Happy Birthday, Elgin Baylor

Yeah, I know this is a Celtics board, but greatness is greatness is greatness and these are pretty damn strong words coming from the ultimate homie, Tommygun Heinsohn himself.

“Elgin Baylor as a forward beats out Bird, Julius Erving, and everybody else. A lot of people don’t remember him, but he had the total game—defense, offense, everything, rebounding, passing the ball.”
—Celtics legend Tom Heinsohn, from Roland Lazenby’s “The Show.”

When you talk about the guy whose game opened the door for Dr. J and eventually Michael Jordan and all that followed, it was Elgin Baylor. He would get the ball out at the top of the key and could blow by his defender to dunk going either way, or if you pulled back to stop the drive he would knock down the jumper. He was a gifted passer and one of the best rebounders at the three the position has seen.

You want numbers? Baylor finished his career averaging 27.4 points and 13.5 rebounds a game. He was the NBA’s Rookie of the Year, 10 time All NBA First Team, and an 11 time All Star. He is in the Hall of Fame (plus went on to coach for four years and be the Clippers GM for 22 years, but that didn’t go as well as his career).

Happy birthday to Baylor, who turns 79 today. Here is a look back at his game.






bob


.

Looking at the video the thing I'm most not impressed with is the defense, the defense now that Paul Pierce had to face regularly is much tighter, much better.

What a great player!  Jordan had the tongue, and Elgin had the head bob when streaming downcourt.  I've never seen any other player (including Jordan) with better hang time.  Elgin could shoot lights out with a hand in his face.  Maybe he'd be a SG nowadays, which would please me immensely—especially after Elgin hastened D. Wade's retirement in one way or another.  He should get an honorary championship ring. Happy Birthday, Elgin.

Sam

Cow, yes, team defensive schemes are much more complex now, but don't let that detract from what a great, great player Baylor was. He is among the very best that have ever played this game. Pierce is an excellent player, a Hall of Fame player, but Baylor is a level above that.

Bob, thanks for the video. There's so little video of some of the greats from the old days that clips like these are a treasure.

Outside,


I believe Elgin Baylor and Bob Petit are arguably the two most "under-heralded" legends of the early NBA. I might even add Dolph Schayes to that group.

Sam

Sam,

I almost threw in Bob Petit's name with Baylor as the greatest underappreciated forwards from the early days. I'm not familiar enough with Schayes, but I'll take your word for it. Great, great players.

Outside,

Schayes was really old school, and his contributions must be measured on that basis. He murdered opponents with a two-hander from way outside. They knew it was coming, and they couldn't stop it. He got by on his toughness and wiles more than any athleticism. He played 15 years. Only in one later year did he average fewer than 10 rebounds (9.4) per 36 minutes, and he never averaged below 12 points per 36 minutes. I could see debating about Schayes, but Baylor and Petit were sheer assassins, and Durable Dolph (my term) wasn't far behind.

Sam

outside sorry no way, Pierce is alot bigger and stronger, Elgin was one of the pioneers, but don't tell me hes a class above Pierce.

In the debate of Baylor vs. Pierce, we can look to see how they performed against the competition in their era. I don't put importance on All-Star appearances, but I think the following will show how great Baylor was.

1st team All-NBA:
Baylor - 10 times
Pierce - 0 times

Top 5 of MVP Voting:
Baylor - 7 times
Pierce - 0 times

TJ,

It would be interesting to hear some people who are knowledgeable about both eras discuss the relative merits and vulnerabilities of both Baylor and Pierce. Baylor was so far ahead of the athleticism of his times, and he was en excellent ball-handler. Pierce's long-distance shooting has seemed to improve over time, and the double threat of his long ball and his slashing was a major strength over the majority of his career. I don't judge players based on individual awards. But, on balance, I'd have to go with Elgin because of his consistent ability to hurt opponents in a variety of ways, night after night, without giving points back via turnovers.

Sam

sam wrote:TJ,

It would be interesting to hear some people who are knowledgeable about both eras discuss the relative merits and vulnerabilities of both Baylor and Pierce.  Baylor was so far ahead of the athleticism of his times, and he was en excellent ball-handler.  Pierce's long-distance shooting has seemed to improve over time, and the double threat of his long ball and his slashing was a major strength over the majority of his career.  I don't judge players based on individual awards.  But, on balance, I'd have to go with Elgin because of his consistent ability to hurt opponents in a variety of ways, night after night, without giving points back via turnovers.

Sam

First, thank you guys for posting my video! That is my YT channel and I hope to showcase more players of Elgin's era in the future (including some Celtics). Second, I am neither a Lakers, nor a Celtics fan - I'm a basketball fan - and a big fan of that generation of players (obviously based on my YT channel). I may be able to help out with this question. Here's what I know about Baylor:

His 6-5 listed height is also his w/o shoes height... so he was taller than modern players listed 6-5, if he played today they'd probably list him 6-6 (most players today have a 1-2 inch inflation in list height). He was 225-230lbs for most of his career, his weight dropped as low as 214lbs one season in an effort to regain quickness (after his devastating knee injury) and he weighed as much as 236lbs - and he did not lift weights, he was a naturally large-framed player thus his rebounding abilities, and his strength in the post. He was quick and skilled enough to take many guards off the dribble and strong enough to post up Bill Russell. Probably contrary to popular perception due to his 6-5 list height, I do not feel he would "play SG today". All the tools that made him the greatest SF of his era are still the same tools that apply today - large frame, diverse skillset etc. If he did what modern players do today and lift weights in the offseason and strength train it's not unrealistic to think he would weigh 10 or 15lbs more, which would make him 6-6 and 240-245lbs - hardly what I would consider the size of a shooting guard.

Now as far as his abilities go, one thing is certain to me based on how many interviews and testimonial I've heard about Elgin - everything you see him do in footage - is but a SMALL window in to his game. When I talk to old Lakers fans, they tell me he used to dribble behind his back routinely to freeze defenders, they tell me he was the best ever to use to use the backboard as a weapon (throw the ball off the glass as a means to escape a defender - then go up and go get it to stuff/lay it back in). They basically say he did everything you could think of under the sun, he had the reputation as "the man with 1,000 moves". Now, I spent the last 3 years collecting footage of him from NCAA to NBA and I haven't found a single clip of him dribbling behind his back or throwing the ball off the glass to go get it yet I have footage of him doing an incredibly wide variety of other incredible moves both off the dribble or in flight and that only tells me one thing - that his game was so diverse 15 minutes of random highlights (lucky to even exist from that long ago) can never accurately encapsulate everything he used to do or how good he was. So this needs to be taken into consideration.

Also, I made one more highlight video of his a few days ago just for Elgins birthday, it has about 3 more minutes of clips, you can find it on the main page of my YT channel. In it you'll see some more nice hesitation dribbles etc.

As far as how he compares to Pierce? This is only my opinion and I've only seen about a dozen to two dozen games of Paul Pierce mostly from when he went against the Cavs in the reg season or Playoffs (plus highlights etc on YT) - which is actually MORE than what is historically available of Elgin Baylor - but I would say based on testimonial, stats (not just looking at them out of context either - I mean compared to each other's peers not just compared 'directly' which can be misleading because of the era gap) and the amount of footage I've seen of both of the two players, Baylor - as a basketball talent - is in the same company at the forward position as Rick Barry, Julius Erving, Larry Bird, Lebron James, etc. Paul Pierce as a talent, is not in the company of those players IMO. Baylors TRB% alone for example (not his volumes) but just his rebounding %, is about the same as Larry Birds, and higher than any SF in the league today. Meaning if Baylor were playing today even in a game of a different number of posessions he'd still be outrebounding every forward in the game, including Pierce (so would Larry Bird for that matter). People who have SEEN Baylor compare him to the greatest SF's ever, and nothing less.

Also, on one more note, Baylor's athleticism and how it helped him in his era is often misunderstood. Baylor was the Michael Jordan of his era NOT because of leaping ability. Baylor was not an incredibly high leaper - he could touch (this is cited in old newspapers of his era) 22 inches above the rim. While this is very high, this is still 2 inches LESS than prime Kobe Bryant could - and we all know Kobe couldn't elevate like Michael, or Dr. J etc. What made Baylor be compared to Michael and Julius was his body control. He could hesitate his shots twist the ball or his body around, and shoot the ball while he's falling down - which is how Michael and Dr. J played the game after him. They both could jump higher though. More importantly, there were actually other forwards and wing players in Baylor's era that ALSO jumped higher than him (Johnny Green, Joe Caldwell, and of course the incredibly powerful and gifted athlete Gus Johnson who shattered 3 backboards and would be turning heads today of his athleticism alone) but these guys weren't as good of players as Baylor. So what made Baylor elite wasn't his athleticism, he wasn't 'more athletic than everyone' of his era - it was his ability to play the game. His body control and athleticism made his game exciting but he wasn't simply dominating because of it.

Just my 2 cents! P.S. check out this Sam Jones pass!:

WOW great clip of that 60's team, thats Siegfried, Sam Jones, Hondo, Baily Howell and Russell, what a great 5some, everyone of them touched the ball.

Some great points in not to judge Elgin Baylor just on athleticism, I've pointed out for years how many players like Vince Carter, Richard Jefferson, Cory Magette, Jerry Stackhouse and countless other wings from that era had way better athleticism than Pierce, and he used to kick all their asses pretty good overall...so I get it.

`Both players are kinda built the same, I see alot of great shots, but I don't see alot of finishes in traffic, barreling bodies and taking blows like we've all seen of Pierce, like in 08 game 5 when he went right on Kobe for 38....Pierce has alot of modern stuff, even before KG arrived he had some monster 40+ playoff games, the comeback vs Nets, beating Ron Artest and Al Harrington in 03 at their own game. Pierce is obviously in an era of alot of great players that Baylor never had to deal with, whos competition was tougher, better, deeper? going against a Tracy McGrady, Shawn Marion, did I mention Kobe? then later Lebron and Melo....the competition is far far better in this era.

tjmakz wrote:In the debate of Baylor vs. Pierce, we can look to see how they performed against the competition in their era. I don't put importance on All-Star appearances, but I think the following will show how great Baylor was.

1st team All-NBA:
Baylor - 10 times
Pierce - 0 times

Top 5 of MVP Voting:
Baylor - 7 times
Pierce - 0 times

if they went one on one, you can't convince me its not even, Pierce could put up far greater numbers if he went against those defenses of 60's too....man would he go off, dunking, spinning, midrange them.

I just figured out how to inbed, here's that newer Baylor mix I mentioned:



Some of the 'new' clips starting at 2:22 to 3:05 Dr. J talks about how Baylor inspired him + Oscar saying he's a top SF all time + a few new clips of Baylor, one with a nice hesitation dribble I'd never seen before

3:59 new clip of Elgin Baylor's 1st step in slow motion

5:49 (audio) Oscar states Elgin GOAT

13:53 Elgin pressuring Bill Russell on the break

Any new clip of Elgin that surfaces shows him something that I've never seen him do before - so like I said, what you see is but a small fragment of his abilities. His 'career highlights' simply don't exist on film. There are probably less shot attempts in that highlight mix than we would be able to see in a dozen games (if a dozen full games of his existed). Imagine if all you had to judge Paul Pierces entire career and abilities were based strictly on totally random clips (not even necessarily 'highlights' or his 'best' plays) from fewer than a dozen games from both his NCAA and NBA career - most clips being when he was very old or very young and not many in his prime (because hardly any of the clips of Baylor are of him in his 'prime'. That's what we're looking at with these highlights I was able to put together.

dantheman9758 welcome to the board, he actually has alot of nice moves slashing and midrange that remind me of Pierce. So did you see him in his prime?

cowens/oldschool wrote:dantheman9758 welcome to the board, he actually has alot of nice moves slashing and midrange that remind me of Pierce. So did you see him in his prime?

No unfortunately I'm just a collector of historic NBA footage, a couple of years ago I started collecting everything I could from the late 50's to early 70's to sort of fill in the missing pieces to try to understand a lot of those guys since it seemed so hard to find footage of them (still is... but as you can see I've now got enough to put together highlight reels). I've probably seen more footage and digital content from that era than anyone else who WASN'T alive at the time to see it but like I said there are people who saw that era that tell me things that very limited amount of footage can't, such as the people who had described Baylor as routinely going behind his back and between his legs to freeze defenders and using the glass as a weapon to retrieve the ball in the paint on offense. I've never seen those things because they don't exist on film, so that tells me that the small amount of footage from that era can only tell me so much. I read books, articles, and listen to interviews to help paint a more detailed picture of how certain players played - and I include as much of that as I can into mixes I make. I'm working on a Bill Russell mix that I hope will be ready within a year or so.

Cow, try to think of it this way -- what if there were extremely little footage of Larry Bird and all you had to go by were a few clips, like you see here of Baylor. Then someone who hadn't seen Bird play looked at those clips and said, yeah, his stats are great, but he's really unathletic and slow, the defense shown in the clips was lousy, and today's players would eat him alive. As someone who had seen Bird play, what would you think?

Baylor was great, Bird-level great. The biggest problem here seems to be that you didn't see him play and are basing your judgment off a brief set of clips.

As a junior at Seattle University in 1957-58, he was the player of the year and the most outstanding player of the Final Four even though his team lost to Kentucky in the finals.

He literally saved the Lakers franchise. The Lakers had fallen on hard times in Minneapolis after the Mikan years, were 19-53 in 1957-58, and on the brink of going under. The owner, Bob Short, convinced Baylor to skip his senior season at Seattle and go pro. Short said, "If he had turned me down then, I would have been out of business. The club would have gone bankrupt." Baylor was the first step in the rebuilding of the Lakers that would turn them into a perennial power in the West.

As a rookie, Baylor was fourth in scoring, third in rebounding, eighth in assists, and was the rookie of the year. His high scoring game of the season was 55, then the third-most ever.

Here are his scoring averages his first five years in the league:
24.9
29.6
34.8
38.3
34.0

In 1960 against the Knicks, Baylor had 71 points (and 25 rebounds), then an NBA record and breaking the previous record of 64 he set the year before. In game 5 of the 1962 Finals against the Celtics in Boston Garden, he had 63 points (still a Finals record) and 22 rebounds. (The Celtics won in overtime in the game where Frank Selvy missed a short jumper at the end of regulation, a pivotal moment in both Celtic and Laker history.) Baylor has the fourth highest career scoring average of all time, after Jordan, Wilt, and LeBron (who has yet to have the inevitable declining scoring of his later years).

Like Bird, he had injuries that limited his peak effectiveness the second half of his career (knees for Baylor, back for Bird), but both still were All-Pro caliber players despite the injuries.

Despite all these facts and figures, despite the video clips, none of this captures the true greatness of Baylor as a player, just as a similar summary of Bird's career wouldn't capture what separates him from so many other great players. In the end, all I have to rely on are my memories of his play and the recollections of the great players of the day who played against him. To a man, they all praise Baylor as one of the greatest to ever play this game. And he was.

outside

I'm pretty sure you saw Baylor play and I never said he wasn't great, all I'm saying is the defense doesn't look as good as todays IMHO and the game has gotten better thru time and evolution, the competition is different. I'm not saying Baylor is not as great as you guys say. I wonder how Pierce would do in Baylors era? I think Pierce could play with any great wing player in any era including MJ....and I made that point years ago.

cow

What was the Knicks starting lineup when Baylor went for 71 in 1960? He was obviously ahead of his time and a great great scorer, he obviously wasn't driving on Wilt or Russell in that game.

cowens/oldschool wrote:What was the Knicks starting lineup when Baylor went for 71 in 1960? He was obviously ahead of his time and a great great scorer, he obviously wasn't driving on Wilt or Russell in that game.

Baylor averaged over 40 points per game against the Celtics in 1962 in the NBA Finals, and set the STILL STANDING NBA record of 61 points in an NBA Finals game against them - with prime Russell in the middle and Satch Sanders - the greatest defensive forward of that season, guarding him. Nobody and nothing could stop prime Elgin Baylor. I don't know who the Knicks center was for the 71 point game or the forward but it doesn't matter, nobody stopped Baylor. Most of the footage I have of him driving and dunking inside is AGAINST Wilt or Russell. Great competition inside or outside did not slow Elgin Baylor down one bit. In fact, Red Aurbach used to try to put Russell on Baylor as part of his psychological chess match when coaching against the Lakers in the Finals and Baylor would just laugh. There's footage of Russell trying to guard Baylor or protect the basket against him in the mix.

cowens/oldschool wrote:outside

I'm pretty sure you saw Baylor play and I never said he wasn't great, all I'm saying is the defense doesn't look as good as todays IMHO and the game has gotten better thru time and evolution, the competition is different. I'm not saying Baylor is not as great as you guys say. I wonder how Pierce would do in Baylors era? I think Pierce could play with any great wing player in any era including MJ....and I made that point years ago.

cow

Pierce from what I would project, would be like prime Chet Walker in the 60's - the competition in the league back then probably wasn't as bad as you think. The game was played differently in that era with more fast breaks and zone was illegal - also handchecking was allowed and several other things were different so the defenses don't get set up in the same way that they do today. Just the same, neither did offenses... no 3 point line, no rules against posting up for longer than a set amount of time, etc all means much different spacing on the floor. My bias will probably show through here because I'm so fascinated with players and games from that era but I feel that the truth is, young fans of the game today get brainwashed into assuming everything is bigger/better now because the game is a multi-billion dollar entertainment event now and given lots of hype but realistically back then the game was played slightly different and somewhat unfamiliar to be certain, but not inferior in terms of the amount of talent distributed throughout the league back then. The league was still loaded with the best players in the world back then. Skillsets/rules/officiating/trends and style of play have all been tweaked over time. But I've watched so much basketball footage from that era that at this point, I can watch games from back then and complain just as much about modern athletes unable to do things that those guys were doing routinely as much as the next guy who watches today's game would try to complain about what those guys 'couldn't' or 'didn't' do back then. Take outlet passing for example, even AVERAGE players back then were better at keeping their heads up for outlet passes off rebounds for starting a fast break back vs today's players. There are certain skills of the game that have improved on average across the board in todays era vs that one, but there are also other parts/skills of the game that have disappeared or become reduced among modern players. To say the game is 'better' today isn't as accurate as to say it's just different. Just my two cents, you'll probably disagree but that's fine. Regardless here is the 1969 NBA all star game so you can see a lot of those guys (including Baylor) playing their different brand of basketball:

I appreciate you putting these games on the board, the games now and then are different, I don't mean to declare whats better, but I will say the defense today is alot tighter, therefore in alot of ways better. Constantly see clips of 60's with no perimeter pressure defensively, players didn't get that close. Alot of times see guys going downcourt with ball on left side, just dribbling with the right hand, not even protecting the ball as defenders alot looser back then.

I saw Chet Walker with Bulls and Bob Love and Sloan and Van Lier, Pierce a much better ball handler with much more variety in his slashing game, Walker had a nice post up game, those days no 3 point shot, Pierce definitely had better range....sorry, don't see it. See alot more of Pierces game in Baylor than what I remember of Chet Walker.

dantheman5758,

Welcome to the board.  An analytical mind is always valued here.

I estimate that, in person, I saw Baylor play a minimum of 40-50 games throughout his entire career, during the regular season and the finals.  I'm sure that my impressions of him are skewed toward big games because those tended to be the ones I most attended at ages 23-33.

One thing about relying on video of the old days.  One has to recognize that those videos are skewed toward high-stakes games; and, in those games, leading players often tended to be more conservative than in other games.  I learned this because I have around 20 videos of the old Celtics, and only one shows Cousy going behind his back and scoring; and none shows him using his "air dribble."  

I don't recall any behind-the-back moves by Baylor.  But I'd have to defer to Lakers fans who saw him playing day after day.  Elgin could definitely jump higher than most guys in the league at that time.  But you're right in saying that what set him apart was his hang time.  I realize that he didn't really defy Isaac "Fig" Newton's Law of Gravity; it just seemed that he did.  In actuality, he was a master of holding the ball and shooting just as he was beginning his descent.  He had a knack for outlasting his opponent in the air. and, at the same time, gyrating to move his shooting hand away from the defender's reach.

I don't recall any games in which Red put Russell on Elgin for any length of time, although there were loads of moments when Russ went one-on-one with Baylor at the rim because Elgin had slipped by his defensive man.  And, very often, Elgin would win that battle.  In general, Red didn't seem to believe in disrupting his rotation or changing his game plan just to double or switch assignments on a star opponent.  He'd typically hope Satch would "hold" Elgin to 35, Sam and K.C. would "hold" West to 35, Russell would do his "everywhere" defensive thing, and the other two Celtics on the floor (whoever they were) would focus on putting the clamps on their defensive assignments.

Actually, Red tended to go to the other extreme, height-wise, in putting someone other than Tom Sanders on Baylor.  And it happened a lot, as Satch gave no quarter and wound up fouling Baylor a lot.  Before the days of Havlicek, Red would often put 6' 3" Frank Ramsey—and sometimes 6' 5" Jim Loscutoff—on Elgin.  I used to theorize that Red felt the only hopes for slowing Elgin down were to play him end-to-end (Ramsey) or rough him up (Loscy).  But I believe the real reason he used those guys was because there was no one else.  Certainly, Heinsohn wasn't going to have a prayer at covering Elgin.

As a Celtics fan, I feared Elgin even more than Jerry West because you could wear West down and sometimes force him into jumpers—but not Elgin.  And Elgin was the forerunner of many stars who have followed since who—when he absolutely had to score—had the kind of relentless determination that would usually make it happen.

Sam

dantheman,

Welcome to the board!  You've certainly started off on the right foot here.

As a vintage basketball fan, I'd recommend you to another page or two on this site.

If you hit the 'Home' button, it will take you to the main screen for the site, the one you probably started on when you created your user name.  There is a section called "Links, Books, Media and Sam's Writing".  While there's lots of good stuff in there, I would especially refer you to the 'sticky' called "Archives of Sam's Writings".  You'll enjoy what you read and you'll enjoy his prose.  Sam, I just looked in that section and I don't see your travelogue of the balloon game.


bob


.

Regarding the defenses of those days versus now, there are several key differences:

• Defensive schemes have evolved to be much more complex with rotation assignments. In the '60's, you stayed with your man or you switched. (Or you got beat and yelled, "Russ!")

• There was no three-point shot, so it was actually defensive strategy to not guard as closely on the perimeter except for a few outstanding outside shooters. Defenses would logically defend the inside more and encourage longer range shots since they are lower percentage and less of a threat. In Baylor's case, he was a good outside shooter, but he was devastating inside, so they'd much prefer him to take the outside shot.

• Teams didn't routinely have 2-3 players fall back on defense on any shot attempt the way modern defenses do to prevent fast breaks. Maybe one guy did, and so you didn't see somebody bringing the ball up the court being defended closely because there weren't two other guys behind him to stop the ball handler if he got by. You wouldn't body up on Baylor on the perimeter or on the fast break because he had superior speed, quickness, and ball handling ability, and playing him closely out there was an invitation for him to blow by you. It would've been considered bad defense. Instead, you backed off him so that you could keep him in front of you as much as possible.

But there are so many differences between the two eras, some of them subtle. Hand-checking is one that has been mentioned, but another is how dribbling was officiated -- you had to keep your hand on top of the ball, and if you moved it more than a few degrees down the side of the ball, you got called for carrying the ball, as opposed to today's players, who move their hand down the side of the ball on practically every dribble. It impacted what offensive players could do in a huge way. One of the things that made Baylor so effective is that he combined excellent ball-handling skills, speed, quickness, leaping ability, and body control once he left the ground, but some of that may not appear as "special" due to the way players had to dribble. Today's players pull off some spectacular drives that are possible only because they can carry the ball compared to the old days. In the clips, Baylor's spectacular plays are generally after he leaps -- that kind of body control and court awareness is effective in any era -- but what he did with the ball was special compared to his peers, though it doesn't necessarily look so to the modern eye because of the officiating change.

Dantheman, thanks so much for the videos. As you can tell, there are people here who know basketball from different eras and like debating the relative merits, futile as such discussions ultimately are. All the effort you expend putting together these videos may not be recognized by casual observers, but you'll find an appreciative audience here.