RealGM Top 100 List #4

[Owly]

Kg won 33 games with an awful roster. Kobe won 42 games with an awful roster. T-Mac was around .500 with an awful roster. Same with Wade. Why was Wilt's team at his peak winning 31 games while he had a HOF in his prime (Rodgers) who led the NBA in assists (60's equivalent of Rajon Rondo)? Show me a superstar that won 31 games at their peak?

Rodgers was a BS HOF. He couldn't shoot, terrible defender, and we all know APG is a hilarious stat. 60s equivalent of Rajon Rondo is an insane overexaggeration. More like a worse shooting Kendall Marshall.

Wilt's team was worse than any of the others. Arizin was gone. Gola missed 60 games. It was basically just Wilt. No shooting, no defense, the whole team was him. 31 games is a miracle with that roster. Put Shaq on a team where the starting line-up is something like Marshall-Bogans-Wesley Johnson-Randolph-Shaq and see if he's as successful as you think Wilt should have been.

And '63 was nowhere near his peak, I don't know why you keep saying that

Wilt is getting voted in, get over it.

I do think Rodgers is a legitimate player. Not the best player to slot alongside Wilt as a supporting star since he couldn't shoot, but by all accounts a terrific passer and ball-handler, and I don't think he was bad defensively. I have no problem with him making the HOF.

There's limited evidence with older guys. A lot less video, limited boxscore, less modern metrics. I don't think we know on D (he wasn't noted on that end but he might well have been solid or better, I don't know). And maybe playing with Wilt was subobtimal for him and his numbers. But his shooting numbers over his career aren't great (putting it generously) and based primarily on his main youtube clip he seems to avoid using his right hand around the basket.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnUgD4JmFRE[/youtube]

I don't usually like the time machine/weak era stuff, but given the sort of players who don't get to HoF more recently (say a Larry Nance), given his metrics (albeit limited input, you don't really buy into them, and that being based on the modern era value of an assist they probably short change 60s and 50s pgs) and apparent visible combined with that (and the vast time gap between his career and his getting in) I think he looks like a very soft HoF entry based on his pro career.

[therealbig3]

For those arguing against the runoff vote:

Because Wilt had a plurality (he didn't get the majority of the votes), that means that the MAJORITY of voters DON'T rank Wilt this high. They have at least one other player they rank over Wilt.

Wilt had the 17-7 lead. But if everyone who voted for someone other than Wilt and Shaq changed their vote to Shaq, because they all see him as better than Wilt...how would it be fair to give the spot to Wilt? That's the point, most voters would take Shaq over Wilt in that case...Wilt would only win based on the fact that the other voters were split on different candidates. It's a valid argument, imo. However, I personally don't think I would mind a plurality win either. That makes sense too: more people saw Wilt as the #1 player at this spot than anyone else.

But either way, it doesn't really matter, I think it's safe to say that Wilt won. By my count, he's up 21-17 now.

[microfib4thewin]

I am not sure I really understand the spacing argument against Shaq. Yes, there were 3 pointers back when he played, but the emphasis on converting 3s is very different from the 90s to now. It was still very much a game oriented around the bigs pounding the ball with MJ being the sore thumb that sticks out. Scoring from the perimeter was seen as a vastly inferior scoring method to scoring near the paint. At least that's how I remembered the 90s. I really need to read more 90s articles to refresh my memory.

[Doctor MJ]

For those arguing against the runoff vote:

Because Wilt had a plurality (he didn't get the majority of the votes), that means that the MAJORITY of voters DON'T rank Wilt this high. They have at least one other player they rank over Wilt.

Wilt had the 17-7 lead. But if everyone who voted for someone other than Wilt and Shaq changed their vote to Shaq, because they all see him as better than Wilt...how would it be fair to give the spot to Wilt? That's the point, most voters would take Shaq over Wilt in that case...Wilt would only win based on the fact that the other voters were split on different candidates. It's a valid argument, imo. However, I personally don't think I would mind a plurality win either. That makes sense too: more people saw Wilt as the #1 player at this spot than anyone else.

But either way, it doesn't really matter, I think it's safe to say that Wilt won. By my count, he's up 21-17 now.

Right this is precisely what plurality vs majority means and precisely



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[MisterWestside]

Eye test - footage test. We've discussed the concerns I have had with Wilt's fundementals offensively. This wasn't a problem for Russell as many of his points were made off putbacks. He wasn't made out to be an offensive superstar. With Wilt, what I watched was great for the time in effectiveness but overall very basic execution to where others want us to believe he was capable of being as an O anchor. Again my assessemnt.

Again, all fair points. I did breakdown some real game footage of Chamberlain in the post vs. the #3 guy here, so keep that in mind.

Sorry for not responding to all of your points, by the way. Busy rewatching old game film.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Going to repost some playoff numbers.

Offense
Wilt (P42) over scoring Prime (60-66) : 29ppg on 50%FG / 52%TS + 11.5 AST%
Wilt (P42) in non scoring Prime (67-73) : 15ppg on 54%FG / 53%TS + 13.6 AST%

Shaq (P41) over scoring Prime (97-03) : 29ppg on 55%FG / 56%TS + 15.8 AST%
Shaq (P39) over last 7 years (00-06) : 25ppg on 56%FG / 56%TS + 13.6 AST%

Rebounding (over Prime years)
Wilt : estimated 20%TRB
Shaq : 18%TRB

Defense
For now I would call it a wash.
Both had consistency issues over their career and both excelled at post/rim/m2m defense while not excelling much at perimeter defense.

Level of performance in playoff elimination series
Shaq > Wilt
Wilt had more disappointing elimination series.

Level of performance in the finals
Shaq is clearly better here.

Overall I think Shaq is the better choice.
He was the more effective scorer and offensive anchor.
He didn't have to change his role throughout his career. He knew what he did best on the court and how to adapt on the fly to different situations.
He consistently had huge impact throughout his Prime while Wilt had some years where his impact was questionable.
He consistently played great in elimination series and in Finals series while Wilt had more booboos (some really bad ones) in those type of situations (68 for example).
I can't think of a single year where Shaq had a title in reach and lost it due to having a poor playoff series.

I am not sure I really understand the spacing argument against Shaq. Yes, there were 3 pointers back when he played, but the emphasis on converting 3s is very different from the 90s to now. It was still very much a game oriented around the bigs pounding the ball with MJ being the sore thumb that sticks out. Scoring from the perimeter was seen as a vastly inferior scoring method to scoring near the paint. At least that's how I remembered the 90s. I really need to read more 90s articles to refresh my memory.

Either way Shaq had to deal with swarming type defenses through most of his career and certainly at his Peak.
Look at the 00 Finals. Shaq was being swarmed/surrounded by multiple defenders whenever he touched the ball and yet he still scored nearly 40ppg on 60+%FG.

[DQuinn1575]

The Lakers in 1969 lost 5 of their top 8 players in TS%. Included in this
were the starting center, plus 2 all-star calibre guards in Gail Goodrich and Archie Clark.
The other 3 players who were in the top 8 each had career years in TS%. All 3 of them still shot better
than their career average in 1969:


68/69

West .590/.557 career year, Career.550
Goodrich .555/x -Expansion draft
Mueller .543/x - traded for Keith Erickson
Hamilton .532/x- Expansion draft
Clark .530/x - Traded for Wilt - led LA in minutes
Counts .521/.497 -Career year. Career .479
Imhoff .516/x- Traded for Wilt
T Hawkins .513/.495 -Career year, Career .473 - last year,aged



Additionally, Elgin Baylor was .505/.500 =- took basically same % of team shots despite adding Wilt.
The equivalent would be Wade shooting the same amount after adding LeBron.

He took 21 shots per game versus Wilt's 13 - despite Wilt shooting 58.3% versus Elgin's 44.7%.

Also, the Big 3 averaged 32 years of age, with a 34 year old Elgin.
You basically had 3 aging superstars and nothing else

[ThaRegul8r]

Rodgers was a BS HOF. He couldn't shoot, terrible defender, and we all know APG is a hilarious stat.

Interesting.

Then—using this same reasoning—what are your thoughts about Bob Cousy?

Worst Field Goal Percentage Since 1955 and the Shot Clock
(min. 7,000 Attempts)

1. .378 Guy Rodgers
2. .379 Bob Cousy

(Elliot Kalb, Who’s Better, Who’s Best in Basketball?: Mr. Stats Sets the Record Straight on the Top 50 NBA Players of All Time [New York: Co, 2004], p. 253)

Cousy […] never was a good defensive player. With Russell, he never had to worry about guarding anyone, and he never did. If his man drove by Cousy, he’d just run down to the other end of the court knowing that Russell would get the rebound and throw one of those great outlet passes for him.

He was super box office; he did things with a flourish. But he didn’t play very good defense.

“Auerbach called Cousy ‘electrifying.’ He said his one-time guard could do it all. ‘He could run, shoot and pass,’ said his former boss. ‘Defense? Well … he didn’t have to. He had ‘the boy’ the back of him.’”

[tsherkin]

Then—using this same reasoning—what are your thoughts then about Bob Cousy?

Shot too much, too poorly while shouldering an inappropriately large offensive role on unimpressive offenses. One of the more overrated players when discussing older guys with older fans in many cases. A bit of an innovator, though, in his time, and a part of some wicked teams. Still important to his team in his way, within a threshold of relevance, in the way that low-efficiency chuckers can still improve terrible offenses to a certain point and with the notion that SOMEONE has to create and take shots.

[ceiling raiser]

Going to repost some playoff numbers.

Offense
Wilt (P42) over scoring Prime (60-66) : 29ppg on 50%FG / 52%TS + 11.5 AST%
Wilt (P42) in non scoring Prime (67-73) : 15ppg on 54%FG / 53%TS + 13.6 AST%

Shaq (P41) over scoring Prime (97-03) : 29ppg on 55%FG / 56%TS + 15.8 AST%
Shaq (P39) over last 7 years (00-06) : 25ppg on 56%FG / 56%TS + 13.6 AST%

Rebounding (over Prime years)
Wilt : estimated 20%TRB
Shaq : 18%TRB

Defense
For now I would call it a wash.
Both had consistency issues over their career and both excelled at post/rim/m2m defense while not excelling much at perimeter defense.

Level of performance in playoff elimination series
Shaq > Wilt
Wilt had more disappointing elimination series.

Level of performance in the finals
Shaq is clearly better here.

Overall I think Shaq is the better choice.
He was the more effective scorer and offensive anchor.
He didn't have to change his role throughout his career. He knew what he did best on the court and how to adapt on the fly to different situations.
He consistently had huge impact throughout his Prime while Wilt had some years where his impact was questionable.
He consistently played great in elimination series and in Finals series while Wilt had more booboos (some really bad ones) in those type of situations (68 for example).
I can't think of a single year where Shaq had a title in reach and lost it due to having a poor playoff series.

I am not sure I really understand the spacing argument against Shaq. Yes, there were 3 pointers back when he played, but the emphasis on converting 3s is very different from the 90s to now. It was still very much a game oriented around the bigs pounding the ball with MJ being the sore thumb that sticks out. Scoring from the perimeter was seen as a vastly inferior scoring method to scoring near the paint. At least that's how I remembered the 90s. I really need to read more 90s articles to refresh my memory.

Either way Shaq had to deal with swarming type defenses through most of his career and certainly at his Peak.
Look at the 00 Finals. Shaq was being swarmed/surrounded by multiple defenders whenever he touched the ball and yet he still scored nearly 40ppg on 60+%FG.

Interesting analysis. I'm not big on box score stats, but two notes:

1) Regarding Wilt's TS% in the playoffs, the numbers on basketball-reference.com don't take into account the penalty FT (2 to make 1, 3 to make 2) situation that was around from 54-55 through 80-81 (it changed from teams being in the penalty after 6 fouls to 5 starting in 66-67, which is the beginning of Wilt's "non-scoring" years). I broke down the effect on Wilt's TS% here:

viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1277741

but generally, it's a difference of ~1.5%. Not a huge difference, but just wanted to point it out.

2) You're probably underestimating Wilt's playoff TRB%. I understand that you gave the category to him over Shaq, but it's a distinct advantage. From this link:

viewtopic.php?f=344&t=955514

Wilt was at:

60 - 19.74
61 - 18.24
62 - 21.78
63 - missed playoffs
64 - 21.39
65 - 24.32
66 - 24.45
67 - 23.49
68 - 21.29
69 - 22.39
70 - 21.93
71 - 21.3 (from basketball-reference.com)
72 - 20.2 (from basketball-reference.com)
73 - 21.7 (from basketball-reference.com)

That's 13 years. From best to worst:

24.45
24.32
23.49
22.39
21.93
21.78
21.39 <- median
21.29
21.7
21.3
20.2
19.74
18.24

Shaq's first 13 playoffs (94-06) from best to worst:

21.1
20.4
19.8
19.1
18.5
18.4
18.0 <- median
17.6
17.0
16.9
16.5
15.9
14.0

so there is clearly a good deal of separation.

3) Regarding the bolded, that's clearly the case, and I'm not disputing that. Shaq very well might be the most double-teamed player in league history, and he dominated. That being said, Wilt came into the league when the jumpshot was still popularized, in a league not only devoid of shooters, but on a team that was particularly bad in that regard before he was traded to the Sixers. When Shaq came into the league, even though the three-point line wasn't used as much as it is today, the shot was still respected. There were also plenty of players who were capable of hitting an outside jumper in general, even if it wasn't a three. That being said, the spacing argument isn't meant to be an anti-Shaq argument (purely because of how much multiple coverage he faced), but one to put Wilt's scoring situation in context.

[ThaRegul8r]

Then—using this same reasoning—what are your thoughts then about Bob Cousy?

Shot too much, too poorly while shouldering an inappropriately large offensive role on unimpressive offenses. One of the more overrated players when discussing older guys with older fans in many cases. A bit of an innovator, though, in his time, and a part of some wicked teams. Still important to his team in his way, within a threshold of relevance, in the way that low-efficiency chuckers can still improve terrible offenses to a certain point and with the notion that SOMEONE has to create and take shots.

My question was to ardee regarding what he said about Rodgers. Remove the name, and the same criticisms apply, as I've supplied evidence for. Since he's also in the HOF, I'm curious if—according to the reasoning given—he's a "BS HOF" as well.

[RayBan-Sematra]

My question was to ardee regarding what he said about Rodgers. Remove the name, and the same criticisms apply, as I've supplied evidence for. Since he's also in the HOF, I'm curious if—according to the reasoning given—he's a "BS HOF" as well.

In fairness based mostly on what I have read about those two I think it is pretty clear that Cousy was a better shooter/scorer then Rodgers.
Cousy shot similar percentages from the field while usually taking a much greater number of attempts and he shot a better percentage from the line (on more attempts).
On the other hand Cousy played in fast paced & balanced Boston offenses while Rodgers usually played in Wilt centered offenses which while good for Wilt's volume numbers were clearly not ideal for his supporting players to stay effective in.
So maybe the overall gap in their scoring ability is smaller then I think.

Scoring aside it is obvious that Rodgers was thought of as a truly great player back in the 60's and that he was one of the best ball handlers & passers of his generation. In some ways though I can imagine that Rodgers impact was stymied by playing in a system designed to always get Wilt the ball. I mean I am sure Rodgers helped Wilt score more effectively but his impact would likely have been greater in a more normal balanced offense.

[tsherkin]

My question was to ardee regarding what he said about Rodgers. Remove the name, and the same criticisms apply, as I've supplied evidence for. Since he's also in the HOF, I'm curious if—according to the reasoning given—he's a "BS HOF" as well.

I realize. I was injecting my opinion of Cousy to contribute to that discussion; I've a low opinion of Cousy.

That said, there's a difference between Rodgers and a guy who won the MVP award and was a major feature of title squads in terms of credibility for the HoF; I don't think terribly highly of the HoF either (K.C. Jones, really? As a player? WTH?), but there's going to be some element of difference in their situations even if you tend to rate the two players in a roughly equivalent fashion in terms of actual ability.

Of course, I think he didn't deserve his MVP and that merely playing a role on a title squad doesn't necessarily reflect the ability of a player, but that's a key point for discussion in an environment like this: upon what preconceptions are we operating when we rate various players? Do we rate Cousy on how he was perceived in his own era, or view him through the lens of what we now understand about the game? He was a great example of how NOT to run an effective offense, but because of the team's D, they seemed to get along just fine.

[/ramble]

[ardee]

Rodgers was a BS HOF. He couldn't shoot, terrible defender, and we all know APG is a hilarious stat.

Interesting.

Then—using this same reasoning—what are your thoughts about Bob Cousy?

Worst Field Goal Percentage Since 1955 and the Shot Clock
(min. 7,000 Attempts)

1. .378 Guy Rodgers
2. .379 Bob Cousy

(Elliot Kalb, Who’s Better, Who’s Best in Basketball?: Mr. Stats Sets the Record Straight on the Top 50 NBA Players of All Time [New York: Co, 2004], p. 253)

Cousy […] never was a good defensive player. With Russell, he never had to worry about guarding anyone, and he never did. If his man drove by Cousy, he’d just run down to the other end of the court knowing that Russell would get the rebound and throw one of those great outlet passes for him.

He was super box office; he did things with a flourish. But he didn’t play very good defense.

“Auerbach called Cousy ‘electrifying.’ He said his one-time guard could do it all. ‘He could run, shoot and pass,’ said his former boss. ‘Defense? Well … he didn’t have to. He had ‘the boy’ the back of him.’”

Well unlike with Rodgers there is still everything to state that Cousy at least was a good option to run a decent offense. His dribbling and mechanics were structurally sound. There's more footage of him than Rodgers, granted, but Cousy seems to be like the 1.0 version of Nash and Stockton. Also Cousy is known for some famous Playoff performances, and really was an important part of the Celtics leadership wise. He left his mark on the league. He won an MVP for God's sake.

If there's anyone on those Warriors teams who was a notable talent it was Arizin. He left by 1963 though. Rodgers was at best the distant fourth best player on that team. The APG numbers are nice but he was a poor finisher, and this hurt the team more than anything because it clogged up the lane terribly.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[colts18]

Well unlike with Rodgers there is still everything to state that Cousy at least was a good option to run a decent offense. His dribbling and mechanics were structurally sound. There's more footage of him than Rodgers, granted, but Cousy seems to be like the 1.0 version of Nash and Stockton. Also Cousy is known for some famous Playoff performances, and really was an important part of the Celtics leadership wise. He left his mark on the league. He won an MVP for God's sake.

Guy Rodgers was known as the best ball handler of his era. I don't think bringing up Cousy's ball handling is a good thing in comparison to Rodgers. Oscar Robertson and Jerry West acknowledged him as the best ball handler.

This is a Rick Barry quote on Guy Rodgers:

“He was the guy out there to get assists,” said Barry. “That was his job, to get easy opportunities for teammates. That’s the kind of point guard I like. He played the game like Steve Nash, who I love to watch play. You hustle and bust your butt and he’ll find a way to get you the ball. It’s nice to see veterans recognized. I wish he were here, though. I’m tired of going to these events and having guys recognized posthumously.”

[ThaRegul8r]

Scoring aside it is obvious that Rodgers was thought of as a truly great player back in the 60's and that he was one of the best ball handlers & passers of his generation. In some ways though I can imagine that Rodgers impact was stymied by playing in a system designed to always get Wilt the ball. I mean I am sure Rodgers helped Wilt score more effectively but his impact would likely have been greater in a more normal balanced offense.

He was. Since ardee's a Wilt guy, I'm wondering if he knows that Wilt himself praised Rodgers, or that Rodgers was instrumental in Wilt's much-ballyhooed 50-points-per-game season:

Along with Frank McGuire, the other reason I averaged 50 that year was Guy Rodgers. He was as good a ballhandler and passer as anyone, and that includes Bob Cousy.

Or in Wilt's 100 point game:

“Guy Rodgers was instrumental in helping Wilt build his point total, giving the Stilt 20 assists” (The Milwaukee Sentinel, Mar 2, 1962).

Assisting on 20 of Wilt’s 36 field-goals is 55.6%. 20 assists = 40 points for Wilt.

Last week there was a lot of talk about the greatest record in the history of American sports. A little over fifty years ago, a 7-foot-1, 275-pound center by the name of Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points in leading the Philadelphia Warriors to a 169-147 victory over the New York Knicks. It was March 2, 1962, at the Hershey Sports Arena in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Many have called it the greatest individual achievement in American sports history. But…I have a bit of a problem with that… he goes by the name of Guy Rodgers.

Rodgers was the point guard for the Warriors that historic night. His name is mostly a quick mention or a footnote in the recent onslaught of articles about that record-setting contest. As a junior in high school, I attended a basketball camp and had the opportunity to meet Guy Rodgers. I didn’t know who he was at the time, but I remember that my dad, who was rarely star struck, thought he was a pretty big deal.

Chamberlain’s dominance as a player is unquestioned. Hall of Fame basketball coach Bob Knight remarked that Chamberlain was possibly the greatest athlete in American sports history. But,I believe there is something overlooked in all the talk of this amazing record. An argument I’m certain that Chamberlain would quickly point out if he were still with us: no player, no matter how gifted, can accomplish such a feat on his or her own.

That night, Guy Rodgers had 11 points to go with an eye-popping twenty assists. He was directly involved with a third of the total points scored in the game. This four-time NBA All-Star from Temple University played a vital role in assisting one of America’s most celebrated sports records. Rodgers went on to play for San Francisco and averaged a double-double in assists and points the following season.

We so often attribute success to our hard work, our individual will, and our own talent. But do we talk enough about the folks who assist the achievement? As dominant a player as Wilt was that night, there is no way he could’ve scored so many baskets without an outstanding point guard on the court with him.

As I've said in the past, it was an achievement facilitated by the team, of which Rodgers was a part. So I'm wondering if he knows this while he throws him under the bus in his excess vigor in defending his guy.

[ThaRegul8r]

Spoiler:

Rodgers was a BS HOF. He couldn't shoot, terrible defender, and we all know APG is a hilarious stat.

Interesting.

Then—using this same reasoning—what are your thoughts about Bob Cousy?

Worst Field Goal Percentage Since 1955 and the Shot Clock
(min. 7,000 Attempts)

1. .378 Guy Rodgers
2. .379 Bob Cousy

(Elliot Kalb, Who’s Better, Who’s Best in Basketball?: Mr. Stats Sets the Record Straight on the Top 50 NBA Players of All Time [New York: Co, 2004], p. 253)

Cousy […] never was a good defensive player. With Russell, he never had to worry about guarding anyone, and he never did. If his man drove by Cousy, he’d just run down to the other end of the court knowing that Russell would get the rebound and throw one of those great outlet passes for him.

He was super box office; he did things with a flourish. But he didn’t play very good defense.

“Auerbach called Cousy ‘electrifying.’ He said his one-time guard could do it all. ‘He could run, shoot and pass,’ said his former boss. ‘Defense? Well … he didn’t have to. He had ‘the boy’ the back of him.’”

Well unlike with Rodgers there is still everything to state that Cousy at least was a good option to run a decent offense. His dribbling and mechanics were structurally sound. There's more footage of him than Rodgers, granted, but Cousy seems to be like the 1.0 version of Nash and Stockton. Also Cousy is known for some famous Playoff performances, and really was an important part of the Celtics leadership wise. He left his mark on the league. He won an MVP for God's sake.

If there's anyone on those Warriors teams who was a notable talent it was Arizin. He left by 1963 though. Rodgers was at best the distant fourth best player on that team. The APG numbers are nice but he was a poor finisher, and this hurt the team more than anything because it clogged up the lane terribly.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

So, to cut to the chase, no, the same reasoning doesn't apply.

That's all I wanted to know.

[Owly]

Rodgers was a BS HOF. He couldn't shoot, terrible defender, and we all know APG is a hilarious stat.

Interesting.

Then—using this same reasoning—what are your thoughts then about Bob Cousy?

Worst Field Goal Percentage Since 1955 and the Shot Clock
(min. 7,000 Attempts)

1. .378 Guy Rodgers
2. .379 Bob Cousy

(Elliot Kalb, Who’s Better, Who’s Best in Basketball?: Mr. Stats Sets the Record Straight on the Top 50 NBA Players of All Time [New York: Co, 2004], p. 253)

Cousy […] never was a good defensive player. With Russell, he never had to worry about guarding anyone, and he never did. If his man drove by Cousy, he’d just run down to the other end of the court knowing that Russell would get the rebound and throw one of those great outlet passes for him.

He was super box office; he did things with a flourish. But he didn’t play very good defense.

“Auerbach called Cousy ‘electrifying.’ He said his one-time guard could do it all. ‘He could run, shoot and pass,’ said his former boss. ‘Defense? Well … he didn’t have to. He had ‘the boy’ the back of him.’”

Specifically on the shooting point, Rodgers and Cousy weren't really peers. I mean it depends what point you're trying to make with the comparison but Cousy was more a 50s pg, Rodgers a 60s one.

So rather than just their career fg%s here's there ts% versus their notable/semi-notable peers

Bob Cousy 0.446
Dick McGuire 0.455
Slater Martin 0.436
Andy Phillip 0.43
Ralph Beard 0.429
Paul Seymour 0.429
George King 0.441
Jack George 0.424

Oscar Robertson 0.564
Lenny Wilkens 0.511
Rich Guerin 0.493 (pg/sg arguable, but he's a playmaking guard)
Guy Rodgers 0.426
KC Jones 0.435
Larry Costello 0.517
Walt Hazzard (Mahdi Abdul-Rahman) 0.491
Arlen Bockhorn 0.443 (pg/sg arguable, mainly just the "other" guard)
Wali Jones 0.458
Larry Siegfried 0.488
Paul Neumann 0.512
Johnny Egan 0.493
John Barnhill 0.453

Cousy's is second best amongst his peers, Rodgers the worst amongst his (and some way behind most, with only a couple of defensive specialists particularly close). Cousy also had a greater usage/shot creation burden.

This isn't perfect but it's a site better than raw fg% without context.

[trex_8063]

For those arguing against the runoff vote:

Because Wilt had a plurality (he didn't get the majority of the votes), that means that the MAJORITY of voters DON'T rank Wilt this high. They have at least one other player they rank over Wilt.

Wilt had the 17-7 lead. But if everyone who voted for someone other than Wilt and Shaq changed their vote to Shaq, because they all see him as better than Wilt...how would it be fair to give the spot to Wilt? That's the point, most voters would take Shaq over Wilt in that case...Wilt would only win based on the fact that the other voters were split on different candidates. It's a valid argument, imo.

That's cool. I guess I was a little ignorant of the method we were using when I previously urged us to move on (sorry 'bout that mods ). While this obv takes a little longer, I agree it's valid and fair.
I'd be OK with a plurality win, too, but it's all good.

If people are looking to speed things up (as I anticipate MOST slots will end up having a 24-hour runoff at this point), here's a suggestion: of the top two vote recipients (Player A and Player B), look to the voting for the PREVIOUSLY slot, and if the Player A with the most votes in the present slot also had more than the 2nd-place Player B on the the PREVIOUS round of voting.....just award it to Player A without a runoff.
Just a suggestion. Anybody else like that idea?

[The Infamous1]

Who played with more talent in their primes