RealGM Top 100 List #62

[penbeast0]

PG: Never been sold on Cousy but you have to consider him here. Nate Archibald and Penny Hardaway are the main short peak guys. Tim Hardaway and Mark Price are the best long peak guys left.

Wings: Sam Jones had a long outstanding career though Sharman and Greer were considered better than Sam Jones in their peaks but the numbers for Jones look better, Arizin is the other main 50s guy. . Sidney Moncrief may be the 3rd greatest 2 guard ever . . . for 4 years. Billy Cunningham, Chet Walker, Bernard King, Glen Rice, Mitch Richmond, there are a lot of scorers out there, how many are at this level, I'm not sure.

Best bigs left: My favorite is Mel Daniels with his 2 ABA MVPs and 3 rings (2 as clearly the best player) -- played like Alonzo Mourning offensively and Moses defensively. Bill Walton, Connie Hawkins, and Bob McAdoo for short peak guys . . . in that order for me I would guess. McAdoo, Neil Johnston, Amare, Issel, Spencer Haywood have offensive creds but bigs who don't play defense are problematic for me. Ben Wallace, Nate Thurmond, or the Worm also could come up here as well as guys like DeBusschere, Bobby Jones, etc., even Zelmo Beaty and Yao Ming.

Vote: Sidney Moncrief -- very short peak but gives you GOAT man defense and superefficient 20ppg scoring. His peak is at least 1/4 of Walton's peak in my opinion and with Walton only staying reasonably healthy to the playoffs once as a starter, I'd rather take my chances on a 5 year ride with the Squid. He lost out to the Bird Celtics or (when he beat them) the fo fo fo Moses/Erving Sixers during the era of superteams and his playoffs are mixed -- he abused a young Michael Jordan's defense and had some monster runs but also some weak ones -- though his defense shut down several opposing scorers even in the weaker offensive runs.

[Quotatious]

Still voting for Paul Arizin. Dolph Schayes is the last 50s guy selected, at 45, so it's certainly been a while since that time, and Arizin wasn't that much worse than Schayes, in my opinion. Dolph had better longevity, but other than that, I don't see much separating the two, to be honest.

Arizin's scoring (high efficiency for his era), strong playoff career and the fact that he revolutionized the game, to a certain degree (he may've been the first high scoring wing in league's history, like Mikan is the grandfather of modern centers, Cousy modern point guards, and Schayes/Pettit modern PFs...well, the same can probably be said about Sharman and SGs), makes him a better candidate than anyone else remaining, in my estimation.

Obviously when evaluating the stars of the 50s (especially pre-shot clock - Arizin was already a superstar in the '51-'52 season), era-relative dominance comes into play, and I really don't see anyone better in their own era, than Arizin was in the 50s (other than peak Walton, but he totally lacks longevity).

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Paul Arizin

I can get behind this bandwagon. imho a guy with a lot in common with the guy I've been voting - Ginobili.

At his best he was the best player in the world, and he did so with a game that at the very least is easily translated into the modern game. Jump shots, driving, particularly efficient, defensive reputation, high correlation with team efficacy. He's well ahead of Dolph Schayes on my list and I could see him being better today than George Mikan would be.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Nate Thurmond

I'm glad Nique went. I actually think his combination of massive scoring volume with very low turnovers gets underrated. I believe if we had stats on his mid-range shooting efficiency, people would see his scoring efficiency in a better light.

Still going with Thurmond here. The guy went up against 2 of the top 5 Cs ever in their prime and didn't back down. He and Big Ben are the best defensive players left. You can definitely build rock solid defenses around those 2 in any era.

Very much respect the Arizin and Moncrief votes though. I brought Arizin's name up in like, thread 25, mainly just to get a fresh name out there, but also because I truly believe he was by far the best offensive player in NBA history pre-Baylor/Robertson/Chamberlain/West. The rules changes that slowed Mikan did nothing to Arizin. He was very efficient for his era because he had a modern star player's skillset. And Moncrief is one of the GOAT off-ball wings ever. His combination of offensive rebounding, post play, cuts, and transition finishing is insane. Great defender of course.

Put great consideration into Manu and Hill, too. Hill is clearly inferior to Penny Hardaway peak vs. peak to me, but he's got a rather large longevity edge. I think I'd take Grant over Penny for the superior career value. McAdoo and Archibald have sky-high peaks with excellent role player seasons in the 1980s.

Spoiler:

Bigs: Nate Thurmond, Ben Wallace, Bob McAdoo, Dennis Rodman

Wings: Paul Arizin, Penny Hardaway, Manu Ginobili, Sidney Moncrief, Grant Hill

Point Guards: Nate Archibald, Deron Williams, Mark Price

[ceiling raiser]

Nate would still be my default pick, but I'm wondering exactly what the case against Manu is here? Lack of durability/longevity/heavy minutes? He's been finishing games at a super high level for the better part of career, don't think non-starts would be a problem.

[penbeast0]

The big knocks on Nate are
(1) Team success -- Despite playing with Rick Barry and host of decent players (Rudy LaRusso, Jeff Mullins, Butch Beard, etc.), the Warriors never were that good. But, when they traded Nate for Cliff Ray (a good player, sort of Wes Unseld light), that's when they won a championship while the Bulls, who had been a good team with Tom Boerwinkle and Cliff Ray at center, became the disappointment.

(2) Offensive inefficiency -- Nate is a guy who, on high volumes, never shot .450 or was below league average efficiency for his career despite being one of the biggest, most athletic men in the league. This is reflected in his team offensive numbers. For the first 9 years of his 13.5 year career, the Warriors were consistently in the bottom 3 of the NBA in offensive efficiency. They didn't start to improve until Thurmond's role was devalued.

I always like top defenders so I would love to see an answer for this but right now, he's below the likes of Wes Unseld or even Ben Wallace for me.

[trex_8063]

Nate would still be my default pick, but I'm wondering exactly what the case against Manu is here? Lack of durability/longevity/heavy minutes? He's been finishing games at a super high level for the better part of career, don't think non-starts would be a problem.

The minutes/non-starts are "a problem", imo, by which I mean they are a significant consideration. Even if we conclude Manu's impact while in the game is bigger than anyone left on the table, the fact that he's done that in only a limited-minute capacity can be a factor that legitimately holds him back.

Not trying to imply RAPM is the end-all measure of everything, but if, for example, we used that noting that Manu has an avg non-scaled RAPM of +6.0 (I don't know if that's his actual avg, but it's likely close enough for this example), but this on only 27 mpg. Then Player B, otoh, has an avg RAPM of just +4.6, but on 36 mpg. Assuming similar pace, it's Player B who's had the slightly larger per game impact.
The same basic principle applies if we were using PER over avg/replacement or WS/48 over avg/replacement, etc, as our evaluation tools, too.

Then durability/missed games applies the same as with anyone (and Manu did miss quite a few).

[penbeast0]

Does Manu play less minutes than Bobby Jones and was he more valuable when he played? He's certainly on my radar.

[trex_8063]

Was sort of waiting for some votes to see where consensus was heading, but with such scant turn-out so far, I think I'll just go with my heart. Vote for #62: Bob Cousy.

Thought I’d throw in a bit of statistical comparison to some other PG’s already voted in (in some instances quite awhile ago)....

Prime Per 100 Possessions (rs)
Cousy (‘52-’61)--697 rs games: 21.9 pts, 6.1 reb, 8.8 ast @ 44.9% TS% (-0.4% to league)
Isiah Thomas (‘83-92)--770 rs games: 26.1 pts, 4.9 reb, 12.6 ast, 2.6 stl, 0.4 blk, 4.9 tov @ 52.3% ts (-1.4% to league)
Kevin Johnson (‘89-’97)--599 rs games: 26.6 pts, 4.5 reb, 13.4 ast, 2.1 stl, 0.3 blk, 4.5 tov @ 59.0% ts (+5.4% to league)
Chauncey Billups (‘03-’11)--685 rs games: 27.0 pts, 5.0 reb, 9.6 ast, 1.7 stl, 0.3 blk, 3.4 tov @ 59.5% ts (+6.0% to league)

Peak PER (rs)
Kevin Johnson: 23.7
Chauncey Billups: 23.6
Isiah Thomas: 22.2
Bob Cousy: 21.7

Prime PER (rs)
Kevin Johnson: 21.5
Chauncey Billups: 20.5
Bob Cousy: 20.1
Isiah Thomas: 18.9

Career PER (rs)
Kevin Johnson: 20.7
Bob Cousy: 19.8
Chauncey Billups: 18.8
Isiah Thomas: 18.1

Prime PER (playoffs)
Isiah Thomas: 19.8
Kevin Johnson: 19.6
Chauncey Billups: 19.6
Bob Cousy: 18.0

Peak WS/48 (rs)
Chauncey Billups: .257
Kevin Johnson: .220
Bob Cousy: .178
Isiah Thomas: .173

Prime WS/48 (rs)
Chauncey Billups: .207
Kevin Johnson: .187
Bob Cousy: .139
Isiah Thomas: .126

Career WS/48 (rs)
Kevin Johnson: .178
Chauncey Billups: .176
Bob Cousy: .139
Isiah Thomas: .109

Prime WS/48 (playoffs)
Chauncey Billups: .197
Isiah Thomas: .143
Kevin Johnson: .124
Bob Cousy: .121

So while he doesn't rate out "well" among these guys, he does appear "in the mix". Although era considerations obviously apply. Still, this isn't comparing to players still on the table; the others are all voted in already (one as far back as 23 places ago!).

Some other "career bullet-points", for whatever they're worth:

*6-Time NBA champion. For at least 2 of those he was the clear 2nd-best player on the team, and was one other where he was at worst the "2B" on the team. Was never less than the 4th or 5th best/most important player on any of those championship squads. I'd like to quote something from John Taylor's The Rivalry regarding the Celtics dynasty and contributions by players NOT named Bill Russell. He was definitely the keystone for that team, though I think he too often gets credited for having carried them to 11 titles; and I think it gets overlooked just how lucky Russell was a to land where he did:

"…..But Auerbach’s inquiries left him with the impression that, however limited Russell might be in general, in the areas of his strengths he was overwhelming. Russell was not the answer to every coach’s prayers. But working with the players whose skills complemented and extended his and whose talents covered for his weaknesses---players, that is, like the Celtics--he could be the linchpin of an indomitable team…." (pg 64-65)

*13-Time All-Star (tied for 10th all-time)
*12 Times All-NBA (tied for 6th all-time); 10 of those All-NBA 1st Team (tied for 3rd all-time).
----obv era considerations again apply, but just sayin'
*36th all-time in MVP Award Shares. Even if we down-grade his 1957 finish from 1st to 3rd ('cause obv it's questionable that he deserved that), he'd still likely be in the top 50 all-time.
*33rd all-time in RealGM RPoY shares.

Cousy was capable of leading #1 offenses. A quote from Michael Grange's Basketball's Greatest Players:

“.....Boston had only six plays and their fast break, but were the highest-scoring* team of their era---and it was Cousy who made it work.” The were also the #1-rated offense for three consecutive seasons ('53-'55).


And I also want to talk about something that I think is relevant to the discussion (Doc will likely disagree with me, saying I'm again being too broad): pioneering, or otherwise being influential on the evolution of the game. To me, such is inseparable from any discussion of "greatness". Cousy was doing things with the ball that no one else was doing at the time, and in many ways pioneered or established the classic point guard role. If I can again quote Michael Grange's book:

“When Chris Paul crosses over his man, drags the help defense with him and drops the ball behind him so his teammate can have the easy layup, he is paying tribute to Bob Cousy. It’s the same when Steve Nash looks right and passes left, hitting his teammate for a dunk, or when Rajon Rondo grabs a defensive rebound and sprints for the other end of the floor, leading the herd. They are all bowing to Bob Cousy, the NBA point guard who did it first.”


Frankly, Cousy is on the short-list of the most influential players in pro basketball history. How much value should be attached to that is open for debate; but imo it is absolutely worth something.


And lastly I'll provide some video links from late/post-prime Cousy (who I think still looks reasonably fast in the open-court; I imagine certainly no slower than say Steve Nash). The vision, the precision passing (sometimes in traffic) is evident. I also noted how when he starts running with the ball the defenders are scrambling to get back to cover all runners, no matter how unlikely the passing angle: Cousy's ability to hit guys on the fast-break forced them to do so.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L78v25cinYI[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA8l1Jr7jwc[/youtube]

[trex_8063]

Does Manu play less minutes than Bobby Jones and was he more valuable when he played? He's certainly on my radar.

Does he play less than Bobby Jones? No, but Jones has barely even been name-dropped by this point. Does Manu play less minutes than the other candidates actually receiving votes or at least extensive discussion (e.g. Arizin, Moncrief, Thurmond, Cousy)? Yes, he played significantly fewer minutes (particularly within prime years) than all of them.

EDIT: Manu's on my radar, too. I'm merely saying that the minutes thing is a consideration. Frankly, if he had the same level of per minute/possession production and efficiency, but on even 31-32 mpg, he'd likely have been voted in 6-10 places ago. The minutes thing is one of the big factors that has kept him on the table to this point.

[Moonbeam]

Not many votes yet! I think I'll go back to Sam Jones, but I could be convinced for the nominees.

As mentioned previously, I think his scoring was an important cog to the Celtics' dynasty. He appeared to have some big scoring performances in series-clinching (and sometimes championship clinching) wins in close series. fpliii posted some great quotes about the Celtics' offensive strategy of running up the pace at the expense of efficiency, which makes Jones' efficiency for the era stand out even more.

As for Manu, I think trex summed it up nicely. I'll add that I think playing with Duncan and being coached by Popovich gave him perhaps the perfect situation, and while he has certainly thrived in it, I'm not sure that his game could ramp up to heavy minutes given his durability. Even in a reduced-minute role, he's only played in the equivalent of 70 games in 6 out of 12 full seasons. This makes me think that Popovich has milked optimal production out of Ginobili, and while it's been great in its own right, has he ever been in the conversation of the top 5 players in the league? Has he ever been more than a borderline top-10 guy?

As for Nate Thurmond, he's my next choice after Jones currently, so I could be swayed in that direction. His defensive prowess that fpliii pointed out is pretty remarkable despite some concerns about team success and offensive value.

Arizin is currently next after Thurmond - very potent offensive threat who kept it up during the playoffs.

After that I've got Ginobili, and then Cousy (glad to see trex take up the torch for him). Obviously these rankings are always in flux, but that's where it stands at the moment.

[Quotatious]

Was sort of waiting for some votes to see where consensus was heading, but with such scant turn-out so far, I think I'll just go with my heart. Vote for #62: Bob Cousy.

Why Cousy over Arizin? Longevity, or something else?

I find it hard to justify putting Cousy over Arizin. Bob seemed to get a lot more hype, but this comparison is kinda like Paul Pierce vs Allen Iverson (using a modern analogy) - one was flashy, and an elite creator/playmaker, but a very inefficient scorer with questionable defense, the other was an efficient, high volume scorer and solid defender/rebounder (to be fair, Arizin and Cousy were better than Pierce and Iverson era-relative, in terms of their year-by-year ranking in the league during the 50s - both were basically top 5 every year, but I think that has more to do with inferior competition, rather than Cousy/Arizin really being better than Iverson/Pierce).

[penbeast0]

Does Manu play less minutes than Bobby Jones and was he more valuable when he played? He's certainly on my radar.

Does he play less than Bobby Jones? No, but Jones has barely even been name-dropped by this point. Does Manu play less minutes than the other candidates actually receiving votes or at least extensive discussion (e.g. Arizin, Moncrief, Thurmond, Cousy)? Yes, he played significantly fewer minutes (particularly within prime years) than all of them.

EDIT: Manu's on my radar, too. I'm merely saying that the minutes thing is a consideration. Frankly, if he had the same level of per minute/possession production and efficiency, but on even 31-32 mpg, he'd likely have been voted in 6-10 places ago. The minutes thing is one of the big factors that has kept him on the table to this point.

Was sort of going the other way with that . . . is Manu actually better than Bobby Jones? Jones was another great player, super efficient, superdefense, supersmart, who played lower minutes throughout most of his career. As I and other posters said earlier, he's a super portable, super glue kind of player who I could see as a better defensive PF than Rodman for a contender.

[penbeast0]

Was sort of waiting for some votes to see where consensus was heading, but with such scant turn-out so far, I think I'll just go with my heart. Vote for #62: Bob Cousy.

Spoiler:

Thought I’d throw in a bit of statistical comparison to some other PG’s already voted in (in some instances quite awhile ago)....

Prime Per 100 Possessions (rs)
Cousy (‘52-’61)--697 rs games: 21.9 pts, 6.1 reb, 8.8 ast @ 44.9% TS% (-0.4% to league)
Isiah Thomas (‘83-92)--770 rs games: 26.1 pts, 4.9 reb, 12.6 ast, 2.6 stl, 0.4 blk, 4.9 tov @ 52.3% ts (-1.4% to league)
Kevin Johnson (‘89-’97)--599 rs games: 26.6 pts, 4.5 reb, 13.4 ast, 2.1 stl, 0.3 blk, 4.5 tov @ 59.0% ts (+5.4% to league)
Chauncey Billups (‘03-’11)--685 rs games: 27.0 pts, 5.0 reb, 9.6 ast, 1.7 stl, 0.3 blk, 3.4 tov @ 59.5% ts (+6.0% to league)

Peak PER (rs)
Kevin Johnson: 23.7
Chauncey Billups: 23.6
Isiah Thomas: 22.2
Bob Cousy: 21.7

Prime PER (rs)
Kevin Johnson: 21.5
Chauncey Billups: 20.5
Bob Cousy: 20.1
Isiah Thomas: 18.9

Career PER (rs)
Kevin Johnson: 20.7
Bob Cousy: 19.8
Chauncey Billups: 18.8
Isiah Thomas: 18.1

Prime PER (playoffs)
Isiah Thomas: 19.8
Kevin Johnson: 19.6
Chauncey Billups: 19.6
Bob Cousy: 18.0

Peak WS/48 (rs)
Chauncey Billups: .257
Kevin Johnson: .220
Bob Cousy: .178
Isiah Thomas: .173

Prime WS/48 (rs)
Chauncey Billups: .207
Kevin Johnson: .187
Bob Cousy: .139
Isiah Thomas: .126

Career WS/48 (rs)
Kevin Johnson: .178
Chauncey Billups: .176
Bob Cousy: .139
Isiah Thomas: .109

Prime WS/48 (playoffs)
Chauncey Billups: .197
Isiah Thomas: .143
Kevin Johnson: .124
Bob Cousy: .121

So while he doesn't rate out "well" among these guys, he does appear "in the mix". Although era considerations obviously apply. Still, this isn't comparing to players still on the table; the others are all voted in already (one as far back as 23 places ago!).

Some other "career bullet-points", for whatever they're worth:

*6-Time NBA champion. For at least 2 of those he was the clear 2nd-best player on the team, and was one other where he was at worst the "2B" on the team. Was never less than the 4th or 5th best/most important player on any of those championship squads. I'd like to quote something from John Taylor's The Rivalry regarding the Celtics dynasty and contributions by players NOT named Bill Russell. He was definitely the keystone for that team, though I think he too often gets credited for having carried them to 11 titles; and I think it gets overlooked just how lucky Russell was a to land where he did:

"…..But Auerbach’s inquiries left him with the impression that, however limited Russell might be in general, in the areas of his strengths he was overwhelming. Russell was not the answer to every coach’s prayers. But working with the players whose skills complemented and extended his and whose talents covered for his weaknesses---players, that is, like the Celtics--he could be the linchpin of an indomitable team…." (pg 64-65)

*13-Time All-Star (tied for 10th all-time)
*12 Times All-NBA (tied for 6th all-time); 10 of those All-NBA 1st Team (tied for 3rd all-time).
----obv era considerations again apply, but just sayin'
*36th all-time in MVP Award Shares. Even if we down-grade his 1957 finish from 1st to 3rd ('cause obv it's questionable that he deserved that), he'd still likely be in the top 50 all-time.
*33rd all-time in RealGM RPoY shares.

Cousy was capable of leading #1 offenses. A quote from Michael Grange's Basketball's Greatest Players:

“.....Boston had only six plays and their fast break, but were the highest-scoring* team of their era---and it was Cousy who made it work.” The were also the #1-rated offense for three consecutive seasons ('53-'55).


And I also want to talk about something that I think is relevant to the discussion (Doc will likely disagree with me, saying I'm again being too broad): pioneering, or otherwise being influential on the evolution of the game. To me, such is inseparable from any discussion of "greatness". Cousy was doing things with the ball that no one else was doing at the time, and in many ways pioneered or established the classic point guard role. If I can again quote Michael Grange's book:

“When Chris Paul crosses over his man, drags the help defense with him and drops the ball behind him so his teammate can have the easy layup, he is paying tribute to Bob Cousy. It’s the same when Steve Nash looks right and passes left, hitting his teammate for a dunk, or when Rajon Rondo grabs a defensive rebound and sprints for the other end of the floor, leading the herd. They are all bowing to Bob Cousy, the NBA point guard who did it first.”


Frankly, Cousy is on the short-list of the most influential players in pro basketball history. How much value should be attached to that is open for debate; but imo it is absolutely worth something.


And lastly I'll provide some video links from late/post-prime Cousy (who I think still looks reasonably fast in the open-court; I imagine certainly no slower than say Steve Nash). The vision, the precision passing (sometimes in traffic) is evident. I also noted how when he starts running with the ball the defenders are scrambling to get back to cover all runners, no matter how unlikely the passing angle: Cousy's ability to hit guys on the fast-break forced them to do so.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L78v25cinYI[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA8l1Jr7jwc[/youtube]

Cousy's numbers aren't really "in the mix" except for PER which is relative to league. You could make a much better case for the likes of Walt Bellamy, Chet Walker, Billy Cunningham, or Bailey Howell using numbers (for the 50s, Arizin, Foust, Johnston, Hagan, etc.). If/when Cousy gets in it will be for his era uniqueness and being the prototype PG, not his numbers.

[trex_8063]

Was sort of waiting for some votes to see where consensus was heading, but with such scant turn-out so far, I think I'll just go with my heart. Vote for #62: Bob Cousy.

Spoiler:

Thought I’d throw in a bit of statistical comparison to some other PG’s already voted in (in some instances quite awhile ago)....

Prime Per 100 Possessions (rs)
Cousy (‘52-’61)--697 rs games: 21.9 pts, 6.1 reb, 8.8 ast @ 44.9% TS% (-0.4% to league)
Isiah Thomas (‘83-92)--770 rs games: 26.1 pts, 4.9 reb, 12.6 ast, 2.6 stl, 0.4 blk, 4.9 tov @ 52.3% ts (-1.4% to league)
Kevin Johnson (‘89-’97)--599 rs games: 26.6 pts, 4.5 reb, 13.4 ast, 2.1 stl, 0.3 blk, 4.5 tov @ 59.0% ts (+5.4% to league)
Chauncey Billups (‘03-’11)--685 rs games: 27.0 pts, 5.0 reb, 9.6 ast, 1.7 stl, 0.3 blk, 3.4 tov @ 59.5% ts (+6.0% to league)

Peak PER (rs)
Kevin Johnson: 23.7
Chauncey Billups: 23.6
Isiah Thomas: 22.2
Bob Cousy: 21.7

Prime PER (rs)
Kevin Johnson: 21.5
Chauncey Billups: 20.5
Bob Cousy: 20.1
Isiah Thomas: 18.9

Career PER (rs)
Kevin Johnson: 20.7
Bob Cousy: 19.8
Chauncey Billups: 18.8
Isiah Thomas: 18.1

Prime PER (playoffs)
Isiah Thomas: 19.8
Kevin Johnson: 19.6
Chauncey Billups: 19.6
Bob Cousy: 18.0

Peak WS/48 (rs)
Chauncey Billups: .257
Kevin Johnson: .220
Bob Cousy: .178
Isiah Thomas: .173

Prime WS/48 (rs)
Chauncey Billups: .207
Kevin Johnson: .187
Bob Cousy: .139
Isiah Thomas: .126

Career WS/48 (rs)
Kevin Johnson: .178
Chauncey Billups: .176
Bob Cousy: .139
Isiah Thomas: .109

Prime WS/48 (playoffs)
Chauncey Billups: .197
Isiah Thomas: .143
Kevin Johnson: .124
Bob Cousy: .121

So while he doesn't rate out "well" among these guys, he does appear "in the mix". Although era considerations obviously apply. Still, this isn't comparing to players still on the table; the others are all voted in already (one as far back as 23 places ago!).

Some other "career bullet-points", for whatever they're worth:

*6-Time NBA champion. For at least 2 of those he was the clear 2nd-best player on the team, and was one other where he was at worst the "2B" on the team. Was never less than the 4th or 5th best/most important player on any of those championship squads. I'd like to quote something from John Taylor's The Rivalry regarding the Celtics dynasty and contributions by players NOT named Bill Russell. He was definitely the keystone for that team, though I think he too often gets credited for having carried them to 11 titles; and I think it gets overlooked just how lucky Russell was a to land where he did:

"…..But Auerbach’s inquiries left him with the impression that, however limited Russell might be in general, in the areas of his strengths he was overwhelming. Russell was not the answer to every coach’s prayers. But working with the players whose skills complemented and extended his and whose talents covered for his weaknesses---players, that is, like the Celtics--he could be the linchpin of an indomitable team…." (pg 64-65)

*13-Time All-Star (tied for 10th all-time)
*12 Times All-NBA (tied for 6th all-time); 10 of those All-NBA 1st Team (tied for 3rd all-time).
----obv era considerations again apply, but just sayin'
*36th all-time in MVP Award Shares. Even if we down-grade his 1957 finish from 1st to 3rd ('cause obv it's questionable that he deserved that), he'd still likely be in the top 50 all-time.
*33rd all-time in RealGM RPoY shares.

Cousy was capable of leading #1 offenses. A quote from Michael Grange's Basketball's Greatest Players:

“.....Boston had only six plays and their fast break, but were the highest-scoring* team of their era---and it was Cousy who made it work.” The were also the #1-rated offense for three consecutive seasons ('53-'55).


And I also want to talk about something that I think is relevant to the discussion (Doc will likely disagree with me, saying I'm again being too broad): pioneering, or otherwise being influential on the evolution of the game. To me, such is inseparable from any discussion of "greatness". Cousy was doing things with the ball that no one else was doing at the time, and in many ways pioneered or established the classic point guard role. If I can again quote Michael Grange's book:

“When Chris Paul crosses over his man, drags the help defense with him and drops the ball behind him so his teammate can have the easy layup, he is paying tribute to Bob Cousy. It’s the same when Steve Nash looks right and passes left, hitting his teammate for a dunk, or when Rajon Rondo grabs a defensive rebound and sprints for the other end of the floor, leading the herd. They are all bowing to Bob Cousy, the NBA point guard who did it first.”


Frankly, Cousy is on the short-list of the most influential players in pro basketball history. How much value should be attached to that is open for debate; but imo it is absolutely worth something.


And lastly I'll provide some video links from late/post-prime Cousy (who I think still looks reasonably fast in the open-court; I imagine certainly no slower than say Steve Nash). The vision, the precision passing (sometimes in traffic) is evident. I also noted how when he starts running with the ball the defenders are scrambling to get back to cover all runners, no matter how unlikely the passing angle: Cousy's ability to hit guys on the fast-break forced them to do so.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L78v25cinYI[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA8l1Jr7jwc[/youtube]

Cousy's numbers aren't really "in the mix" except for PER.....

His rs WS/48 is also across the board (peak, prime, career) is better than Isiah's (voted in 23 places ago), too.

Was sort of waiting for some votes to see where consensus was heading, but with such scant turn-out so far, I think I'll just go with my heart. Vote for #62: Bob Cousy.

Why Cousy over Arizin? Longevity, or something else?

Read on, hopefully should be clear more toward the bottom of post (hint: regards pioneering).
I also suspect Cousy had a larger impact than his box-score metrics may have indicated (similar to say Jason Kidd). Obv I cannot prove that, though.

[Owly]

Was sort of waiting for some votes to see where consensus was heading, but with such scant turn-out so far, I think I'll just go with my heart. Vote for #62: Bob Cousy.

Spoiler:

Thought I’d throw in a bit of statistical comparison to some other PG’s already voted in (in some instances quite awhile ago)....

Prime Per 100 Possessions (rs)
Cousy (‘52-’61)--697 rs games: 21.9 pts, 6.1 reb, 8.8 ast @ 44.9% TS% (-0.4% to league)
Isiah Thomas (‘83-92)--770 rs games: 26.1 pts, 4.9 reb, 12.6 ast, 2.6 stl, 0.4 blk, 4.9 tov @ 52.3% ts (-1.4% to league)
Kevin Johnson (‘89-’97)--599 rs games: 26.6 pts, 4.5 reb, 13.4 ast, 2.1 stl, 0.3 blk, 4.5 tov @ 59.0% ts (+5.4% to league)
Chauncey Billups (‘03-’11)--685 rs games: 27.0 pts, 5.0 reb, 9.6 ast, 1.7 stl, 0.3 blk, 3.4 tov @ 59.5% ts (+6.0% to league)

Peak PER (rs)
Kevin Johnson: 23.7
Chauncey Billups: 23.6
Isiah Thomas: 22.2
Bob Cousy: 21.7

Prime PER (rs)
Kevin Johnson: 21.5
Chauncey Billups: 20.5
Bob Cousy: 20.1
Isiah Thomas: 18.9

Career PER (rs)
Kevin Johnson: 20.7
Bob Cousy: 19.8
Chauncey Billups: 18.8
Isiah Thomas: 18.1

Prime PER (playoffs)
Isiah Thomas: 19.8
Kevin Johnson: 19.6
Chauncey Billups: 19.6
Bob Cousy: 18.0

Peak WS/48 (rs)
Chauncey Billups: .257
Kevin Johnson: .220
Bob Cousy: .178
Isiah Thomas: .173

Prime WS/48 (rs)
Chauncey Billups: .207
Kevin Johnson: .187
Bob Cousy: .139
Isiah Thomas: .126

Career WS/48 (rs)
Kevin Johnson: .178
Chauncey Billups: .176
Bob Cousy: .139
Isiah Thomas: .109

Prime WS/48 (playoffs)
Chauncey Billups: .197
Isiah Thomas: .143
Kevin Johnson: .124
Bob Cousy: .121

So while he doesn't rate out "well" among these guys, he does appear "in the mix". Although era considerations obviously apply. Still, this isn't comparing to players still on the table; the others are all voted in already (one as far back as 23 places ago!).

Some other "career bullet-points", for whatever they're worth:

*6-Time NBA champion. For at least 2 of those he was the clear 2nd-best player on the team, and was one other where he was at worst the "2B" on the team. Was never less than the 4th or 5th best/most important player on any of those championship squads. I'd like to quote something from John Taylor's The Rivalry regarding the Celtics dynasty and contributions by players NOT named Bill Russell. He was definitely the keystone for that team, though I think he too often gets credited for having carried them to 11 titles; and I think it gets overlooked just how lucky Russell was a to land where he did:

"…..But Auerbach’s inquiries left him with the impression that, however limited Russell might be in general, in the areas of his strengths he was overwhelming. Russell was not the answer to every coach’s prayers. But working with the players whose skills complemented and extended his and whose talents covered for his weaknesses---players, that is, like the Celtics--he could be the linchpin of an indomitable team…." (pg 64-65)

*13-Time All-Star (tied for 10th all-time)
*12 Times All-NBA (tied for 6th all-time); 10 of those All-NBA 1st Team (tied for 3rd all-time).
----obv era considerations again apply, but just sayin'
*36th all-time in MVP Award Shares. Even if we down-grade his 1957 finish from 1st to 3rd ('cause obv it's questionable that he deserved that), he'd still likely be in the top 50 all-time.
*33rd all-time in RealGM RPoY shares.

Cousy was capable of leading #1 offenses. A quote from Michael Grange's Basketball's Greatest Players:

“.....Boston had only six plays and their fast break, but were the highest-scoring* team of their era---and it was Cousy who made it work.” The were also the #1-rated offense for three consecutive seasons ('53-'55).


And I also want to talk about something that I think is relevant to the discussion (Doc will likely disagree with me, saying I'm again being too broad): pioneering, or otherwise being influential on the evolution of the game. To me, such is inseparable from any discussion of "greatness". Cousy was doing things with the ball that no one else was doing at the time, and in many ways pioneered or established the classic point guard role. If I can again quote Michael Grange's book:

“When Chris Paul crosses over his man, drags the help defense with him and drops the ball behind him so his teammate can have the easy layup, he is paying tribute to Bob Cousy. It’s the same when Steve Nash looks right and passes left, hitting his teammate for a dunk, or when Rajon Rondo grabs a defensive rebound and sprints for the other end of the floor, leading the herd. They are all bowing to Bob Cousy, the NBA point guard who did it first.”


Frankly, Cousy is on the short-list of the most influential players in pro basketball history. How much value should be attached to that is open for debate; but imo it is absolutely worth something.


And lastly I'll provide some video links from late/post-prime Cousy (who I think still looks reasonably fast in the open-court; I imagine certainly no slower than say Steve Nash). The vision, the precision passing (sometimes in traffic) is evident. I also noted how when he starts running with the ball the defenders are scrambling to get back to cover all runners, no matter how unlikely the passing angle: Cousy's ability to hit guys on the fast-break forced them to do so.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L78v25cinYI[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA8l1Jr7jwc[/youtube]

Cousy's numbers aren't really "in the mix" except for PER which is relative to league. You could make a much better case for the likes of Walt Bellamy, Chet Walker, Billy Cunningham, or Bailey Howell using numbers (for the 50s, Arizin, Foust, Johnston, Hagan, etc.). If/when Cousy gets in it will be for his era uniqueness and being the prototype PG, not his numbers.

Of that group of players, his numbers (assuming that the samples for peak and prime were chosen fairly) compare reasonably enough with Thomas' (though I was/am the project's resident Thomas cynic and think he got in very, early, so that wouldn't persuade me that this means Cousy should have been in much earlier).

On the one hand I can certainly see arguments against Cousy, playoff performance in the title runs being the most prominent. Also I'm not so sure that a lot of the innovations he's often credited with weren't already done by Marques Haynes and/or Bob Davies. TBH I personally prefer Sharman and might be inclined to vote him first (though not sure if this is personal bias or just a reasonable reflection of my preferences).

On the other hand he was the best player at his position in his decade, his shooting inefficiency is exagerated (he was one of the more accurate pgs of the 50s) and he led/orchestrated strong offenses albeit with other good firepower (Sharman and Macauley), until a strategic shift was made.

Versus Arizin I think his main advantage would be that he has all his peak-prime years, wheras harsh as it is, Arizin doesn't (whether you penalize him for this ...).

[Quotatious]

Read on, hopefully should be clear more toward the bottom of post (hint: regards pioneering).
I also suspect Cousy had a larger impact than his box-score metrics may have indicated (similar to say Jason Kidd). Obv I cannot prove that, though.

Well, Arizin can be credited for pioneering something as well - jump shot. Might be even more of a useful skill than Cousy's flashy ballhandling and passing.

Not that I have a problem with someone voting for Cousy, just wanted to know your reasoning.

[trex_8063]

I'd agree to some degree Arizin could be called a pioneer.....or at least he can take credit or partial credit for popularizing the jump-shot. I believe it was Kenny Sears who took the first recorded/acknowledged jump-shot, way back in 1940 (college game). And there were definitely one or two other players using the occasional jump-shot in or around Arizin's time. I'd agree no one else (at that time) incorporated it into his game as much/as effectively as Arizin. But he wasn't the only, and didn't "define the position" in the way Cousy did.

As to Marques Haynes and Bob Davies.....fair point. Haynes in particular certainly had the handles, though to be fair he never really demonstrated he could use those handles and be effective (or elite) in a truly competitive league; he stuck to barn-storming exhibition "leagues".
Davies, from the little footage I've seen, I don't see that he had Cousy's handles (or even close, really). He does seem like he was a better or more aggressive slasher, who was certainly at least Cousy's equal in getting to the line (though not quite as good at making his FT's). Beyond that.....
And not sure either one of them defined or otherwise had strong influence on how their position would be played for the next four decades.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #18 (weak-sauce):

Sidney Moncrief (1) - penbeast0

Paul Arizin (2) - Quotatious, Doctor MJ

Nate Thurmond (1) - ronnymac2

Bob Cousy (1) - trex_8063

Sam Jones (1) - Moonbeam


fwiw, I'd be fine with any of these guys getting in at this point. I'd personally lean toward Cousy (obviously) or Arizin.

[Joao Saraiva]

My vote goes to Manu Ginobili.

His production per minute justifies the spot, his accomplishments in the NBA too. I would say he is the best 6th man ever. And don't forget about his international career, he was really impressive for Argentina.

The biggest game: of course the semi finals in the olympics of 2004. 29 points vs the USA to lead Argentina to the finals, and they won it all.