shot below league average (I don't doubt his all around game though, seems like a beast on the boards and a pretty good passer). After '63 he shot at or over league average just twice (and barely. more than 3% lower in some years, difference is even larger if you compare just to his teams alone), and this is at a time it really wasn't hard for star players to shoot better than league average at all because they were already so low...and he was playing next to a guy having no problem shooting lights out.

He has better stats but I don't know if he necessarily had Pippen's impact. Obviously this is based on assumptions so I don't really feel strongly either way for this topic. But I'll give Scottie the nod, seems like he fits better with stars (offensively at least), more versatile, more durable (lot of people say Elgin wasn't the same after like '65 when he hurt his knee) and ultimately had the more successful career.

[MasterDurant24]

This is one of those bob Cousy vs Dwyane Wade match ups. If were talking reality Scottie Pippen would run circles around Elgin baylor in modern basketball and frankly because i'm just biased, Scottie Pippen.
No, Elgin Baylor was actually an athletic great scorer and is wayyyy better than Cousy. Pippen didn't dominate as much as Baylor, while Cousy didn't dominate as much as Wade.

[Dragonyeuw]

I want Scottie in the top ten forwards, so....Scottie. The guy is criminally underrated.

[RobertdeMeijer]

During Pippen's career, I never felt like he was going to be seen as one of the all-time greats.
During the 90's, I'd make lists of the best small-forwards in the league, and it was really hard for me to place him at number one. He wasn't as good at Jordan (the best SG), he wasn't as good as Larry Bird was. Heck, I recall placing Grant Hill higher than him eventually, and considered putting Detlef Schrempf, Glen Rice, Chris Mullin and Dominique Wilkins ahead of him at times.

Now, I wasn't there, but Baylor was the opposite: without doubt the best small forward during the 60s, pretty much every year.


But time goes on, and like the Brazil nut effect, the biggest end up coming out on top. Scottie Pippen just keeps popping up when I read about and discuss greatness. Perhaps the best "Robin" ever, perhaps the best point-forward ever, perhaps the best perimeter defender ever, part of the perhaps best NBA team ever, best of the not-so-perhaps best team ever anywhere (Dream Team), perhaps best all-round player, perhaps most underrated player ever, perhaps most underpaid player ever. That's alot of big "perhaps"es.
Two bonus points: He's part of Bill Simmons' wine cellar team. And he could dunk from the free-throw line.

Now Elgin. He has alot of first-team selections (but Pippen actually deserves just as many), alot of finals losses (while Pippen has wins), and was the first to play above the rim. To me, that's his legacy, and that's why nowadays, I find myself thinking about Scottie Pippen more than Elgin Baylor.

[PTB Fan]

Elgin Baylor.

Dude's one of the most remarkable offensive talents the game of basketball had ever seen, who was one of the finest clutch performers in the post season and finals, one of the 10 finest scoring machines ever and arguably most productive offensive force ever, one of the best all-around players, rebounders etc.

Lots of "greatest" and "best" are tied up to his legacy. Besides the already above mentioned, Elgin has a lot of "first" as well. First high flyer, first guy to play comfortably above the rim, first dominant perimeter player etc.

However, there're some negative points. 1)Efficiency:He was around league average since 65, when he wasn't the same player that he was before.

2)never won a MVP/FMVP:largely duo to Russell and Wilt, even though he had some good chances to. And probably big men were seen as more valuable back then

3)no titles:although he has a championship ring, he never actually won one, although he was very very close to get one.


Still, enough for me to put him much higher than Pippen. Give me, Elgin Baylor with no hesitation.

[Pushxx]

HAHAHAH this ordering ISH did is a joke.

Bob McAdoo above Pippen and McHale?!

OMG

[Legends66NBA7]

HAHAHAH this ordering ISH did is a joke.

Bob McAdoo above Pippen and McHale?!

OMG

I know right ?

Rookie of the Year, 1x time MVP and a runner up for MVP on 2 occassions to Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

Led the league in scoring 3 straight years, putting up 30/15/2/1/3 on 55%, 34.5/14/2/1/2 on 51%, 31/12/4/1/2 on 49%.

Yeah, "OMG"....


But for real, I think nobody voted for him in the inital voting. He's probably going to be in the center rankings. He's your classic center-forward like Moses Malone.

[OldSchoolBBall]

This is one of those bob Cousy vs Dwyane Wade match ups. If were talking reality Scottie Pippen would run circles around Elgin baylor in modern basketball and frankly because i'm just biased, Scottie Pippen.

lmao

[Fatal9]

HAHAHAH this ordering ISH did is a joke.

Bob McAdoo above Pippen and McHale?!

OMG

McAdoo and Amare were considered centers (even though they are PFs) because that's what they were listed as on all-NBA teams.

[PTB Fan]

McAdoo above Pippen, Big E and Baylor maybe in peak play, with an accent on maybe which is still very arguable.

[G.O.A.T]

McAdoo above Pippen, Big E and Baylor maybe in peak play, with an accent on maybe which is still very arguable.

McAdoo qualifies as a center because his best seasons came while he was playing center. Same with Duncan as a PF, Amare as a Center (the weirdest one)

[Gotterdammerung]

Elgin Baylor: 14 years, 10 quality, 11 All-Stars, '63 MVP runner-up. Top 5 in 59 through '65, 67, 68, 69. Peaked with 35, 17, 5 for 3 years. Best/second best on 8 Finalists.

Simply put, Elgin changed the game the same way Russell changed the defense forever. The "man of a 1000 moves" probably was the most dynamic scorer of all forwards. Most interesting was that Elgin had a built in head fake, a facial tic that threw defenders off guard. Baylor had extremely powerful right handed dribble drives and if the defense was packed he'd hit 15-17 foot jumpers consistently.

Baylor invented hang-time: from the left side, take off, elevate and wait till the defender crashed back down till he released the ball.

Powerful rebounder (13.5 career) and solid passer. But the Tick Tock Man was ambivalent on defense, and not a great practice player. :facepalm

Elgin was the better player than Pippen, but Pippen was the greater forward (better all-around, better teammate, better defender, better winner, etc.).

[L.Kizzle]

Lol if Pippen wins this. To most Bqaylor is considered a top 14 player ALL TIME. Here he's fighting for a top 14 spot with just forwards.:facepalm

[DaPerceive]

Lol if Pippen wins this. To most Bqaylor is considered a top 14 player ALL TIME.
lolwut? My vote would go to Pippen but I am not going to bother explaining so you don't have to count my vote if you don't want to. Fatal9 nailed everything.

[RRR3]

In what universe is Scottie Pippen better than Elgin Baylor? :facepalm "B-b-b-b-b-but Pippen has DEM RANGZ DOE!!!!" :facepalm :hammerhead: :banghead:

[JMT]

Baylor.

[WillC]

Elgin Baylor.

Tremendous player, one of the all-time greats. Many players from that era have said they would choose him in their all-time starting five (how many players said that about Pippen? Anyone?).

Without Jordan's influence, Pippen wouldn't even be in this conversation. It would be a no brainer than Baylor was better.

[nycelt84]

Baylor

[Miller for 3]

Does anyone actually have a reason for voting for Baylor other than volume stats and accolades? He seems like a relativley low impact player. As fatal stated, the Lakers records with Baylor b4 West weren't that good. As soon as Elgin retired the Lakers went on a 33 game winning streak and eventually won the title. They made the finals in 65 despite missing Elgin missing the playoffs. Watching him play he had very poor shot selection even for that era. I can't comment on his defense, but he was a great rebounder and underrated passer, but I don't think he was more impactful than Pippen

[BlackJoker23]

scottie pippen. 2nd best player of the 90s

[Legends66NBA7]

In what universe is Scottie Pippen better than Elgin Baylor? :facepalm "B-b-b-b-b-but Pippen has DEM RANGZ DOE!!!!" :facepalm :hammerhead: :banghead:

I think Scottie's underrated as well. And no he doesn't just have "them rings".

Scottie has:
-better intangibles
-better work ethic from his time with the Bulls
-better locker room leadership
-ultimate teamplayer
-by far the better defender

Those are things I believe that Baylor was documented for lacking in. Some of Scottie's best atributtes won't be found in a stat sheet.

Though yes I agree with you that Baylor is the better player when you factor in how much more he meant to his team. He shouldn't be disregarded because he was losing to the Celtics all those years, while still putting top notch production and setting records.

Also considering the era he was playing in wasn't under the best circumstances of his race and the fact he had to go serve for the army during the prime was career.

This is a lot more debatable then say Bob Cousy vs Dwyane Wade. Since Baylor pretty much changed his position and you could say Pippen perfected it to a notch. Though, to vote between these 2, I would have to go with Elgin Baylor.

[L.Kizzle]

Lol, rookie Baylor took the Lakers to the Finals.

[Legends66NBA7]

Lol, rookie Baylor took the Lakers to the Finals.

At 33-39, beating the 28-44 Detriot Pistons and 49-23 St.Louis Hawks.

Next year, they come 1 game again from going to the Finals and they were 25-50 that season.

[97 bulls]

Scottie Pippen

He's accomplished more in the nba than baylor.

[JMT]

Does anyone actually have a reason for voting for Baylor other than volume stats and accolades? He seems like a relativley low impact player. As fatal stated, the Lakers records with Baylor b4 West weren't that good. As soon as Elgin retired the Lakers went on a 33 game winning streak and eventually won the title. They made the finals in 65 despite missing Elgin missing the playoffs. Watching him play he had very poor shot selection even for that era. I can't comment on his defense, but he was a great rebounder and underrated passer, but I don't think he was more impactful than Pippen


Fair question.

When the game is dominated by big men, there is no more difficult position from which to dominate than SF. Baylor wasn't any bigger than Oscar Robertson, but was an inside force.

People tend to pick at his shot selection, but in 10 different seasons he was Top 10 in FGs; the same # of years he was Top 10 in FG taken.

8 x Top 10 in rebounds
4 x Top 10 in assists
8 x Top 5 in MVP voting

Lived at the FT line. Made the most of his opportunities, shooting close to 80%. As mentioned in an earlier post, was at his best in the post season. One of the best playoff scoreers in history. Look at the records of the teams he took to the Finals and deep in the playoffs. He was a one man gang.

Yes, the Lakers went on a tear when he retired, but Baylor was shot at that point. After 1968-69, he could barely walk, let alone run or jump. They got Wilt for just that reason; There was no such thing as another wing player that could deliver all Baylor could. Wilt could fill the gap, even at his advanced age.

When looking at awards, you have to look at the era. The Celtics won every year. Just like now, the champs dominate the individual awards. It's like criticizing guys who played in Jordan's era for not winning more MVP. Born at the wrong time.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Elgin Baylor is a top 15 player of alltime, so he is my vote

[PTB Fan]

Does anyone actually have a reason for voting for Baylor other than volume stats and accolades? He seems like a relativley low impact player. As fatal stated, the Lakers records with Baylor b4 West weren't that good. As soon as Elgin retired the Lakers went on a 33 game winning streak and eventually won the title. They made the finals in 65 despite missing Elgin missing the playoffs. Watching him play he had very poor shot selection even for that era. I can't comment on his defense, but he was a great rebounder and underrated passer, but I don't think he was more impactful than Pippen

Yet, the Lakers make the Finals in his rookie year while Elgin was leading them against the Celtics dynasty. And while he was in his prime up to 65, his LA team went really far in the post season and came to a 10 open missed footer from Salvy to a title.

And past 65, he wasn't the same. By 70, he couldn't jump, move really well and that hurt him, because he couldn't explode by his opponents, get up high etc.

[Dbrog]

Although Baylor's points may be quite skewed due to the insane amount of shots he took, he still is one of (if not the best) rebounding SF ever. Like some other posters have mentioned, I can't really criticize him for losing to Russell's Celtic teams. It's not like he was favored to win those series. Baylor showed the ability to lead underdogs into the playoffs and actually win series'. He had a RIDICULOUSLY good touch around the basket. If you actually go watch him, he throws up what look to be random-as-$hit shots and they usually fall. Truly a number 1 guy and there was debate as to whether West or Elgin was the more valuable player on most of those Laker squads.

I really can't say anything like this for Pippen. Not a knock against him, but he excelled at taking stacked teams far into the playoffs...as the second option to the disputable GOAT. No question in my mind that Baylor was the stronger of the two players which makes me wonder why people in this thread think Pip would own Baylor one-on-one.

Anyway, it would truly be a travesty if Pip won against Elgin Baylor. Reasons shouldn't even really be needed for this matchup.

Sidenote: does this mean Dirk is ahead of Baylor or is he not even on this list?

[97 bulls]

Its obvious that people are to base their votes on statistics. Pippen and Baylor played in totally different eras statistically. Bayler was arguably the best small forward of the 60s. And pippen was arguably the best small forward of the 90s.

Pippen flatout just did more in the nba.

[G.O.A.T]

Its obvious that people are to base their votes on statistics. Pippen and Baylor played in totally different eras statistically. Bayler was arguably the best small forward of the 60s. And pippen was arguably the best small forward of the 90s.

Pippen flatout just did more in the nba.

Pippen certainly did not do more in the NBA.

Baylor did the following...

Saved a franchise from folding and got them sold and moved to the West Coast because he and his style of play was so marketable.
Took a team to the Finals in his rookie year
Played in seven NBA Finals (Lost to the Russell Celtics in six of them)
Became the first player ever to score 70 points in a game
Became the first player ever to score 60 points in a Finals game
Made 10 all-NBA first teams
Finished in the top five in Scoring, rebounding and assists in the same season (1962-63)
Finished in the top five of the MVP vote seven times
Averaged 36-15-4 on 46% shooting during his playoff prime
Was the first in game high-flyer setting the tone for the vast majority of modern wing/perimeter star.

There is an argument that Pippen is a better player than Baylor, especially when you place a value on statistics (in context). However Elgin Baylor is unquestionably the greater and more accomplished player.

[DevilsAssassin]

Elgin Baylor is a top 15 player of alltime, so he is my vote
since when?:lol :lol

[JMT]

since when?

Since the day he walked on a basketball court. You're welcome.

[PTB Fan]

Its obvious that people are to base their votes on statistics. Pippen and Baylor played in totally different eras statistically. Bayler was arguably the best small forward of the 60s. And pippen was arguably the best small forward of the 90s.

Pippen flatout just did more in the nba.

This is not even close... no need to point out stats here.

[97 bulls]

Pippen certainly did not do more in the NBA.

Baylor did the following...

Saved a franchise from folding and got them sold and moved to the West Coast because he and his style of play was so marketable.
Took a team to the Finals in his rookie year
Played in seven NBA Finals (Lost to the Russell Celtics in six of them)
Became the first player ever to score 70 points in a game
Became the first player ever to score 60 points in a Finals game
Made 10 all-NBA first teams
Finished in the top five in Scoring, rebounding and assists in the same season (1962-63)
Finished in the top five of the MVP vote seven times
Averaged 36-15-4 on 46% shooting during his playoff prime
Was the first in game high-flyer setting the tone for the vast majority of modern wing/perimeter star.

There is an argument that Pippen is a better player than Baylor, especially when you place a value on statistics (in context). However Elgin Baylor is unquestionably the greater and more accomplished player.
Obviously, pippen won't be able to match baylors statistical accomplishments. As is the case with most of the players that played in pippens era vs baylors.

But pippen is regarded as the greatest perimeter defender ever
Won 6 nba championships
Won 2 olympic gold medals
Made all nba defense 10 times
Made all nba 7 times
One of only three players in the history of the nba to lead their team in every major offensive and defensive category in a season.
Is the only player to win an olympic gold medal and nba championship in the same season.
Is 4th all-time in stls
And I believe he's the all-time leader in playoff games played

A lot of the points you make in baylors favor are more a product of the league he played in. I don't feel he'd finish that high in the mvp race that many times if he were to play in this era or the 90s because there were more players. And obviously his statistics would be lower.

[97 bulls]

This is not even close... no need to point out stats here.
Really? You feel baylor is more accomplished and its not even close?

[PTB Fan]

Really? You feel baylor is more accomplished and its not even close?

Maybe but he's flat out better player as well. This isn't a debate for me. Scottie was really great, but Elgin was on another level.

[G.O.A.T]

A lot of the points you make in baylors favor are more a product of the league he played in. I don't feel he'd finish that high in the mvp race that many times if he were to play in this era or the 90s because there were more players. And obviously his statistics would be lower.

No offense, but what you feel doesn't matter at all. Being a top five player is not about what era you are in. Top is top five in any era. I didn't use any stats except the playoff ones from his peak which are far greater than anyone in his era produced and that was my point.

All of Pippen's accomplishments you listed are something Baylor did at a higher level or to a greater extent or were not possible for Baylor to do.

The stats favor Pippen actually, once you apply context and look at the whole picture, Baylor was just greater. At one point Baylor was widely considered the greatest forward ever, Pippen has never been in that conversation.

[97 bulls]

No offense, but what you feel doesn't matter at all. Being a top five player is not about what era you are in. Top is top five in any era. I didn't use any stats except the playoff ones from his peak which are far greater than anyone in his era produced and that was my point.

All of Pippen's accomplishments you listed are something Baylor did at a higher level or to a greater extent or were not possible for Baylor to do.

The stats favor Pippen actually, once you apply context and look at the whole picture, Baylor was just greater. At one point Baylor was widely considered the greatest forward ever, Pippen has never been in that conversation.
Yeah going back from the 60s and 50s. He was probably considered the greatest ever. Pippen would've been too. Had he played in such a young league. But baylors not considered that now.

And going by your own assertion, pippens stats are better (when context is applied), he's the better defender, he's won more, he's just as athletic. But baylor is better?

[MasterDurant24]

Does anyone actually have a reason for voting for Baylor other than volume stats and accolades? He seems like a relativley low impact player. As fatal stated, the Lakers records with Baylor b4 West weren't that good. As soon as Elgin retired the Lakers went on a 33 game winning streak and eventually won the title. They made the finals in 65 despite missing Elgin missing the playoffs. Watching him play he had very poor shot selection even for that era. I can't comment on his defense, but he was a great rebounder and underrated passer, but I don't think he was more impactful than Pippen
Baylor was 37 when the Lakers made that run, he had already been hobbling around for years. The Lakers also didn't really have any challengers in the West during the 60's, all they had to do was win one round to get to the Finals anyway. That 65 season was also West's great playoff run when he averaged 40 points.

[RobertdeMeijer]

Pippen certainly did not do more in the NBA.

Baylor did the following...

Saved a franchise from folding and got them sold and moved to the West Coast because he and his style of play was so marketable.
But where would Chicago be without Pippen boosting Jordan and the Bulls?
Took a team to the Finals in his rookie year
That indeed cannot be said about Pippen
Played in seven NBA Finals (Lost to the Russell Celtics in six of them)
Pippen won six NBA Finals
Became the first player ever to score 70 points in a game
Became the first player ever to score 60 points in a Finals game
Fair enough, although I think scoring alot of points is overrated
Made 10 all-NBA first teams
Pippen made his fair share of all-nba teams.
Finished in the top five in Scoring, rebounding and assists in the same season (1962-63)
Aye, Baylor had a higher statistical peak: 28.2 PER and 14.8 WS, compared to Pippen's 22ish PER and 13.1 WS. But Pippen had a better prime, according to stats
Finished in the top five of the MVP vote seven times
Pippen made it three times. Would it have been more if he didn't play alongside Jordan?
Averaged 36-15-4 on 46% shooting during his playoff prime
Indeed, Baylor had a beastly playoff prime. Still, Pippen had a better playoff carreer in the long run
Was the first in game high-flyer setting the tone for the vast majority of modern wing/perimeter star.
So, three things, the leading to finals, scoring alot of points and high flying are the things Baylor has which I find make him greater than Pippen. But Scottie also has the Olympics, ultimate Robin-guy status and defensive legacy

There is an argument that Pippen is a better player than Baylor, especially when you place a value on statistics (in context). However Elgin Baylor is unquestionably the greater and more accomplished player.

See: bold. What I'm trying to say, it's not unquestionably better. In fact, if I had to choose which career I'd want to live, or follow again, I'd choose Pippen's.

[97 bulls]

Also, while its impressive that baylor was able to lead the the lakers to the finals as a rookie. Remember he was 24. Which is pretty old for a rooke.

[jlauber]

Once again, the "paceologists" will completely over-rate "pace" in these discussions. Baylor's 34-35 ppg seasons would translate to about 25 ppg in today's NBA, and his 19+ rpg season would be at around 13 rpg today. Furthermore, once you factor in adjusted FG%'s, and his scoring would rise back up to around 27 ppg. Since he shot around the league average in his era, he would do the same in today's.

A prime Baylor would be around a 27-13 .460 player today. And Baylor was a quality passer in his era, as well. He had many seasons of over 4 apg, and even a 5.1 apg season in a season in which he averaged 34.8 ppg. And since assists were more difficult to come by in the 60's, he would probably be averaging over 6 apg at his peak. A peak Baylor would then be around a 27-13-6 player.

And he had TWO entire post-seasons, covering 13 and 12 games, with over 38 ppg (and 18 and 15 rpg). Those numbers would be very close to 30-12 in today's era.

Pippen was a very good complimentary player, but even when he was "the man", he never approached those offensive numbers.

Baylor...and by a good margin.

[raiderfan19]

Dont you point out how innefficient baylor was when you talk about wilt and the lakers decision to run the offense through baylor

[jlauber]

Dont you point out how innefficient baylor was when you talk about wilt and the lakers decision to run the offense through baylor

Baylor WAS on a severe decline by the time Wilt joined LA. He shredded his knee in the 64-65 playoffs, and was never the same after that. He was still a very good player, but in that 68-69 post-season, with Wilt, he was simply awful. He averaged 15.3 ppg on .385 shooting, and his three horrible games in the middle of the '69 Finals were a major reason why LA lost that series.

BTW, that first season with Wilt was the ONLY season in which a relatively healthy Baylor and Chamberlain played together. Wilt blew out his knee the very next season, and while he came back for the playoffs (and was a much bigger factor in the post-season), he was nowhere near 100%. Baylor only played two games in the 70-71 season (and missed the entire post-season), and then the first nine games of the 71-72 season, before he was forced to retire.

So, let's set the record straight on those that bring up Wilt playing with Baylor. It was for really only ONE full season, and even then, Baylor was well beyond his prime.

[Kblaze8855]

Since he shot around the league average in his era, he would do the same in today's.

Just not one bit of evidence to suggest such a thing.

While there is no doubt he would shoot a lot less(no coach is watching him take 33 shots a game) and that would remove some of the low percentage shots he took its also gonna knock off some of the gimme layups he got while his team was running its way to 119ppg at times(the year in question...they were 6th in scoring out of 9 teams by the way...so its not like 119 was eve na lot at the time).

No telling what he shoots. When I watch him he takes a lot of shots teams just wont stand by and watch a guy take now. A lot of his jumpers he has way more room to operate than guys are given now...and he had the athletic advantage over most people in his way. Which would not be the case now.

Cant just assume hes gonna do 27/13/6. Guys like Lebron and wade cant likely approach that and there is not a speck of evidence he could do anything they arent capable of.

Its unlikely hes gonna rebound much mroe than usual small forward athletiic type who push hard for boards. Marions. Gerald Wallace for a year or two. And give marion 25 more missed shots a night I suspect he grabd enough to get up near Baylors numbers.

No evidence hes some rodman type who just gobbles up everythinng near him.

He had seasons in his prime under 13 a game in leagues where the slowest team scored 107 a game and he played over 40 minutes a night. In 64 he was right at 12 a game. And his team got 5000 rebounds that year. Last year there were teams barely over 3000. And they played less games in 64....

Saying hes gonna do 27/13/6 is pretty much saying hes gonna be KG plus...Tmac. Just doesnt seem realistic.

[Mr. Bryant]

Pippen easily. Led his team to 6 championships.

[jlauber]

Just not one bit of evidence to suggest such a thing.

While there is no doubt he would shoot a lot less(no coach is watching him take 33 shots a game) and that would remove some of the low percentage shots he took its also gonna knock off some of the gimme layups he got while his team was running its way to 119ppg at times(the year in question...they were 6th in scoring out of 9 teams by the way...so its not like 119 was eve na lot at the time).

No telling what he shoots. When I watch him he takes a lot of shots teams just wont stand by and watch a guy take now. A lot of his jumpers he has way more room to operate than guys are given now...and he had the athletic advantage over most people in his way. Which would not be the case now.

Cant just assume hes gonna do 27/13/6. Guys like Lebron and wade cant likely approach that and there is not a speck of evidence he could do anything they arent capable of.

Its unlikely hes gonna rebound much mroe than usual small forward athletiic type who push hard for boards. Marions. Gerald Wallace for a year or two. And give marion 25 more missed shots a night I suspect he grabd enough to get up near Baylors numbers.

No evidence hes some rodman type who just gobbles up everythinng near him.

He had seasons in his prime under 13 a game in leagues where the slowest team scored 107 a game and he played over 40 minutes a night. In 64 he was right at 12 a game. And his team got 5000 rebounds that year. Last year there were teams barely over 3000. And they played less games in 64....

Saying hes gonna do 27/13/6 is pretty much saying hes gonna be KG plus...Tmac. Just doesnt seem realistic.

Baylor's 60-61 Lakers averaged 114 ppg in a league that averaged 118.1. They also grabbed 5170 rebounds, which was about the league average (all before TEAM REBOUNDS...which were included until the 72-73 season.)

He averaged 34.8 ppg and 19.8 rpg that season. Reducing his scoring down to 2011 levels (99.6 ppg), and he would drop to 29.3 ppg. Reduce his rebounding levels to '11 levels (41.3 rpg), and he would be at 12.6 rpg.

He shot .430 from the floor, in a league that shot .415. Raising his FG% to 2011 levels, which was .459 (and eFG% was at .498 BTW), and he would be shooting about .476.

The rest of your argument is simply conjecture.

[Smoke117]

Can anyone of you really deny that if Scottie played in the era that Elgin played in that he would have shitted all over everyone and put up numbers just as good as Elgin if not better?

[Kblaze8855]

Talk to me about conjecture...when you claim that people 50 years apart are gonna automatically shoot the same percentages relative to the league as if defenses, skills, coaching, style of play in each time, and so on are non factors?

I dont see how assuming Baylor would shoot better than ever playing better defenses than he ever faced, with less fast break chances, and almost no athletic advantage which he made great use of in the 50s makes a speck of sense.

This isnt a bigman. the things swingmen/ball handling forwards/slashers do have changed.

Not enough to say Baylor is a scrub or something. Ive seen him make impressivep lays and hit jumpers no less likely to go in today. But things have change enough to not just say...hes gonna do 29/13 in 2011.

Which for the record....not something I find terribly important anyway. I just find it funny you would say such things. Especially when you then tell me im using conjecture.

All we have is conjecture......

[jlauber]

Talk to me about conjecture...when you claim that people 50 years apart are gonna automatically shoot the same percentages relative to the league as if defenses, skills, coaching, style of play in each time, and so on are non factors?

I dont see how assuming Baylor would shoot better than ever playing better defenses than he ever faced, with less fast break chances, and almost no athletic advantage which he made great use of in the 50s makes a speck of sense.

This isnt a bigman. the things swingmen/ball handling forwards/slashers do have changed.

Not enough to say Baylor is a scrub or something. Ive seen him make impressivep lays and hit jumpers no less likely to go in today. But things have change enough to not just say...hes gonna do 29/13 in 2011.

Which for the record....not something I find terribly important anyway. I just find it funny you would say such things. Especially when you then tell me im using conjecture.

All we have is conjecture......

I agree 100%. BUT, we also have "bridges" ... players like Kareem, Havlicek, and Gilmore (and other's.)

League Average FG% IS relative. How do explain Havlicek playing eight seasons each in the 60's and 70's, and outshooting his BEST 60's FG%'s in EVERY season in the 70's.

And, as I have illustrated before, take even the great CENTERS of the 70's and 80's, and almost to a man, they shot better in the 80's. Gilmore was LIGHT YEARS better in the 80's. THEN, flip it...take the great CENTERS that played in the 80's and 90's, and almost to a man, they shot better in the 80's than in the 90's. Even Robinson, who came into the league in 89-90 had his THREE best seasons from his rookie year to his third year. Ewing and Hakeem were considerably better in the 80's than by the 90's.

[Kblaze8855]

How do I explain it?

I dont try because I dont find it relevant. you give me one example like there arent several going the other way. As if plenty of guys from the 50s didnt pretty much dry up and blow away in the 60s when they were far from old.

I dont care what Hondo shot in 1976 or Cousy in 61 as opposed to 53. If I drop Michael Jordan from 87 who shot the league average 48% into 1950 as the same player hes just not gonna shoot 34% because that league did. Hes not gonna miss layups, shoot airballs from 15 feet, and throw up garbage hooks in traffic and just hustle after the rebound like plenty of them did either.

Hes not gonna lose enough talent to miss 66% of his shot attempts and if I transport Baylor to 2011 hes not just gonna get more talented and make his shots at a higher rate because the league shoots better now.

He would take far less shots...which would help...but its offset by any number of issues. Mainly...when you score like he scored back then...on people now...they eventually learn how to best guard you. They dont just send people at you one on one as you dribble one handed for 6 seconds and fire up a one handed jumper from 12 feet 16 times.

45 minutes after your game ends if Kobe knows he plays you tomorrow hes watching a DVD of your game before you even get home. He knows your spots and your game. And he and people like him...are as big as Baylor or bigger...while as athletic...or more athletic....and they play a totally different game.

Its unfair to drop Baylor into that situation in the first place. But to assume he would do it and just...put up the best numbers in the NBA?

It just doesnt make sense. I dont see a case being made to support it.

I mean...really..there is Satch Sanders guarding you on one one...and there is KG who is 5 inches taller, more heavily muscled, likely just as fast or faster, and he has a scouting report that isnt his memory of last game, one or two games from tv, or listening to you play on the radio.

It just isnt the same thing. And to assume Baylor is gonna just...step in and be doing numbers like Tracy Garnett and shoot better than he did 50 years ago just doesnt seem reasonable to me.

[jlauber]

How do I explain it?

I dont try because I dont find it relevant. you give me one example like there arent several going the other way. As if plenty of guys from the 50s didnt pretty much dry up and blow away in the 60s when they were far from old.

I dont care what Hondo shot in 1976 or Cousy in 61 as opposed to 53. If I drop Michael Jordan from 87 who shot the league average 48% into 1950 as the same player hes just not gonna shoot 34% because that league did. Hes not gonna miss layups, shoot airballs from 15 feet, and throw up garbage hooks in traffic and just hustle after the rebound like plenty of them did either.

Hes not gonna lose enough talent to miss 66% of his shot attempts and if I transport Baylor to 2011 hes not just gonna get more talented and make his shots at a higher rate because the league shoots better now.

He would take far less shots...which would help...but its offset by any number of issues. Mainly...when you score like he scored back then...on people now...they eventually learn how to best guard you. They dont just send people at you one on one as you dribble one handed for 6 seconds and fire up a one handed jumper from 12 feet 16 times.

45 minutes after your game ends if Kobe knows he plays you tomorrow hes watching a DVD of your game before you even get home. He knows your spots and your game. And he and people like him...are as big as Baylor or bigger...while as athletic...or more athletic....and they play a totally different game.

Its unfair to drop Baylor into that situation in the first place. But to assume he would do it and just...put up the best numbers in the NBA?

It just doesnt make sense. I dont see a case being made to support it.

I mean...really..there is Satch Sanders guarding you on one one...and there is KG who is 5 inches taller, more heavily muscled, likely just as fast or faster, and he has a scouting report that isnt his memory of last game, one or two games from tv, or listening to you play on the radio.

It just isnt the same thing. And to assume Baylor is gonna just...step in and be doing numbers like Tracy Garnett and shoot better than he did 50 years ago just doesnt seem reasonable to me.

Then why even have these "Pippen vs. Baylor" scenarios in the first place?

Just claim that Pippen would be better than Baylor, and that Durant would be better than Pippen, and leave it at that.

My point was, Baylor's NUMBERS, using 2011 levels, would not drop to something like 20-8. If you want to make other arguments, they are strictly on conjecture. BUT, to just say that his NUMBERS were overinflated and to randomly make up something else makes no sense.

Once again, he averaged 34.8 ppg in a league that averaged 118.1 ppg, He averaged 19.8 rpg, in a league that averaged 65 rpg. And he shot .430 in a league that shot .415. Reduce his scoring down to 2011 levels, and he would STILL be at 29.3 ppg. Reduce his repg down to 2011 levels, and he would STILL be at 12.6 rpg. And, raise his FG% to 2011 levels, and he would shoot .476.

[Kblaze8855]

Then why even have these "Pippen vs. Baylor" scenarios in the first place?

Just claim that Pippen would be better than Baylor, and that Durant would be better than Pippen, and leave it at that.

Yes...because they are the same thing and my entire argument is "Now>any point before now". yes. Thats what a reasonable person would take my saying a guy wouldnt magically shoot better than ever when playing better defenses to mean.


My point was, Baylor's NUMBERS, using 2011 levels, would not drop to something like 20-8. If you want to make other arguments, they are strictly on conjecture. BUT, to just say that his NUMBERS were overinflated and to randomly make up something else makes no sense.

Once again, he averaged 34.8 ppg in a league that averaged 118.1 ppg, He averaged 19.8 rpg, in a league that averaged 65 rpg. And he shot .430 in a league that shot .415. Reduce his scoring down to 2011 levels, and he would STILL be at 29.3 ppg. Reduce his repg down to 2011 levels, and he would STILL be at 12.6 rpg. And, raise his FG% to 2011 levels, and he would shoot .476.

And...if it made one speck of sense to assume it was just a matter of math to determine how a guy would play 50 years from his own time...I might. But it doesnt. It makes no sense. Dropping Baylors rebounds just with the number availiable when there are MANY other factors makes no sense. And saying he would now shoot 47-48% because his league shot worse makes even less.

At least the rebounds and points are a matter of what he might have the chance to do.

Shooting percentage?

What magic exactly would happen to make him shoot 48% vs teams more prepared to stop him than those he shot 42% against? And not only that...but do it while scoring 29 a game?

Even just pretending the numbers translate directly with pace and arent impacted by the qualitiy of opponent(a concept that is frankly..indefensible) there is just no way to apply such a thing to his shooting and assume it gets better.

What is gonna make the flicks of his wrist more likely to result in the ball going in? What is he gonna be able to create more space vs the quicker players? get a better look over the higher jumping and taller forwards than hes used to? His go to moves will work better vs guys like Battier who have film to study on him and would make it a mission to slow him?

A direct ___ equals ___ conversion jsut cant be defended for FG% to me. As I said...Jordan in 87 form wont shoot 34% just because its 1950 on a calender and hes being defended worse.

Not even with al lthe shaky rims and wobbly balls.

[OldSchoolBBall]

I could see Baylor doing 25-28 ppg/6-8 reb/5 ast/45% FG today. 13 rebounds is laughable - no chance in hell.

[jlauber]

Furthermore, are you claiming that players like Baylor wouldn't somehow benefit from modern technology? He was an athletic marvel back then. Why wouldn't he get better?

BTW, Baylor shot .486 in his 69-70 season, at age 35, and well past his prime...and while scoring 24 ppg.

Or that if you transport Jordan back to 1960, and ask him to actually DRIBBLE the ball without palming it, or to play five games in five nights at five different venues, and to play with injuries, and with considerably less medical technology, that he would STILL be shooting the same efficiency? Hell, Chamberlain absorbed a pounding back in the 60's. You can be sure that MJ would be getting the "Jordan Rules" treatment every night back then, as well.

Howard outscored Shaq in the 2011 season, per game, 19.5 to 7 ppg, and outrebounded him, per game, 12 rpg to 1.5 rpg. It's pretty safe to say that he was a FAR better player. However, the REAL question would be...how would have a 2011 Howard fared against a 2000 Shaq? We simply don't know.

Once again, though, we have "bridges." We can make educated assumptions because of them. If an over-the-hill Wilt could outplay a prime Kareem (and a PRIME Wilt outplay MANY of the same centers that Kareem would face, and by much larger margins), and yet a 38 year old Kareem could just crush players like Hakeem and Ewing...what does that tell you?

In any case, if you are going to compare players from 2000 with those of 1960, and just automatically claim that the modern player would be better...then you have to follow that logic all the way through. Despite evidence to the contrary, we HAVE to assume that Howard would just abuse a prime Kareem. After all, Howard is playing in the current NBA, while Kareem's last meaningful performance's came about 25 years ago. And, Kareem actually struggled far more, in his PRIME, with the great centers of the 60's and 70's, than he did, at ages approaching 40, with the great centers of the 80's (and who would go on to be the best in the 90's.)

[97 bulls]

Another thing jlauber conviently overlooks is the minute per game.

[jlauber]

Another thing jlauber conviently overlooks is the minute per game.

Baylor averaged 40 mpg over the course of his career, with his two highest seasons being 42.9 mpg and 44.4 mpg (and that came in a year in which he only played 48 games.)

[Kblaze8855]

I could see Baylor doing 25-28 ppg/6-8 reb/5 ast/45% FG today. 13 rebounds is laughable - no chance in hell.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SC5TLJ2TjA

Little thing o nthe 64 Lakers I watched a while back. Around 5:20 to 9 minutes it shows al ot of Baylor and Jerry.

Every time I watch them I come away feeling Jerry was better. But I dont think he would say he was.

And Elgin is always grounded when I see him. Especially for a supposedly crazy athlete. I dont expect him to make a lot of above the rim plays...but he rarely even looks terribly athletic.

I know with their style of play it was hard to look amazing...plus....so much footage is lost or never shown that old players get film on them from the 70s used against them when the peak in the late 50s/early 60s.

But still....

[Kblaze8855]

Furthermore, are you claiming that players like Baylor wouldn't somehow benefit from modern technology? He was an athletic marvel back then. Why wouldn't he get better?

Or that if you transport Jordan back to 1960, and ask him to actually DRIBBLE the ball without palming it, or to play five games in five nights at five different venues, and to play with injuries, and with considerably less medical technology, that he would STILL be shooting the same efficiency? Hell, Chamberlain absorbed a pounding back in the 60's. You can be sure that MJ would be getting the "Jordan Rules" treatment every night back then, as well.


He would be getting "jordan rules" treatment. And then he would shoot better than 34%.



Howard outscored Shaq in the 2011 season, per game, 19.5 to 7 ppg, and outrebounded him, per game, 12 rpg to 1.5 rpg. It's pretty safe to say that he was a FAR better player. However, the REAL question would be...how would have a 2011 Howard fared against a 2000 Shaq? We simply don't know.

Once again, though, we have "bridges." We can make educated assumptions because of them. If an over-the-hill Wilt could outplay a prime Kareem (and a PRIME Wilt outplay MANY of the same centers that Kareem would face, and by much larger margins), and yet a 38 year old Kareem could just crush players like Hakeem and Ewing...what does that tell you?

You do know I was posting similar facts on here 10 years ago right?



In any case, if you are going to compare players from 2000 with those of 1960, and just automatically claim that the modern player would be better...then you have to follow that logic all the way through.

I invite you to point out anything ive said(ever) to suggest I believe all modrn players are better than older ones.



Despite evidence to the contrary, we HAVE to assume that Howard would just abuse a prime Kareem. After all, Howard is playing in the current NBA, while Kareem's last meaningful performance's came about 25 years ago. And, Kareem actually struggled far more, in his PRIME, with the great centers of the 60's and 70's, than he did, at ages approaching 40, with the great centers of the 80's (and who would go on to be the best in the 90's.)

Yes....

Dwight abusing Kareem in his prime is a conclusion reached by the same line of thought that makes it hard to imagine a player from 50 eyars ago shooting better now...just because.

Shooting better just because 50 years have passed and the league is vastly different....is supported by the exact same logic that says Dwight Howard would murder Kareem.

[Doranku]

I just don't understand the point of comparisons like these. It's essentially comparing a stat sheet to an actual player considering only a handful of people on this site actually saw Baylor play.

And then to top it off there's people parading around this thread as if their opinion is 100% fact and they've done and in-depth analysis of both Scottie and Baylor's careers. :lol

[jlauber]

I just don't understand the point of comparisons like these. It's essentially comparing a stat sheet to an actual player considering only a handful of people on this site actually saw Baylor play.

And then to top it off there's people parading around this thread as if their opinion is 100% fact and they've done and in-depth analysis of both Scottie and Baylor's careers. :lol

I don't understand even making these comparison's IF the logic then is that the more modern player is naturally the better player.

Why bother?

[Kblaze8855]

Considering the fact that Baylor is currently a lock to finish ahead of thousands of more modern forwards and other 60s players remain(Hondo, Barry, Pettit for a few) clearly its not just ranking modern players over old.

Melo is the seocnd or third best 3 today.....see him up this high? Or on the list at all?

Gasol? Bosh? Where are they?

Arent we just ranking young players over old no matter what?

Why is dolph ahead of Pierce? Cunningham over webber? Why is Bob a lock to finish over everyone currently in the NBA other than Duncan?

Arent we just throwing everyone from before 1980 to the wolves?

[L.Kizzle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SC5TLJ2TjA

Little thing o nthe 64 Lakers I watched a while back. Around 5:20 to 9 minutes it shows al ot of Baylor and Jerry.

Every time I watch them I come away feeling Jerry was better. But I dont think he would say he was.

And Elgin is always grounded when I see him. Especially for a supposedly crazy athlete. I dont expect him to make a lot of above the rim plays...but he rarely even looks terribly athletic.

I know with their style of play it was hard to look amazing...plus....so much footage is lost or never shown that old players get film on them from the 70s used against them when the peak in the late 50s/early 60s.

But still....
Wasn't this the season Baylor was injured?

[PTB Fan]

Wasn't this the season Baylor was injured?

No, it was 64-65 season... i think he got injured in the post season.

[PTB Fan]

Considering the fact that Baylor is currently a lock to finish ahead of thousands of more modern forwards and other 60s players remain(Hondo, Barry, Pettit for a few) clearly its not just ranking modern players over old.

Melo is the seocnd or third best 3 today.....see him up this high? Or on the list at all?

Gasol? Bosh? Where are they?

Arent we just ranking young players over old no matter what?

Why is dolph ahead of Pierce? Cunningham over webber? Why is Bob a lock to finish over everyone currently in the NBA other than Duncan?

Arent we just throwing everyone from before 1980 to the wolves?

Great point.

However, i think Elgin has lost credit in the years though. I think Elgin gets credit from people who are students of the game. I personally have him as one of the 15 best players ever.

[PTB Fan]

I could see Baylor doing 25-28 ppg/6-8 reb/5 ast/45% FG today. 13 rebounds is laughable - no chance in hell.

These are good predictions. I have Baylor at 25-28 ppg, 10 rpg, 5 ast on 44-46% FG.

[WillC]

Baylor was a phenomenal rebounder. I'm not saying he'd get 13rpg today, but I think he'd get close to 10rpg. After all, he's about the same height as Barkley and was regarded as a first class rebounder.

[RobertdeMeijer]

My thoery: I think Baylor has this "legacy of legacy" effect.
Let me point this out:
-First of all, he was the best forward of all time for such a long time, until Julius Erving / Larry Bird. (I also think that Oscar Robertson had this effect)
-He had crazy good stats. It took a long time for alot of us to realize that such statistics weren't as dominating as they looked.
-He was part of one of the few dynasties for a long time. The 70s were such a mixed bag.
-He was always mentioned in line with these greats:West, Robertson, Russell, Cousy, Pettit and Wilt. It took decades for enough great players to create a second tier (the "almost-great" tier), where Baylor would fit in better.

So, it seems to me that Baylor is living off of royalties.
I'm trying to look at this objectively the best I can. I am honestly more impressed by the legacies of about thirteen other forwards.

[PTB Fan]

Baylor was a phenomenal rebounder. I'm not saying he'd get 13rpg today, but I think he'd get close to 10rpg. After all, he's about the same height as Barkley and was regarded as a first class rebounder.

I could see him getting more than 10 rebounds if he was playing an undersized PF more.

[D.J.]

Pippen easily. Led his team to 6 championships.


Could have sworn Chicago had a bald guy that was pretty good too.

[Big164]

Baylor was the first Tracy mcgrady. A guy who scores a lot while killing his own team. It's no coincidence the lakers started winning 30 in a row when Elgin retired. The guy was a locker room cancer and stole valuable mins from better players like Jerry west and wilt.

Pippenby a country mile.

[L.Kizzle]

Could have sworn Chicago had a bald guy that was pretty good too.
Jason Caffey wasn't bald.

[FF1]

Isn't it about time to count the votes?

[G.O.A.T]

Baylor was the first Tracy mcgrady. A guy who scores a lot while killing his own team. It's no coincidence the lakers started winning 30 in a row when Elgin retired. The guy was a locker room cancer and stole valuable mins from better players like Jerry west and wilt.

Pippenby a country mile.

What a terribly misguided understanding of Baylor and his career.

Baylor's teams were title contenders nearly every year. He took the Lakers to the finals as a rookie. McGrady never won a playoff series, how on earth are they comparable?

The Baylor that retired was a shell of the player that he was. He had missed the entire previous season and most of the 69-70 season. The Lakers were 6-2 with him as a starter before he retired, he was not hurting their team and instead of hanging on and playing a limited role, he accepted that his time was up and retired.

He was never a locker room cancer at all and obviously he didn't take any minutes from Wilt (a center who played 42 mpg) and West (a guard who played 39 mpg). It would be nice if you had some idea what you were talking about before offering your opinion.

[EllEffEll]

I just don't understand the point of comparisons like these. It's essentially comparing a stat sheet to an actual player considering only a handful of people on this site actually saw Baylor play.

And then to top it off there's people parading around this thread as if their opinion is 100% fact and they've done and in-depth analysis of both Scottie and Baylor's careers. :lol

Even for those of us that have seen West and Baylor play in person (against Oscar too. . . . when he was a Cincinatti Royal :facepalm ), there has been a LOT of years that have passed and it would be incredibly difficult to pass judgment with any amount of certainty.

I'm content to say they live on the same street with regard to their impact on the game when they played. Just not sure what the exact criteria of this comparison is though.

I will say that Baylor was one of the guys that began taking the game to the next. . . . 'era'.

[Kblaze8855]

Baylor had the Lakers at 33-39, 25-50, and 36 and 43 and having playoff success. Kinda takes some of the shine off the early career. When you can have the second worst record in the NBA and play a 30-45 team in the playoffs and just win 2 games to be in the WCF?

Hard to say "Well he ____. how can you compare that to Mcgrady?". As if Tmac couldnt lose 50 games and star power his team to two wins and be in the conference finals?

Not like it was Russell, Bob, Dolph, Arizin, or someone like that who actually won in that situation. He just got close.

Which im sure wasnt exactly his fault. But fact remains....early career he didnt really need to do alot to have more success than Mcgrady, mid career he was playing with a guy who put up 40ppg in the playoffs to make the finals without him(and set a 5 gae finals scoring record), and late career he was on a team that didnt need him at all...to the extent in his last 3 injury filled seasons they made the finals, lost in the WCF, and won 33 games in a row and the title starting then ight he retired.

Not like Mcgrady was ever on a team that was gonna contend with or without him. Or had a teammate who could drop 40ppg to lead his team to the finals without him on the floor.

Id have no problem with someone ranking baylor over Mcgrady. Not an issue at all.

I just dont think their winning idifference is really a big deal all things considered.

[Kblaze8855]

Isn't it about time to count the votes?

Yes it is. I just wanted to give more time for these big matchups.

[Big164]

He was never a locker room cancer at all and obviously he didn't take any minutes from Wilt (a center who played 42 mpg) and West (a guard who played 39 mpg). It would be nice if you had some idea what you were talking about before offering your opinion.
I was wrong to say mins, I meant scoring opportunities.

Baylor was a ball hogging lane clogger that hindered his team mates success. To give you an idea of how bad he was, he shot an abysmal .431 as a slasher. Jerry west shot .474 shooting from long range.

Once Baylor left, wilt was able to own the boards again and west didn't have to defer to a chucker anymore. West's Lakers would have 3 titles if they had dumped Elgin back in the late 60's.

Mcgrady baylor = Addition by subtraction

[G.O.A.T]

West's Lakers would have 3 titles if they had dumped Elgin back in the late 60's.

Which seasons would dropping Elgin Baylor have been the difference in them winning the title or not?

This is really sort of offensive to me, the level of disrespect and ignorance.

[RobertdeMeijer]

It's really hard for me to estimate how much Baylor's shots hurt his team. I think it's an interesting perspective.

I highly doubt though that the Lakers would have done better without him. And I do think he was a shot creator, helping West score.

[Kblaze8855]

I think....Pippen is up by 1. Im gonna have to recount 2 or 3 times to make sure.

[Big164]

Which seasons would dropping Elgin Baylor have been the difference in them winning the title or not?

This is really sort of offensive to me, the level of disrespect and ignorance.

1969 without a doubt Lakers win w/o Elgin. And possibly one championship pre-wilt. In 1969 Elgin was DEAD LAST on the team in fg% with .385 in the playoffs. And remember this is a man who drove to the basket a lot!

The 30 game win streak after Elgin departed says all that needs to be said. It was the Lakers breathing a sigh of relief after a decade of suffocating under the most notorious chucker in the history of the game. Take off the nostalgia goggles and look at the numbers.

[PTB Fan]

1969 without a doubt Lakers win w/o Elgin. And possibly one championship pre-wilt. In 1969 Elgin was DEAD LAST on the team in fg% with .385 in the playoffs. And remember this is a man who drove to the basket a lot!

The 30 game win streak after Elgin departed says all that needs to be said. It was the Lakers breathing a sigh of relief after a decade of suffocating under the most notorious chucker in the history of the game. Take off the nostalgia goggles and look at the numbers.

Elgin was a volume scorer with crazy shot selection.

And by 69 he was a shadow of his former self.

[jlauber]

1969 without a doubt Lakers win w/o Elgin. And possibly one championship pre-wilt. In 1969 Elgin was DEAD LAST on the team in fg% with .385 in the playoffs. And remember this is a man who drove to the basket a lot!

The 30 game win streak after Elgin departed says all that needs to be said. It was the Lakers breathing a sigh of relief after a decade of suffocating under the most notorious chucker in the history of the game. Take off the nostalgia goggles and look at the numbers.

Not sure if LA would have won in '69 without Baylor, because that team just did not have much depth, BUT, he was a major reason why they didn't in the Finals. He went completely AWOL in games three thru five in the Finals, scoring a TOTAL of 24 points.

BTW, in the game three 111-105 loss, BOTH Baylor and West combined for 1-14 shooting in the 4th quarter. Wilt gets ripped by the uneducated here for his 2-11 FT shooting in game four, BUT, Baylor went 1-6 from the line, and scored a TOTAL of FIVE points. All in an 89-88 loss. Of course, Johnny Egan's gaffe, losing the ball when his team had the lead AND the ball, and with only seconds remaining was also a HUGE factor.

And while Wilt dominated Russell in a game five, 117-104 blowout of Boston, Baylor still mis-fired, scoring eight points, AND, going 0-4 from the line.

Furthermore, in that game seven, two-point loss, Baylor shot 8-22 from the floor.

And yet, it was WILT who would get the bulk of the blame.

[PTB Fan]

Elgin should get this, but judging by the general opinion that modern basketball is much better than the old one... Pippen will probably be ranked higher even though he shouldn't be even mentioned in the same sentence with a legend of Baylor's caliber.

[jlauber]

Elgin should get this, but judging by the general opinion that modern basketball is much better than the old one... Pippen will probably be ranked higher even though he shouldn't be even mentioned in the same sentence with a legend of Baylor's caliber.

I don't always agree with you, but you are 100% dead-on on this one.

:cheers:

[L.Kizzle]

Baylor had the Lakers at 33-39, 25-50, and 36 and 43 and having playoff success. Kinda takes some of the shine off the early career. When you can have the second worst record in the NBA and play a 30-45 team in the playoffs and just win 2 games to be in the WCF?

Hard to say "Well he ____. how can you compare that to Mcgrady?". As if Tmac couldnt lose 50 games and star power his team to two wins and be in the conference finals?

Not like it was Russell, Bob, Dolph, Arizin, or someone like that who actually won in that situation. He just got close.

Which im sure wasnt exactly his fault. But fact remains....early career he didnt really need to do alot to have more success than Mcgrady, mid career he was playing with a guy who put up 40ppg in the playoffs to make the finals without him(and set a 5 gae finals scoring record), and late career he was on a team that didnt need him at all...to the extent in his last 3 injury filled seasons they made the finals, lost in the WCF, and won 33 games in a row and the title starting then ight he retired.

Not like Mcgrady was ever on a team that was gonna contend with or without him. Or had a teammate who could drop 40ppg to lead his team to the finals without him on the floor.

Id have no problem with someone ranking baylor over Mcgrady. Not an issue at all.

I just dont think their winning idifference is really a big deal all things considered.
About the Lakers record early on, they were terrible before they got Baylor. This was post Mikan they were about the be out the leauge. Elgin saved them took the to the Finals than the conference finals in his first 2 seasons. He got the to moe over to the west coast and become the most finacialy stable franchise in the NBA.

[Kblaze8855]

Thats ab it much. Pippen not worth of mention in the same sentence?

This is Scottie Pippen not Shane Battier.

[L.Kizzle]

Thats ab it much. Pippen not worth of mention in the same sentence?

This is Scottie Pippen not Shane Battier.
Rookie Pippen can't lead a team to the NBA Finals, just saying.

[97 bulls]

Rookie Pippen can't lead a team to the NBA Finals, just saying.
Totally different eras. And don't forget baylor was 24. That's pretty old for a rookie. And the playoff format now is totally different from how it was back then

[oolalaa]

Scottie pippen might be the greatest complimentary player of all time but you are not winning a title with him as your main guy. This is what people seem to be overlooking here.

People fall in love with his great all round ability - a very good playmaker, a very good rebounder, a great pickpocket and arguably the best perimeter defender of all time.

But he wasn't a great scorer and was never someone who could single handidly take over a game (you could argue that he never had a chance because of jordan but he had almost 2 seasons in his prime to show us what he could do and only had one 40 point game). His shooting was far too streaky and whilst he was a great athlete, he could be erratic when driving to the rim. I don't think he had the mentality to be 'the guy'.

Baylor on the other hand, was michael jordan before michael jordan - the first super atheltic wingman. An unbelievable scorer who could score in a multitude of ways (he scored 61 points in the nba finals against the greatest dynasty in nba history! This alone should put him over pippen), a great rebounder (the 2nd greatest rebounding SF of all time), a good passer and a solid defender........before he completely shredded his knee. From what ive read, he was maybe 75% of his pre-injury self. Still a very good player but not quite the same. I don't know about you, but i would rather 7 quality and 5 very good baylor years over 12 good/very good pippen years.

The knocks on baylor...
1. He never won a championship: This is pretty unfair. How was he supposed to win a championship with the celtics in the way? The lakers simply couldn't cope with russells domination under the boards. He had a couple of poor postseasons in in the late 60s but so did wilt. If he didn't retire in 72' then he'd probably have a ring, albeit as the 3rd best player.

2. He was an inefficient scorer: Again, this is unfair. The league average fg% in the early 60s was around 42% and baylor shot slightly above the league average (kobe has shot at around the league average his entire career).

3. He was selfish: I agree in part. For three years (61', 62', 63') he was. A perimeter player shooting the ball 30, 33 and 28 times a game is excessive and cannot be a winning formula. Even jordan and iverson never shot that much! But, would the lakers have beaten the celtics if shared the ball more? I doubt it.


Baylor >> pippen.

[L.Kizzle]

Totally different eras. And don't forget baylor was 24. That's pretty old for a rookie. And the playoff format now is totally different from how it was back then
24 he went to college 4 years and I think lost a year of college also. And different eras or not, Robertson, Pettit, Chamberlain didn't lead there teams to the Finals in the same ra. Hell Baylor defeated the former champs in the Hawks ft. Pettit, Hagan and Lovellette to get to the Finals vs the Celtics.

[Jacks3]

(kobe has shot at around the league average his entire career).

Wrong. TS% relative to league average over his prime:
01: +3.4
02: +2.4
03: +3.1
04: +3.5
05: +3.4
06: +2.4
07: +3.9
08: +3.6

Average: 29.0 PPG

He's well above-average.

[97 bulls]

Scottie pippen might be the greatest complimentary player of all time but you are not winning a title with him as your main guy. This is what people seem to be overlooking here.

People fall in love with his great all round ability - a very good playmaker, a very good rebounder, a great pickpocket and arguably the best perimeter defender of all time.

>>>>>But he wasn't a great scorer and was never someone who could single handidly take over a game (you could argue that he never had a chance because of jordan but he had almost 2 seasons in his prime to show us what he could do and only had one 40 point game). His shooting was far too streaky and whilst he was a great athlete, he could be erratic when driving to the rim. I don't think he had the mentality to be 'the guy'.<<<<<<<<

Baylor on the other hand, was michael jordan before michael jordan - the first super atheltic wingman. An unbelievable scorer who could score in a multitude of ways (he scored 61 points in the nba finals against the greatest dynasty in nba history! This alone should put him over pippen), a great rebounder (the 2nd greatest rebounding SF of all time), a good passer and a solid defender........before he completely shredded his knee. From what ive read, he was maybe 75% of his pre-injury self. Still a very good player but not quite the same. I don't know about you, but i would rather 7 quality and 5 very good baylor years over 12 good/very good pippen years.

The knocks on baylor...
1. He never won a championship: This is pretty unfair. How was he supposed to win a championship with the celtics in the way? The lakers simply couldn't cope with russells domination under the boards. He had a couple of poor postseasons in in the late 60s but so did wilt. If he didn't retire in 72' then he'd probably have a ring, albeit as the 3rd best player.

2. He was an inefficient scorer: Again, this is unfair. The league average fg% in the early 60s was around 42% and baylor shot slightly above the league average (kobe has shot at around the league average his entire career).

3. He was selfish: I agree in part. For three years (61', 62', 63') he was. A perimeter player shooting the ball 30, 33 and 28 times a game is excessive and cannot be a winning formula. Even jordan and iverson never shot that much! But, would the lakers have beaten the celtics if shared the ball more? I doubt it.


Baylor >> pippen.
This is huge double standard. Your knocking pippen for not leading a team to a championship in his 2 years. But then excuse baylor not being able to lead a team to a championship in 10 years. With the reasoning being that baylors lakers weren't as good as the celtics. As if the 94 or 95 bulls were good enough to win a championship.

And then say he didn't have the ability to take over games. What about games 6 of the 92 fianls? What about game 3 of the ecf in 91? What about game 5 of the 91 finals? And then to show his versitily, what about the job he did on mark jackson in game 7 of the ecf in 98? Or the triple double he had vs the knicks in 93?

And you put too much emphasis on offense. For all of baylors offensive exploits. It didn't get him a championship.

[97 bulls]

24 he went to college 4 years and I think lost a year of college also. And different eras or not, Robertson, Pettit, Chamberlain didn't lead there teams to the Finals in the same ra. Hell Baylor defeated the former champs in the Hawks ft. Pettit, Hagan and Lovellette to get to the Finals vs the Celtics.
Yeah 24 is old for a rookie. And eventually, the guys you named did win. So its kinda a moot point.

[oolalaa]

This is huge double standard. Your knocking pippen for not leading a team to a championship in his 2 years. But then excuse baylor not being able to lead a team to a championship in 10 years. With the reasoning being that baylors lakers weren't as good as the celtics. As if the 94 or 95 bulls were good enough to win a championship.

And then say he didn't have the ability to take over games. What about games 6 of the 92 fianls? What about game 3 of the ecf in 91? What about game 5 of the 91 finals? And then to show his versitily, what about the job he did on mark jackson in game 7 of the ecf in 98? Or the triple double he had vs the knicks in 93?

And you put too much emphasis on offense. For all of baylors offensive exploits. It didn't get him a championship.

Where exactly did i knock pippen for not winning a championship? Please read my post more carefully.

Game 6 of the 92' finals? Really? Are you serious? He had a 26/5/4. You call that taking over a game? :facepalm And his 91' finals game 5? Probably his greatest ever post season game. He had 32 points and outscored michael jordan!!! ZOMG!!!

And it's the same with the rest of the games you mentioned. Do you honestly believe they constitute 'taking over a game'?! :roll:

You say i'm putting too much emphasis on offense. I say, you're not putting enough on it...

[oolalaa]

Wrong. TS% relative to league average over his prime:
01: +3.4
02: +2.4
03: +3.1
04: +3.5
05: +3.4
06: +2.4
07: +3.9
08: +3.6

Average: 29.0 PPG

He's well above-average.

I much prefer to look at efg% and FT% separately. The number of shots you take and miss from the floor has an influence on your opponents (and to some extent your teammates) performance.

Is it better to score 30 ppg whilst shooting 55 efg% and 60 FT%
or
Is it better to score 30 ppg whilst shooting 45 efg% and 95 FT%?
(i'm not sure if they both equal the same TS% but you get the idea)

The more shots you miss, the more possessions you give your opponents (unless you have 5 moses malones on your team :lol )...

[Kblaze8855]

In over 1200 games Pippen only had 2 games during which he shot as many times as Baylor averaged per game at his peak. And he played 47 and 56 minutes in those 2 games.

I dont know that the difference in offensive talent is as great as just shooting 33 times a game mightmake it seem. And Pippen was an outstanding ball handler, and passer and in Portland was a flat out point guard in like 2003. Im not sure baylor is better on offense. You can call him a better scorer if you want to disregard that the least shots he ever took is 2 more than the most Pippen averaged. But I dont know that that makes him a better offensive player.

[raiderfan19]

Im probably biased because pippen is my favorite non mav ever but after much consideration id go with pippen. To me it comes down to how you view his defense. If you think hes a great defender but just in the generic athletic wing stopper way then id probably go with baylor. If however like me you believe hes the greatest defensive non center ever and one of the 4 or 5 best defensive players ever including centers then youve gotta take pip.

I dont think baylors rebounding is an edge, yes hes one of the best rebounding sfs ever but so is pippen, pippen was longer, more athletic and had great rebounding numbers himself. Baylor was the better scorer, yes he shot more but i dont think pippens game ever really would have fit as the 20-22 shot a game chucker. Pippen was a much better playmaker and he played his role as well as anyone has ever played theirs.

Also for all the pippen had jordan talk, baylor had jerry west who while not quite jordan is a top 15 player of all time in his own right, as well as
a ton of other talent

[oolalaa]

In over 1200 games Pippen only had 2 games during which he shot as many times as Baylor averaged per game at his peak. And he played 47 and 56 minutes in those 2 games.

I dont know that the difference in offensive talent is as great as just shooting 33 times a game mightmake it seem. And Pippen was an outstanding ball handler, and passer and in Portland was a flat out point guard in like 2003. Im not sure baylor is better on offense. You can call him a better scorer if you want to disregard that the least shots he ever took is 2 more than the most Pippen averaged. But I dont know that that makes him a better offensive player.

Come on dude, you can't be serious. That's an insult to Baylor.

Pippen was a better playmaker/passer (probably, it's hard to know) but there was a monumentally massive gulf in their scoring abilities.

Is pippen a better offensive player than kobe? It's a similar comparison. Only a fool would say yes...

[magnax1]

Elgin Baylor
Pretty easy decision for me too. I just never saw Pippen as the MVP caliber player that Baylor seemed to be.

[97 bulls]

Where exactly did i knock pippen for not winning a championship? Please read my post more carefully.

Game 6 of the 92' finals? Really? Are you serious? He had a 26/5/4. You call that taking over a game? :facepalm And his 91' finals game 6? Arguably his greatest ever post season game. He had 32 points and outscored michael jordan!!! ZOMG!!!

And it's the same with the rest of the games you mentioned. Do you honestly believe they constitute 'taking over a game'?! :roll:

You say i'm putting too much emphasis on offense. I say, you're not putting enough on it...
You did say he didn't "single handedly" take over games.

It seems to me your mistaking taking over games for having games in which he scored more than 40 points.

In 92, the bulls were down 15 points going into the 4th quarter. Pippen scores 11 points as well as forcing 3 TOs and shuting down clyde drexler. And leads the bulls back into that game. And they go on to win their second championship.

You need to go back and watch the 91 ecf game 3. Pippen literraly snuffed out every run the pistons made with his offense. And that was the biggest game of the series. It was game the first back in detroit after the bulls went up 2 games. It was a game the pistons needed to get back into the series. And the pistons clearly gave up in game 4.

You also need to go back and watch the 98 ecf game 7. Pippens defense shut down the pacers offense. He was everywhere. If you replace pippen with a guy capable of scoring 30 pts but was a terrible defender, I'm confident the bulls lose that series.

And I'm not underrating offense. But I do feel there's more ways to take over a game than just scoring.

[oolalaa]

Not sure if LA would have won in '69 without Baylor, because that team just did not have much depth, BUT, he was a major reason why they didn't in the Finals. He went completely AWOL in games three thru five in the Finals, scoring a TOTAL of 24 points.

BTW, in the game three 111-105 loss, BOTH Baylor and West combined for 1-14 shooting in the 4th quarter. Wilt gets ripped by the uneducated here for his 2-11 FT shooting in game four, BUT, Baylor went 1-6 from the line, and scored a TOTAL of FIVE points. All in an 89-88 loss. Of course, Johnny Egan's gaffe, losing the ball when his team had the lead AND the ball, and with only seconds remaining was also a HUGE factor.

And while Wilt dominated Russell in a game five, 117-104 blowout of Boston, Baylor still mis-fired, scoring eight points, AND, going 0-4 from the line.

Furthermore, in that game seven, two-point loss, Baylor shot 8-22 from the floor.

And yet, it was WILT who would get the bulk of the blame.

Wilt should get the bulk of the blame for those playoffs. I don't give a crap about his coach 'shackling' him :facepalm

Let me ask you something. You believe wilt was the lakers best player don't you? Why was it always somebody elses fault that wilt didn't win more championships? As their best player he is the one who is most responsible for his teams results, isn't he? In that case, when they won he should get the most credit. BUT, when they lost he should get the most blame right? RIGHT??

[knickswin]

Off topic, but the ESPN had one of those 5-on-5's about small forwards around the end of last season and someone cited Pippen as the best small forward ever. UMMMMMM I'm sorry dude but you're retarded and it is a crime that you are paid to write about NBA basketball. Larry Bird >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scottie Pippen. Not even remotely close. There are other guys for whom you could also make cases.

[oolalaa]

Once again, the "paceologists" will completely over-rate "pace" in these discussions. Baylor's 34-35 ppg seasons would translate to about 25 ppg in today's NBA, and his 19+ rpg season would be at around 13 rpg today. Furthermore, once you factor in adjusted FG%'s, and his scoring would rise back up to around 27 ppg. Since he shot around the league average in his era, he would do the same in today's.

A prime Baylor would be around a 27-13 .460 player today. And Baylor was a quality passer in his era, as well. He had many seasons of over 4 apg, and even a 5.1 apg season in a season in which he averaged 34.8 ppg. And since assists were more difficult to come by in the 60's, he would probably be averaging over 6 apg at his peak. A peak Baylor would then be around a 27-13-6 player.

And he had TWO entire post-seasons, covering 13 and 12 games, with over 38 ppg (and 18 and 15 rpg). Those numbers would be very close to 30-12 in today's era.

Pippen was a very good complimentary player, but even when he was "the man", he never approached those offensive numbers.

Baylor...and by a good margin.

Exactly right :applause:

[oolalaa]

Off topic, but the ESPN had one of those 5-on-5's about small forwards around the end of last season and someone cited Pippen as the best small forward ever. UMMMMMM I'm sorry dude but you're retarded and it is a crime that you are paid to write about NBA basketball. Larry Bird >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scottie Pippen. Not even remotely close. There are other guys for whom you could also make cases.

I know, i saw that. I facepalmed so hard that i nearly broke my nose :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[oolalaa]

You did say he didn't "single handedly" take over games.

It seems to me your mistaking taking over games for having games in which he scored more than 40 points.

In 92, the bulls were down 15 points going into the 4th quarter. Pippen scores 11 points as well as forcing 3 TOs and shuting down clyde drexler. And leads the bulls back into that game. And they go on to win their second championship.

You need to go back and watch the 91 ecf game 3. Pippen literraly snuffed out every run the pistons made with his offense. And that was the biggest game of the series. It was game the first back in detroit after the bulls went up 2 games. It was a game the pistons needed to get back into the series. And the pistons clearly gave up in game 4.

You also need to go back and watch the 98 ecf game 7. Pippens defense shut down the pacers offense. He was everywhere. If you replace pippen with a guy capable of scoring 30 pts but was a terrible defender, I'm confident the bulls lose that series.

And I'm not underrating offense. But I do feel there's more ways to take over a game than just scoring.

Can you win a ring with scottie pippen as your best player? No way. Not just because he wasn't good enough offensively but because i think he had a complimentary players mentality. He was much more comfortable playing alongside jordan than being the main guy. He was a good leader and a great teammate but he lacked a ruthlessness and the competitive drive needed to lead a team to a championship imo...

[97 bulls]

Can you win a ring with scottie pippen as your best player? No way. Not just because he wasn't good enough offensively but because i think he had a complimentary players mentality. He was much more comfortable playing alongside jordan than being the main guy. He was a good leader and a great teammate but he lacked a ruthlessness and the competitive drive needed to lead a team to a championship imo...
That unfortunately we will never know. I do know that pippen, when surrounded by comparable talent, faired just as well as any other all-time great as the leader of a team. And in some cases better.

I also know that baylor never led a team to a championship. Even more, never won a championship.

So which is it? If you excuse baylor for not being able to lead a team to a championship, in over 10 years, then you surely must apply the same logic to pippen not being able to do it in 2 years.

If you say baylors team weren't good enough even though he had jerry west, then you must again applly the same logic that pippen next best player was grant.

[oolalaa]

That unfortunately we will never know. I do know that pippen, when surrounded by comparable talent, faired just as well as any other all-time great as the leader of a team. And in some cases better.

I also know that baylor never led a team to a championship. Even more, never won a championship.

So which is it? If you excuse baylor for not being able to lead a team to a championship, in over 10 years, then you surely must apply the same logic to pippen not being able to do it in 2 years.

If you say baylors team weren't good enough even though he had jerry west, then you must again applly the same logic that pippen next best player was grant.

Yes, i do excuse baylor in part, for not winning a ring. As i said previously, the lakers couldn't cope with russell. They had no one to match up with him. It wasn't just that baylor couldn't win a championship, it was that no one could, for 8 years! It took wilt 8 seasons to finally beat the celtics for christ sake. What chance did the great perimeter players of that era have?

Baylors prime coincided with the greatest nba dynasty of all time. You have to take this into account.

And with regards to his post injury years. I conceded that he was perhaps 75% of his former self. He had a couple of poor post seasons, especially in 69' but so did wilt. Like i said, i would rather 7 quality and 5 very good baylor years over 12 good/very good pippen years.

[97 bulls]

Yes, i do excuse baylor in part, for not winning a ring. As i said previously, the lakers couldn't cope with russell. They had no one to match up with him. It wasn't just that baylor couldn't win a championship, it was that no one could, for 8 years! It took wilt 8 seasons to finally beat the celtics for christ sake. What chance did the great perimeter players of that era have?

Baylors prime coincided with the greatest nba dynasty of all time. You have to take this into account.

And with regards to his post injury years. I conceded that he was perhaps 75% of his former self. He had a couple of poor post seasons, especially in 69' but so did wilt. Like i said, i would rather 7 quality and 5 very good baylor years over 12 good/very good pippen years.
So was pippen and the bulls supposed to beat ewing and the knicks? Then olajuwan? Remember, the bulls were thought to be at best a 500 team when jordan left. Definatly not a 55 win team.

So just to recap, pippen couldn't lead the bulls but baylor could've led the lakers, even though he never did because the lakers weren't good enough. But the bulls should've won. Ok. That makes sense.

And the only reason the celtics had a dynasty is cuz they handed the lakers their ass year in and out. Baylor just couldn't come through and he had west.

[Carbine]

I vote for Pippen.

[L.Kizzle]

So was pippen and the bulls supposed to beat ewing and the knicks? Then olajuwan? Remember, the bulls were thought to be at best a 500 team when jordan left. Definatly not a 55 win team.

So just to recap, pippen couldn't lead the bulls but baylor could've led the lakers, even though he never did because the lakers weren't good enough. But the bulls should've won. Ok. That makes sense.

And the only reason the celtics had a dynasty is cuz they handed the lakers their ass year in and out. Baylor just couldn't come through and he had west.
Baylor had West and Russell had Cousy, Hondo, Sharman, Jones, Jones number 2, Howell, ect.

[jlauber]

Wilt should get the bulk of the blame for those playoffs. I don't give a crap about his coach 'shackling' him :facepalm

Let me ask you something. You believe wilt was the lakers best player don't you? Why was it always somebody elses fault that wilt didn't win more championships? As their best player he is the one who is most responsible for his teams results, isn't he? In that case, when they won he should get the most credit. BUT, when they lost he should get the most blame right? RIGHT??

Why didn't Jordan win a title in his first six seasons? How come he couldn't lead the 85-86 Bulls over the Celtics. He was their BEST player, right?

And why couldn't MJ take a team that had gone 55-27 the year before without him, to a title the very next season?

And what about MJ's shooting in his last three Finals (.455, .427, and even .415)?

And if Russell were truly the better player than Wilt, why was it in the clinching game five loss to Wilt's '67 Sixers in the ECF's, that all he could do was score FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds...while Chamberlain hammered him with a 29 point, 10-16 shooting, 13 assist, 36 rebound game?

How come Kareem couldn't even make the playoffs in '75 and '76? Or flopped badly in both '72 and '73? And how about game seven of the '74 Finals, when 6-9 Dave Cowens completely outplayed him in EVERY facet of the game...in a home blowout loss? And how come he couldn't take LOADED rosters past the Sonics and their ONE borderline HOFer in BOTH '78 and '79? Or was outplayed by Moses and his 40-42 Rockets in '81, and then BATTERED by Moses in the '84 Finals, in a series in which Kareem's Lakers were swept.

Bird? Where do I begin. He lost with HCA in SEVEN post-seasons, including being SWEPT in one of them? He shot .419 in a Finals in which his team barely beat a 40-42 Rockets team. He shot .455 in his FIVE Finals. In his greatest statistical season, in 87-88, he shot .351 against the Pistons in the playoffs.

Hakeem? My god, the man was part of EIGHT first-round exits. He won one of his rings when Jordan took the year off, too.

KG languishes on "losers" for years, and then, all of sudden, when paired with some quality teammates, he goes 66-16 and wins a ring. How come?

Yet, WILT is called a "loser" and a "choker"?????


Wilt SELDOM played even an AVERAGE game in his 160 post-season games. He was getting ripped for an 18 point, on 7-8 from the field, with 27 rebounds in that game seven. And meanwhile, Russell scored six points, on 2-7 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and no one mentions that?

Chamberlain played a relatively poor game six in the '69 Finals. Meanwhile Baylor played FOUR poor games. And even the brilliant West went to hell in the 4th quarter of a 111-105 loss (he and Baylor combined to shoot 1-14 in that quarter.) And, if not for Egan's HUGE blunder in game four, the Lakers cakewalk to a 4-1 series win game five.

There were a couple of posters here who blamed Wilt for his team losing in the '66 ECF's (when all Wilt did was average 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shoot .509) while his teammates collectively shot .352.

Those same posters blamed WILT for Philly losing in seven games in the '68 ECF's...despite Wilt PLAYING with SEVERAL injuries, including a tear in his thigh, for FOUR games. Oh, and his teammates NOT passing him the ball in nearly the ENTIRE second half of game seven...a 100-96 loss. And, BTW, those teammates collectively shooting 33% in that game, as well. As well as the fact that they didn't even have HOFer Cunningham for the ENTIRE series (and still led 3-1...but then Jackson and Jones were injured in game five.)

Or those that blamed Wilt in the '70 Finals, especially in game seven, even though he was the ONLY Laker to even play decent. And, of course, they NEVER acknowledge the FACT that Wilt was only four months removed from major knee surgery, essentially the SAME surgery that hampered Baylor for over a YEAR (and he was never the same, either.) Oh, and BTW, all Wilt did in those Finals, was average 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shoot .625 from the floor.

Yep...let's blame WILT for those failures.

:facepalm

[oolalaa]

So was pippen and the bulls supposed to beat ewing and the knicks? Then olajuwan? Remember, the bulls were thought to be at best a 500 team when jordan left. Definatly not a 55 win team.

So just to recap, pippen couldn't lead the bulls but baylor could've led the lakers, even though he never did because the lakers weren't good enough. But the bulls should've won. Ok. That makes sense.

And the only reason the celtics had a dynasty is cuz they handed the lakers their ass year in and out. Baylor just couldn't come through and he had west.

NO!!!!!!!! He never won because the celtics (aka the greatest nba dynasty of all time, led by the greatest centre of all time, in an era where centres could literally camp under the boards) got in the way!!!!!!!! Why don't you get this? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

It's an insult to even attempt to compare the 94' rockets or knicks to the 60s celtics.

I understand baylor wasn't the perfect player and didn't have the perfect legacy but he was simply a more dominant player than pippen.

You clearly have a love for the bulls. Try not to be so biased.

[oolalaa]

Why didn't Jordan win a title in his first six seasons? How come he couldn't lead the 85-86 Bulls over the Celtics. He was their BEST player, right?

And why couldn't MJ take a team that had gone 55-27 the year before without him, to a title the very next season?

And what about MJ's shooting in his last three Finals (.455, .427, and even .415)?

And if Russell were truly the better player than Wilt, why was it in the clinching game five loss to Wilt's '67 Sixers in the ECF's, that all he could do was score FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds...while Chamberlain hammered him with a 29 point, 10-16 shooting, 13 assist, 36 rebound game?

How come Kareem couldn't even make the playoffs in '75 and '76? Or flopped badly in both '72 and '73? And how about game seven of the '74 Finals, when 6-9 Dave Cowens completely outplayed him in EVERY facet of the game...in a home blowout loss? And how come he couldn't take LOADED rosters past the Sonics and their ONE borderline HOFer in BOTH '78 and '79? Or was outplayed by Moses and his 40-42 Rockets in '81, and then BATTERED by Moses in the '84 Finals, in a series in which Kareem's Lakers were swept.

Bird? Where do I begin. He lost with HCA in SEVEN post-seasons, including being SWEPT in one of them? He shot .419 in a Finals in which his team barely beat a 40-42 Rockets team. He shot .455 in his FIVE Finals. In his greatest statistical season, in 87-88, he shot .351 against the Pistons in the playoffs.

Hakeem? My god, the man was part of EIGHT first-round exits. He won one of his rings when Jordan took the year off, too.

Yet, WILT is called a "loser" and a "choker"?????


Wilt SELDOM played even an AVERAGE game in his 160 post-season games. He was getting ripped for an 18 point, on 7-8 from the field, with 27 rebounds in that game seven. And meanwhile, Russell scored six points, on 2-7 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and no one mentions that?

Chamberlain played a relatively poor game six in the '69 Finals. Meanwhile Baylor played FOUR poor games. And even the brilliant West went to hell in the 4th quarter of a 111-105 loss (he and Baylor combined to shoot 1-14 in that quarter.) And, if not for Egan's HUGE blunder in game four, the Lakers cakewalk to a 4-1 series win game five.

There were a couple of posters here who blamed Wilt for his team losing in the '66 ECF's (when all Wilt did was average 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shoot .509) while his teammates collectively shot .352.

Those same posters blamed WILT for Philly losing in seven games in the '68 ECF's...despite Wilt PLAYING with SEVERAL injuries, including a tear in his thigh, for FOUR games. Oh, and his teammates NOT passing him the ball in nearly the ENTIRE second half of game seven...a 100-96 loss. And, BTW, those teammates collectively shooting 33% in that game, as well. As well as the fact that they didn't even have HOFer Cunningham for the ENTIRE series (and still led 3-1...but then Jackson and Jones were injured in game five.)

Or those that blamed Wilt in the '70 Finals, especially in game seven, even though he was the ONLY Laker to even play decent. And, of course, they NEVER acknowledge the FACT that Wilt was only four months removed from major knee surgery, essentially the SAME surgery that hampered Baylor for over a YEAR (and he was never the same, either.) Oh, and BTW, all Wilt did in those Finals, was average 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shoot .625 from the floor.

Yep...let's blame WILT for those failures.

:facepalm

Your double standard is amusing.

I'll simply say this:

There is more to basketball than stats.

[97 bulls]

NO!!!!!!!! He never won because the celtics (aka the greatest nba dynasty of all time, led by the greatest centre of all time, in an era where centres could literally camp under the boards) got in the way!!!!!!!! Why don't you get this? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
this I agree with bro. I'm not knocking baylor not beating a more talent laiden celtics team. I feel the same way about pippen.

It's an insult to even attempt to compare the 94' rockets or knicks to the 60s celtics.
I'm not comparing the dynasty celtics to the rockets. But I am comparing the relative similarities. Pippens 94 bulls were not the second best team in 94 like baylors lakers were in the 60s

I understand baylor wasn't the perfect player and didn't have the perfect legacy but he was simply a more dominant player than pippen.

You clearly have a love for the bulls. Try not to be so biased.
I'm not being biased. You set the perameters of this conversation and I'm trying to follow it. Pippen couldn't lead a team to a championship according to you which is a point for baylor. But baylor didn't lead a team to a championship either. So you say the lakers had to go against the dynasty celtics. My response is neither team was good enough to be honest so why is it a mark against pippen? As if his team was good enough and just lost to an underdog in the first round in a sweep.

[Big164]

No one here has been able to defend Elgins putrid fg% , dead last on his own team in 1969. No one can defend his 0 championships, he had the two Greatest scorers of the era and still went ringless.



Wilt and west could've had a shaq/Kobe type run but Elgin ruined the chemistry of that team. He was the nick van excel/ laker Malone type guy stealing shots from superior players.

[97 bulls]

Baylor had West and Russell had Cousy, Hondo, Sharman, Jones, Jones number 2, Howell, ect.
True. I'm not saying the lakers should've beat the celtics. But I don't see the sense in awarding baylor for an accomplishment he couldn't do for whatever reason, then penalize pippen for the same thing. Even though pippen didn't have the same opportunities. And what's more, won 6 championships.

That's the unfortunate part about ranking players. No one player has taken the same path.

[oolalaa]

I'm not being biased. You set the perameters of this conversation and I'm trying to follow it. Pippen couldn't lead a team to a championship according to you which is a point for baylor. But baylor didn't lead a team to a championship either. So you say the lakers had to go against the dynasty celtics. My response is neither team was good enough to be honest so why is it a mark against pippen? As if his team was good enough and just lost to an underdog in the first round in a sweep.

Yes, neither team was good enough, but this isn't the debate. The debate is - who is the better player?

Lets just agree to disagree. It was fun debating with you :cheers:

[PTB Fan]

So, who advances in the next round?

[Kblaze8855]

So, who advances in the next round?

Recounting now...

I believe its 13 for baylor and...

[Kblaze8855]

Recounting now...

I believe its 13 for baylor and...


...12 for Pippen.

But im gonna count a third time and post who it seems votes for who. Its too close and too high up to get it wrong. I had pippen winning my first count. Some people argue for one but dont seem to actually vote. Makes it rough.

No votes after this post will count until im 100% on the previous ones. If it ends up tied....votes after this will decide the winner.

[L.Kizzle]

...12 for Pippen.

But im gonna count a third time and post who it seems votes for who. Its too close and too high up to get it wrong. I had pippen winning my first count. Some people argue for one but dont seem to actually vote. Makes it rough.

No votes after this post will count until im 100% on the previous ones. If it ends up tied....votes after this will decide the winner.
Elgin Baylor is the winner, its no other way. Its a travisty is Pippen wins. Might as well put James Worthy and McHale above Baylor too.

[Kblaze8855]

Elgin Baylor is the winner, its no other way. Its a travisty is Pippen wins. Might as well put James Worthy and McHale above Baylor too.

Its not a travesty if anyone from here on beats anyone else outside Bird and Duncan faling out of the top 2-3.

Elgin Baylor didnt actually accomplish very much compared to a lot of these guys up here. He got close to doing a lot. He was almost an MVP. He wasnt. Almost a champ. He wasnt. Almost led in scoring. He didnt.

The ball bounces another way a few times hes in the top 5. It didnt.

And his team made the finals without him in his prime(I believe he played 1 playoff game)....and late in his career he retired the night his team started a 33 game win streak and won it all.

He did nothing aside from score a lot by shooting 28-33 times a game and rebound a lot due to an absurd number being there to grab to justify ranking in the top 10 or so on this list.

Hes got people who actually led teams to titles in his way. MVPs. He could be argued top 15 all time yes. Or top 12 maybe. But that doesnt mean he cant be argued outside the top 20.

All these guys are elites. Its no insult to be behind Pippen or next to Elvin Hayes or anything.

As I said this is Scottie Pippen. Not some nobody.


And others should feel free to count as well if they think I get it wrong.

[L.Kizzle]

Its not a travesty if anyone from here on beats anyone else outside Bird and Duncan faling out of the top 2-3.

Elgin Baylor didnt actually accomplish very much compared to a lot of these guys up here. He got close to doing a lot. He was almost an MVP. He wasnt. Almost a champ. He wasnt. Almost led in scoring. He didnt.

The ball bounces another way a few times hes in the top 5. It didnt.

And his team made the finals without him in his prime(I believe he played 1 playoff game)....and late in his career he retired the night his team started a 33 game win streak and won it all.

He did nothing aside from score a lot by shooting 28-33 times a game and rebound a lot due to an absurd number being there to grab to justify ranking in the top 10 or so on this list.

Hes got people who actually led teams to titles in his way. MVPs. He could be argued top 15 all time yes. Or top 12 maybe. But that doesnt mean he cant be argued outside the top 20.

All these guys are elites. Its no insult to be behind Pippen or next to Elvin Hayes or anything.

As I said this is Scottie Pippen. Not some nobody.


And others should feel free to count as well if they think I get it wrong.
He can be argued top 15 all time, but this is top 15 forwards. Don't you see something wrong with this picture? And yes he never won it all, but who in his era did, Bill Russells Celtics. He never won a scoring title but who in his era did Wilt. I'm pretty sure Elgin was #2 most of the 7 seasons Wilt won. He didn't win MVPs but who in his era was, Russell and Wilt. Basically the same 2 player plus Oscar and West here and there were beating _lgin. Now Pippen, a host of players were above Scottie yr in and yr out. Only a few season maybe 3 did he reach Elgins satus of a top 5 player.

[Kblaze8855]

He can be argued top 15 all time, but this is top 15 forwards. Don't you see something wrong with this picture?

Nope. At least 10 forwards id say can easily be ranked over him without much fuss.



And yes he never won it all, but who in his era did, Bill Russells Celtics.


Im not calling a team unbeatable when you lose by a single jumper. More than once.

And again...West took them to the finals without Baylor and they won after he retired. So how am I gonna credit him with even going all those years?



He never won a scoring title but who in his era did Wilt. I'm pretty sure Elgin was #2 most of the 7 seasons Wilt won.

Wilt stopped shooting a lot by Philly. Besides...not being the best isnt an excuse for...not being the best.


He didn't win MVPs but who in his era was, Russell and Wilt. Basically the same 2 player plus Oscar and West here and there were beating _lgin.

Oh so he lost out to better players?

Thats how it works. Same reason Pippen has no MVPs.


Now Pippen, a host of players were above Scottie yr in and yr out. Only a few season maybe 3 did he reach Elgins satus of a top 5 player

Could replace Elgin there with Paul Arizin or Dolph Schayes. I wouldnt put them over Pippen. And they actually won.

[Smoke117]

Scottie played during the big mans era but from 92 to 97 I think you could call him the 2nd greatest perimeter player in the league if not the best (I think he was the best in 94 and 95 when Jordan retired) and top 5 in 91 and 98, so that is no knock on Scottie that he played in the era he played in.

[L.Kizzle]

Nope. At least 10 forwards id say can easily be ranked over him without much fuss.





Im not calling a team unbeatable when you lose by a single jumper. More than once.

And again...West took them to the finals without Baylor and they won after he retired. So how am I gonna credit him with even going all those years?




Wilt stopped shooting a lot by Philly. Besides...not being the best isnt an excuse for...not being the best.



Oh so he lost out to better players?

Thats how it works. Same reason Pippen has no MVPs.



Could replace Elgin there with Paul Arizin or Dolph Schayes. I wouldnt put them over Pippen. And they actually won.
I understand he lost to better players bu those players were Russell, Wilt, O and West. All top ten or boderline ten. I could name over 12 maybe 15 player better than Pippen in his time period. Can't do that wth Elgin. Hell you can add in Petttit and Hondo and still 6.

[Big164]

Elgin bAylor Sucks, plain and simple. If you couldnt win a ship with the two greatest scorers ever on your team, and these guys start dominating the moment you retire, then YOU were the problem.

And don't give me the celtics/Russell excuse. Russell was defeated twice by wilts sixers and Petits Hawks. Russell was very beatable, Baylor is simply not up to par.

Having both Wilt and West in 1969, is like pippen having shaq and Jordan in 1998.

Pippen was a winner who understood his role as robin. Baylor thought he was better than Jerry West, and ruined the Lakers for an entire decade.

[Kblaze8855]

After a third recount I believe Baylor wins.

[FF1]

On with the next one...