RealGM Top 100 List #68

Post #1 » by **penbeast0** » Fri Jan 2, 2015 1:15 am

PG: Never been sold on Cousy but you have to consider him here. Nate Archibald and Penny Hardaway are the main short peak guys (anyone willing to argue Stephen Curry? :wink:

). Tim Hardaway and Mark Price are the best long peak guys left.

Wings: Sam Jones and Bill Sharman should get a look soon; Sharman has more accolades and is better for his day, but the 50s are far less competitive than the 60s. 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 and Connie Hawkins for short peak guys . . . in that order for me I would guess. Neil Johnston, Amare, Issel, Spencer Haywood have offensive creds but bigs who don't play defense are problematic for me. Ben Wallace, the Worm, DeBusschere, Bobby Jones, etc., even Zelmo Beaty and Yao Ming are on my radar.

Tentatively leaning toward Bobby Jones, Billy Cunningham, or Dennis Rodman here though can be convinced of Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Sam Jones or Mel Daniels as well.

ronnymac2 · Post #2 » by **ronnymac2** » Fri Jan 2, 2015 10:38 am

Vote: Nate Archibald
For all the talk about Nathaniel being a short, sky-high peak player, the man played over 31,000 minutes and was a 6-time All-Star. Sam Jones played a lot less career minutes (just over 24,000), and despite having the shine of success from being on a dynasty, only made the All-Star team 5 times. I love Penny Hardaway and believe he has the best peak left, but he essentially has 3 truly great seasons (1995-1997) and then a good rookie year and 2 underrated years in 1999 and 2000. I don't know what you're going to get after that though.

Archibald does indeed have a sky-high peak, where he played a Wilt Chamberlain-esque 46 MPG and averaged 34 points and 11.4 assists on the best offensive team in the league. He was #2 in PER that season and #6 in True Shooting Percentage, so he wasn't just chucking. Excellent free throw shooter at 84.7 percent.

This was a guy who, in his prime, made 3 All-NBA First Teams in 4 years (missed the other year due to injury). He was the Bob McAdoo of guards: Super high-peak in the mid-70s where he put up historic numbers and was given tremendous respect by his peers and the league critics alike before transitioning to being a great role player on a loaded 1980s dynasty. The main difference between Archibald and McAdoo is that fans never pined for Archibald to be traded away like New York fans did with McAdoo during his brief stint with the Knicks (I believe Boston fans were the same way with McAdoo). Archibald, as far as I know, was never a disruptive force in the locker room.

In fact, after he got to Boston and fully recovered from his injuries (he clearly wasn't himself in 1979, his first year with Boston), he became a steady guiding force for the Celtics, playing 294 games over the next 4 seasons and averaging 12.9 points and 7.6 assists while offering spacing and high basketball IQ. Boston became a contender with Archibald as its All-Star PG, and they won a championship in 1981.

Post #3 » by **Quotatious** » Fri Jan 2, 2015 5:52 pm

Nate Archibald is my vote here, as well.

Just to add anything to what ronny said, Tiny is one of just two players in NBA history who led the league in scoring and assists the same season (1967-68 Oscar is the only other player, but Tiny averaged 34.0 points and 11.4 assists, compared to 29.2 points and 9.7 assists for the Big O, and played 80 games compared to 65, so his achievement is more impressive).

Archibald's peak really was GREAT (in addition to awesome individual numbers, like 34 points, 11.4 assists, 25.2 PER, 55.5% TS, he also had great impact on his team's offense, that year - Kings had the best offense in the NBA).

The only thing that makes me hesitate is Tiny's lack of playoff success, but sometimes you just have a great player stuck on a bad team (like for example that fact that Minny didn't even win 35 games and didn't make the playoffs in '06 and '07, doesn't mean that KG wasn't an amazing player). Anyway, it's not like we can really say that he was a bad playoff performer - he just didn't play in the postseason in his prime, other than 6 games in 1975.

Post #4 » by **penbeast0** » Fri Jan 2, 2015 7:43 pm

I think I will throw a vote for the Worm here; Nate led the league in assists and points, the Worm led in rebounding and defense (DPOY) at least arguably. Yes, he wasn't as great a rebounder when playing combo forward for Detroit as when playing exclusively power forward and cheating off his man at times for rebounds in SA and Chicago (actually in 92 and 93, he was with a rebound rate over 25!; the rest of his tenure there it averaged around 20 which is still dominant) but he was still a very good defender, his teams (other than SA) received large boosts from his skills, and he was the GOAT at one of the primary skills that translate to winning.

VOTE DENNIS RODMAN

Post #5 » by **trex_8063** » Fri Jan 2, 2015 7:52 pm

Below is a statistical comparison of Cousy to the last four PG's voted in (though Iverson perhaps more of a SG); none voted in more recently than 11 places ago, one as far back as 29 places ago!?!

Spoiler:

So while he doesn't necessarily 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; these are all guys voted in some time ago (one as far back as 29 places ago!).

Here he is compared to a couple of the other perimeter players on the table presently (Sam Jones and Bill Sharman):

Spoiler:

Again: certainly in the mix here.

Aside from the statistical data we have, Cousy's reputation among media and peers, combined with some team offense indicators, is such that I wonder if his effectiveness went beyond the boxscore. We saw this with Jason Kidd, did we not? (more on that below in the spoiler) Boxscore metrics for Kidd were not overly impressive, yet as Chuck Texas (and to a lesser degree myself) went far to explore, he consistently had a big (even huge) impact on team success. And where his shooting efficiency was poor---and consequently his ORtg often mediocre---RAPM indicates he had one of the highest offensive impacts in the league, pretty much year after year during his prime.

And I suspect the same may also be true of Cousy. As a couple of for instances, I'd note that he was the driving force behind three consecutive #1-rated offenses ('53-'55). And although their ORtg/offensive efficiency fell during the Russell era (even while Cousy was around), part of that was by design: see some of the links (in Moonbeam's post above) to comments/quotes fplii had previously provided, wrt sacrificing efficiency in exchange for greater pace or FGA/g. And though they were generally below average in ORtg, that pace often led to them leading the league in scoring. That they had any reasonable offense at all given Auerbach's de-emphasis of it is pretty impressive.
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.”

And during Cousy's final two seasons as a Celtic ('62 and '63), their ORtg was -1.5 and -2.9 relative to league, respectively. The year after he left they dropped to -4.5 (and this wasn't even with sustaining the loss of a prime version of Cousy; this was an older dwindling version whose individual shooting efficiency was pretty lackluster).

Some more specifically regarding comparison to Bill Sharman (with comments on being potentially over-focused on ts%):

Spoiler:

The bullet-points of career accomplishment look pretty impressive for Cousy.
*Certainly one could argue that his MVP in '57 was not legitimately earned, and that maybe he shouldn't have been quite as high in the MVP voting other years as well. And that would hurt his standing in career MVP Award Shares (where he ranks #36 all-time, fwiw, and worth acknowledging that the award didn't even exist his first five seasons).
But MVP Award Shares aside, he also ranks #33 all-time in RealGM RPoY shares (and that despite omission of his first four seasons, and that this forum doesn't appear overly generous in their consideration of him---relative to "status quo"---given he's still on the table outside the top 65).

**And where other accolades are concerned----which are, to recap: 13-time All-Star (tied for 10th all-time), 12-time All-NBA (tied for 6th) including 10-time All-NBA 1st Team (tied for 3rd all-time)---you can scrutinize the competition, but it appears majority of these were legitimately earned or at the very least defensible. Certainly you can make comments to the effect of "yeah, but look at the competition" or "weak era"......but even weighting these very lightly due to era, this may still wind up being the most "weighty" list of accolade-related achievement left on the table.

***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)

And lastly I will again bring up something which I think is inseparable from any discussion of "greatness": pioneering, and influence on the evolution of the game.
Cousy was doing things with the ball that nearly no one else was doing at the time (give a little props to Bob Davies and Marques Haynes, as previously discussed), and was certainly at least the most high-profile player doing them, as well as being the most successful at incorporating these techniques into being a highly effective player in the major pro league. In many ways he 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.”

Cousy absolutely must be on the short-list of the most influential players in pro basketball history, and arguably (likely, imo) the most influential player we've yet to vote in. How much value should be attached to that is open for debate; but imo it absolutely is worth something.

To me, he represents the most weighty and worthy combination of talent, longevity, career accomplishment, and influence still not voted into our top 100.

My vote for #68: Bob Cousy.

SinceGatlingWasARookie · Post #6 » by **SinceGatlingWasARookie** » Fri Jan 2, 2015 9:07 pm

As a Celtic fan it was very fun to was very fun to watch Archibald slice though the big men like Iverson and yet Archibald finished at the rim better than Iverson and passed out of his penetrations better than Iverson; and I am talking about old Archibald because I never saw prime Archibald.

But, I believe Berard King is still the most valuable player not yet selected. If a team wants to win a championship it needs to efficiently get the basket ball into the basket. King didn't hurt the flow of an offense the way Dantley did. King scored effiently and often from within the flow of the offense.

Peaks matter. The Bernard King Knicks might have been able to ride Bernard King's peak to a championship in a down year. Based solely on playoff results Kings's Knicks appear to be the 3rd best playoff team in 1984.

King's non peak career was long enough and high enough quality to have have the longevity issue not work against King.
I watched some more 1984 King Video. There was nothing wrong with King's defense in the playoffs that year.

Nobody in the History of the NBA other than Bernard King has scored more than 33 points a game at a better than 55 FG% for a playoff season lasting more than 5 games. Yes that is a cherry picked stat but no player has managed to do for 6 games what King did for 12 games.

Bernard King scored 34.8 points per game at a 57.4 FG% during his 12 game 1984 playoff run before the Knicks were knocked off in seven games by the 1984 champion Celtics.

King's 1983-1985 peak is in my opinion a top 20 of all time peak. I think that any player not already on the list at there peak are far more replaceable than Bernard King at his peak. I don't think that you can replace King with Carmelo Anthony or John Havlicek and get the 1984 Knicks to defeat the Pistons or take the 1984 Celtics to 7 games.

ronnymac2 wrote:At his best, King was one of the greatest small fowards ever. He's the definition of a scoring machine. Pretty good player all-around, too.

I'll take him over dantley at his best actually. To me, King seemed to score his points moreso in the flow of the offense. I mean, he iso'd a lot of course, he seemed to work better within the context of what his team was doing. He was athletic, good on the offensive glass, moved pretty well without the ball, and was VERY effective at scoring. He was also a solid rebounder and passer.

Warspite wrote:King for about 2 1/2 seasons is LBJ dominat. Hes a late bloomer and suffered a career destroying injury. If he plays for 6-8 yrs like he did in 84 then hes basicly Rick Barry/Elgin Balyor. For about 18 months King was the best player in the NBA when almost half of the top 50 players of all time were in the league.

Kings playoff run in 84 started with him avging 40ppg vs the Pistons and then almost single handedly beating Bird and the Celtics.

penbeast0 wrote:........I agree, King, when on, was more explosive than any of the great SFs of the 80s with the possible exception of Larry Bird).......

King -- career 22.5/5.8/3.3@.561tsp. 14 years but 2 major injuries . 5 playoff appearances, only twice out of 1st round and one of those swept in second. One great season, one great playoff series. Was a competitor but had substance abuse problems (alcohol) and made enemies by signing big contracts ......

.......How does King compare to HOF Dantley and non-HOF Aguirre? He had the highest peak (2nd in MVP voting to Dantley's 7th and Aguirre's 11th), but had the most injury issues plus the alcoholism. Ran up most of his stats on weak teams (less playoff appearances) but had the one great series against Boston that everyone remembers......

The Knicks made King their team captain.
The team that swept King in the second round was the 1983 76ers that also swept the Lakers in the finals.

The only player that I am confident could replace Bernard King on the 1984 Knicks and achieve the same or better playoff results is Michael Jordan. Kobe is King's height but there is no version of Kobe that I could ask to replace Peak King.

Should a cross era top 20 peak player player not be in our top 68 list?

My vote: Bernard King

ceiling raiser · Post #7 » by **ceiling raiser** » Fri Jan 2, 2015 9:11 pm

penbeast0 wrote:I think I will throw a vote for the Worm here; Nate led the league in assists and points, the Worm led in rebounding and defense (DPOY) at least arguably. Yes, he wasn't as great a rebounder when playing combo forward for Detroit as when playing exclusively power forward and cheating off his man at times for rebounds in SA and Chicago (actually in 92 and 93, he was with a rebound rate over 25!; the rest of his tenure there it averaged around 20 which is still dominant) but he was still a very good defender, his teams (other than SA) received large boosts from his skills, and he was the GOAT at one of the primary skills that translate to winning.

VOTE DENNIS RODMAN

I'm probably leaning that way as well. Do you think Rodman over Big Ben is clear, or is either reasonable here for you?

Post #8 » by **trex_8063** » Fri Jan 2, 2015 9:20 pm

I suspect I'll be pushing Bob Cousy from this point on until he gets voted in.

But just by way of discussion, I'll throw out those who I tentatively think are the next 2-5 most appropriate guys at each position (basically anyone who might be relevant to the discussion at this point; and I'm listing them roughly in the order I would have them, too, fwiw):

PG - Bob Cousy, Tony Parker, Tiny Archibald, Dennis Johnson, Tim Hardaway

SG - Sam Jones, Hal Greer
*Note on Penny Hardaway (PG/SG), since he's been name-dropped: arguably higher peak than any of the above players, but was so brief, and very much a "spike" on his player graph (doesn't have any other season that even approaches '96). Prime in general was so brief, as well (basically just 3 years of prime). Then a scattering of few relevant role-player years. He falls into similar category as Walton for me: great peak, but longevity so eroded by injury that he isn't on my radar at this point.
**EDIT-->Regarding Bill Sharman: great player who I definitely want somewhere in the top 100. But his status is being marginally inflated imo based on the WS/shooting efficiency angle, which I addressed in above post within the context of comparison to Cousy. To me, the SG's he more appropriately falls into company with are guys like Joe Dumars, Mitch Richmond....maybe Pete Maravich (whom I have a terrible time deciding where to rank)

SF - Carmelo Anthony, James Worthy, Shawn Marion, Billy Cunningham

PF - Chris Webber (:gulp:, guards self from backlash), Dennis Rodman, Chris Bosh, Jerry Lucas, Dave DeBusschere (SF??)

C - Wes Unseld, Dan Issel, Ben Wallace

Sorry penbeast0, I'm just not feeling Mel Daniels at this stage. Things holding me back on him:
*Boxscore metrics decidedly less than mind-blowing (do you have anything tangible regarding a big defensive presence, perhaps?)
**Questions about strength of ABA at the time (as they pertain to his accomplishments)
***Fairly mediocre longevity.

Other thoughts?

Post #9 » by **penbeast0** » Fri Jan 2, 2015 9:28 pm

fpliii wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:I think I will throw a vote for the Worm here; Nate led the league in assists and points, the Worm led in rebounding and defense (DPOY) at least arguably. Yes, he wasn't as great a rebounder when playing combo forward for Detroit as when playing exclusively power forward and cheating off his man at times for rebounds in SA and Chicago (actually in 92 and 93, he was with a rebound rate over 25!; the rest of his tenure there it averaged around 20 which is still dominant) but he was still a very good defender, his teams (other than SA) received large boosts from his skills, and he was the GOAT at one of the primary skills that translate to winning.

VOTE DENNIS RODMAN

I'm probably leaning that way as well. Do you think Rodman over Big Ben is clear, or is either reasonable here for you?

Much as I prefer Ben Wallace, Rodman has such a major edge in rebounding, team success wherever he went (except SA where his toxic personality overcame his talent), and even an edge on offense, that yeah, I think the edge is clear. Willing to be convinced otherwise but eye test and Ben's years after Detroit are problems.

Post #10 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Fri Jan 2, 2015 9:32 pm

Vote for #68 - Bernard King

- 14 year career
- 4x all NBA (2 1st, 1 2nd, 1 3rd)
- 1 top 3 and 1 top 10 MVP finish
- 1x scoring champ

I've done my best to keep from strategic voting, but in this case I'll go for it as I think he's deserving. At his peak, king was one of the most dynamic scorers the league had seen. He was more methodical than flashy, but he knew what he was good at and kept going to it. His turnaround jumper was so lethal that he didn't even have to look at the hoop when releasing the shot. It was all in 1 quick motion where the defender really had no chance to block it. He was also very bull-like in the open court. Not a high leaper, but extremely powerful with long strides getting to the rim.

From 79-85 he put up the following:

REGULAR SEASON
23.6 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 3.2 APG, 1.1 SPG, .3 BPG, 55.1% FG, 70.1% FT, 58.7% TS, .153 WS/48, 111/106 OFF/DEF RTG

PLAYOFFS (20 GAMES)
30.5 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 2.8 APG, 1 SPG, .3 BPG, 56.8% FG, 72% FT, 60.9% TS, .213 WS/48, 122/112 OFF/DEF RTG

His prime was obviously cut short by injuries, but he still put together 11 seasons of solid production when it was all said and done. When he tore his ACL, his career was largely thought to be over given the era he played in. He went on to make an improbable comeback which culminated with him getting back to All NBA status in 90-91 with the bullets. I've alluded to this with other players in the project, but the amount of determination it takes to come back from major injuries and still perform at a high level is really impressive.

[As an aside, the Knicks stupidly released him because he wanted to do his rehab on his own instead of at the knicks training facility. Always would've loved to see even a lesser version of King get to play with Ewing. Could've been a great match.]

He was probably best known for his 1st round game 5 clincher against the pistons in 84:

In a critical and decisive Game 5, Bernard King was his usual unstoppable self putting up 40 points as the Knicks held a double-digit lead with under two minutes remaining in the fourth quarter. Then Thomas decided to take things into his own hands by putting on a performance of epic proportions, tallying 16 points within the game’s final 94 seconds, to force overtime. King and Thomas exchanged offensive blows like a heavyweight title fight, with King getting the final blow by jamming an offensive put-back in the games final moments, giving him a game high 46 points and the Knicks a 3-2 series win. King showed a national audience that he would become one of the game’s most prolific scoring machines before injuries robbed him of his explosiveness. Game 5 was also arguably the moment that put a young “Zeke” on par with the NBA’s elite.

http://www.theshadowleague.com/articles ... iah-thomas

Notice the splints on both of King's hands...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOLi-9ENtTM[/youtube]

The Knicks would go on to lose to the eventual NBA champion celtics in 7 games, as he played through injuries and still averaged 29.1 PPG on 59.7% TS in the series. The guy was just relentless.

"The key was his preparation," said former Knicks coach and ESPN analyst Hubie Brown.

Part of that preparation included practicing thousands of shots from what King called his "sweet spots." In the half court, he identified three points along the baseline out to the sideline, then extended an imaginary line from a halfway point up the lane to the sideline with three more, then three more extended from the foul line to the sideline. He did the same on the other side of the lane.

Within the lane he identified four spots from the rim to the top of the key. These 22 spots, all within 18 feet of the basket, created a matrix of areas from which he felt supremely confident he could score. If a team tried to deny him the ball on offense, he would move from one sweet spot to another.

"He had the ability to see what all five positions were doing. That's how he could handle double- and triple-teams, because he knew where everyone would be," Brown said. "He knew how to create space for the high-percentage shot or find the guy who was open."

http://espn.go.com/nba/halloffame13/sto ... king-ahead

I try not to play the "what if?" game too much in this project. I'd at least point out that King didn't have a ton of talent around him in his prime, though. King had super john williamson in NJ, notorious ball hog world b free and sometimes unmotivated joe barry carroll in GSW, bill cartwright in NY, and... not much else.

The warriors did go 45-37 in 82, just missing the playoffs by 1 game, and ranked 11th (of 23) in SRS that season. So we missed out on seeing what they could do in the playoffs. He did play with moses and jeff malone, but it was post ACL tear in 88. They took the #2 SRS ranked pistons to 5 games in the first round that year.

With the talent he had around him, I don't think king really underachieved in the playoffs, or getting there as much as he did, for that matter.

Post #11 » by **penbeast0** » Fri Jan 2, 2015 9:36 pm

trex_8063 wrote:I suspect I'll be pushing Bob Cousy from this point on until he gets voted in.

But just by way of discussion, I'll throw out those who I tentatively think are the next 2-5 most appropriate guys at each position (basically anyone who might be relevant to the discussion at this point; and I'm listing them roughly in the order I would have them, too, fwiw):

PG - Bob Cousy, Tony Parker, Tiny Archibald, Dennis Johnson, Tim Hardaway

SG - Sam Jones, Hal Greer
*Note on Penny Hardaway (PG/SG), since he's been name-dropped: arguably higher peak than any of the above players, but was so brief, and very much a "spike" on his player graph (doesn't have any other season that even approaches '96). Prime in general was so brief, as well (basically just 3 years of prime). Then a scattering of few relevant role-player years. He falls into similar category as Walton for me: great peak, but longevity so eroded by injury that he isn't on my radar at this point.

SF - Carmelo Anthony, James Worthy, Shawn Marion, Billy Cunningham

PF - Chris Webber (:gulp:, guards self from backlash), Dennis Rodman, Chris Bosh, Jerry Lucas, Dave DeBusschere (SF??)

C - Wes Unseld, Dan Issel, Ben Wallace

Sorry penbeast0, I'm just not feeling Mel Daniels at this stage. Things holding me back on him:
*Boxscore metrics decidedly less than mind-blowing (do you have anything tangible regarding a big defensive presence, perhaps?)
**Questions about strength of ABA at the time (as they pertain to his accomplishments)
***Fairly mediocre longevity.

Other thoughts?

PG -- Mark Price v. Tim Hardaway? Gus Williams v. Dennis Johnson? I have to look closer at Parker with his recent years as a more primary star.

F -- Bobby Jones? v. DeBusschere, v. Marion, even v. Rodman (and I'm voting for Rodman!)?

C -- Issel ranks lower than Amare for me. For years, as a Doug Moe fan, those Issel teams had zero interior defense despite different PFs. Maybe it's not his fault (or Amare's) that they were playing out of position, but he compiled his big numbers as a center and he just wasn't a great center when you put defense into the equation.

RayBan-Sematra · Post #12 » by **RayBan-Sematra** » Fri Jan 2, 2015 11:14 pm

VOTE : Sam Jones

Sam Jones in Game 7s: 9-0
--------------------------------
1959 VS SYR : 19pts
1960 VS STL : 18pts (Finals)
1962 VS PHI : 28pts
1962 VS LAL : 27pts (Finals)
1963 VS CIN : 47pts
1965 VS PHI : 37pts
1966 VS LAL : 22pts (Finals)
1968 VS PHI : 22pts
1969 VS LAL : 25pts (Finals)

Bill Russell : "Whenever the pressure was greatest, Sam was eager for the ball. Sam Jones had a Champion's heart.
Under pressure, we had hidden on our team a class superstar of the highest caliber."

Tommy Heinsohn : " Sam Jones... great, great shooter. He would bank it off the boards. Could shoot from 40 feet out."
________________________________________

1962 ECF : After Wilt tied the game with a 3pt play Jones hit a jumper with two seconds remaining to send Boston to the Finals and deny Chamberlain a chance at his first trip to that stage.

1963 VS Royals G7 : Sam had a tough task trying to defend Oscar. Robertson scored 43 points and took 22 free throws.
Not to be outdone Sam Jones scored 47 points with Oscar completely unable to stop him.

Post #13 » by **penbeast0** » Fri Jan 2, 2015 11:17 pm

Thanks Ray, excellent post and legit reason to look at Sam Jones here.

Post #14 » by **trex_8063** » Fri Jan 2, 2015 11:27 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:I suspect I'll be pushing Bob Cousy from this point on until he gets voted in.

But just by way of discussion, I'll throw out those who I tentatively think are the next 2-5 most appropriate guys at each position (basically anyone who might be relevant to the discussion at this point; and I'm listing them roughly in the order I would have them, too, fwiw):

PG - Bob Cousy, Tony Parker, Tiny Archibald, Dennis Johnson, Tim Hardaway

SG - Sam Jones, Hal Greer
*Note on Penny Hardaway (PG/SG), since he's been name-dropped: arguably higher peak than any of the above players, but was so brief, and very much a "spike" on his player graph (doesn't have any other season that even approaches '96). Prime in general was so brief, as well (basically just 3 years of prime). Then a scattering of few relevant role-player years. He falls into similar category as Walton for me: great peak, but longevity so eroded by injury that he isn't on my radar at this point.

SF - Carmelo Anthony, James Worthy, Shawn Marion, Billy Cunningham

PF - Chris Webber (:gulp:, guards self from backlash), Dennis Rodman, Chris Bosh, Jerry Lucas, Dave DeBusschere (SF??)

C - Wes Unseld, Dan Issel, Ben Wallace

Sorry penbeast0, I'm just not feeling Mel Daniels at this stage. Things holding me back on him:
*Boxscore metrics decidedly less than mind-blowing (do you have anything tangible regarding a big defensive presence, perhaps?)
**Questions about strength of ABA at the time (as they pertain to his accomplishments)
***Fairly mediocre longevity.

Other thoughts?

PG -- Mark Price v. Tim Hardaway? Gus Williams v. Dennis Johnson? I have to look closer at Parker with his recent years as a more primary star.

Price v Timmy is a hard one. I feel like Price was a marginally better player during their respective peaks/primes. However Price's prime could (generously) be called 8 years ('88-'95), where he played 515 rs games (missing on average nearly 18 games per season). Timmy's is also 8 years ('91-'99, minus '94), but for 581 rs games (and that includes a player hold-out year); so he's only missing a little over 5 games per season on average, basically gives you whole extra season of prime-level play (which pretty nearly evens things out for me).
Beyond that, Price only has one decent role player season ('97), while Timmy has three ('90, '00-'01). So I'll give Timmy an edge based on longevity; although I think maybe I ought to have them closer together in my ranks......Price was awfully impressive.

Gus Williams is a hard one, too. At a glance, he does look better than he typically gets credit for in this kind of list.
By the numbers, for instance, his prime looks similar to Tim Hardaway. However, he does only have about 6 prime years (471 rs games), then 2-3 relevant role player years beyond that. So his longevity is a bit meh. I would say marginally weaker era than Price or Timmy, as well.
vs. DJ: Gus does look better by the numbers, but DJ was an awfully good defender, especially during his early years. So how much value added is that? Longevity edge to DJ, too.
idk, do you think I'm overrating DJ, or are you just playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion?

penbeast0 wrote:F -- Bobby Jones? v. DeBusschere, v. Marion, even v. Rodman (and I'm voting for Rodman!)?

I have a hard time ranking Bobby Jones this high. Long athletic player, could really run well, good transition finisher. Great help defender, though from what I've seen of his games I wasn't overly impressed with his man defense. Scores at a very nice efficiency, but on somewhat modest volume (highest ever Pts/100 poss was 24.9; 20.2 for career); as far as I can tell the VAST majority of his hoops were either transition buckets, or other relatively "easy" hoops (cutting to the basket, occasional wide open 16-footer, etc). Despite that shooting efficiency, Jones was really not even suitable to be the 2nd option scorer on most teams (certainly not a good team).

He was not a noteworthy rebounder (in fact, I would say he even bordered on being a below average rebounder for the PF position).
Maybe it's his physical characteristics, but in a lot of ways he reminds me of Shawn Marion.....though where Marion excelled defensively was as a solid and versatile man defender, vs. the help D which was Bobby's big thing. Better passer than Marion, but Marion obv a significantly better rebounder, who also gives you a bit more in way of scoring options (can shoot OK from distance, has that little floater, etc). Marion also has longevity on Jones.
And lastly there's the minutes issue: Jones NEVER played 35 mpg, only once in his NBA career topped the 30 mpg mark, and has a career avg of 27.3 (just 26.1 mpg in the NBA).

Jones was an excellent player, and I wouldn't object to him making the list. But I think top 70 is overrating him.

penbeast0 wrote:C -- Issel ranks lower than Amare for me. For years, as a Doug Moe fan, those Issel teams had zero interior defense despite different PFs. Maybe it's not his fault (or Amare's) that they were playing out of position, but he compiled his big numbers as a center and he just wasn't a great center when you put defense into the equation.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything there, though I don't know that I would hold it against Issel that he was played primarily at the center position. I think he'd make an excellent stretch-4 today.

Owly · Post #15 » by **Owly** » Fri Jan 2, 2015 11:42 pm

The case for Elton Brand versus the pack

Archibald: Archibald stood out from the pack of 70s guards .xcept Frazier) with some crazy numbers (points and assists), okay efficiency. Still he's only got 3 great seasons (72-73 and 75). Brand has 6 seasons with very strong numbers (02-07). Especially given that 75 isn't at the standard of the other two (even if it were) that Archibald is moving your title championship needle more than Brand (in a hypothetical league where they both have the same number of rival teams), Brand's underrated numbers aside he's also quite a bit better defensively. I think Brand wins this and it's not that close.

Archibald has a couple of good role playing seasons in Boston, '76 and some injury hit seasons. Brand has his first two seasons in the league, two comeback years in Philly (11 and 12). No huge needle movers, roughly a tie.

Rodman: The first point would be Rodman was great on D and rebounding (though not peaking with both simulataneously) so he's got an advantage there. But can you buy that it's larger than Brand's advantage at the other end? Rodman's advantage is in team performance. But swap teams and what do you see happening. If Brand came into the league I don't think he has any problem contributing to Detroit and generally replicating his productivity (role may vary slightly). If Rodman comes into to Tim Floyd and playing with Ron Artest? If a defensive role-player on a crummy team doesn't get ignored and bounce out of the league (both because as I say I don't think such players get noticed on bad teams, and because I'm not sure that skill set is so useful on a bad team) anyway, how does he do? Put simply I think Rodman needs the right context to succeed, especially later on.

Cousy: Cousy makes sense at this point. But Cousy's higher status (traditionally) is about legacy and notoriety and being on good teams. Brand didn't have the luck to play against less notable competition at his position, or have amazing teammates. One might point out Brand was a two way player and an efficient scorer in a more competitive league.

King: Brand is two way, King at best an average defender. King played near his peak for one and half years, Brand played around his for about 6 (maybe 5). King was a less than ideal teammate / building block (the incident in Utah aside, after two and half seasons out when apparently did a terrible job of communicating with the team and then apparently wanted a big raise) Brand is a lunchpail pro who won the NBA sportsmanship award and has embraced a veteran mentor role. By the numbers it isn't close, on D it isn't close and intangiables wise (even accounting for King's remarkable grit in coming back and charity work, there's still a big risk there) it isn't close. Brand even has a big (individually speaking) peak playoff run like King (versus an individual star in the first round then a good team in the second). Brand might not be as big a story historically (playing in NY, ACL comeback, Detroit shootout, Garden scoring record - tangent: why is that a thing?) but Brand is better.

vote: Elton Brand

Post #16 » by **trex_8063** » Fri Jan 2, 2015 11:43 pm

Trouble is, the candidacy feels so FULL at this point. There are 33 spots left on the list.....but imo there are at least 60 guys remaining for whom you can make a credible top 100 case. :dontknow:

SinceGatlingWasARookie · Post #17 » by **SinceGatlingWasARookie** » Sat Jan 3, 2015 1:40 am

I expect the when the 100 list is done there will be 15 guys that I thought should be in the Top 90 and yet did not make our Top 100 list.

Joao Saraiva · Post #18 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Sat Jan 3, 2015 12:51 pm

Sorry I haven't been voting because I haven't been home.

My vote goes, yet again, to Dennis Rodman.

- Lead the league in RPG 7 times;
- Peaked at an insane 18.7 RPG;
- Has 7 seasons above Shaq's best in RPG (above 13.9 RPG);
- Two time DPOY and has certainly got a case for the best defensive forward of all time;
- 7 times all-nba defensive team;
- 5 times NBA champion.

If some guy deserves to go in due to his defensive and dirty work it is Dennis Rodman. I don't see basketball as 50/50 offense/defense but I think Rodman is a fair choice here.

He has GOAT defensive impact and rebounding impact for his position.

Post #19 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Jan 3, 2015 10:17 pm

Vote: Wes Unseld

I actually had forgotten he wasn't voted in yet. Folks I'd say it's more than time.

One guy I've been thinking of recently is Amir Johnson. Johnson's been a guy who has borderline all-star +/- numbers basically his whole career. At first it made sense to chalk it up as a fluke given that his box score says he's nothing but a minor player, but with consistency came more detailed observations, and what Johnson is, is a guy who excels at doing all the gritty stuff that we know helps teams, and thus he's exactly the type of guy you'd expect would be considerably more valuable than the box score says.

Think of Unseld like that, except that he's an all-world rebounder, among the great passing big men of all-time (his outlet passing is legendary), and he's got a clear heroic presence to him that helped build strong team chemistry...which might have been a really big deal given that Hayes was known for poor-temper, selfishness and ego.

Owly · Post #20 » by **Owly** » Sat Jan 3, 2015 10:39 pm

trex_8063 wrote:Trouble is, the candidacy feels so FULL at this point. There are 33 spots left on the list.....but imo there are at least 60 guys remaining for whom you can make a credible top 100 case.

Indeed. Hence ...

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:I expect the when the 100 list is done there will be 15 guys that I thought should be in the Top 90 and yet did not make our Top 100 list.

And that would not be a notably large level of disagreement. Even within media lists that influence one another ...

Bill Simmons Book of Basketball (2nd ed, 2010)'s top 96 excluded the following from Slam (2011)'s top 100
Walt Bellamy (51st in Slam)
Joe Fulks (64th)
Gus Johnson (66th)
Alonzo Mourning (73rd)
Neil Johnston (75th)
Ed Macauley (81st)
Tim Hardaway (87th)
Mitch Richmond (89th)
Bob Love (92nd)
Jim Pollard (93rd)
Spencer Haywood (94th)
Dikembe Mutombo (95th)
Pau Gasol (96th)
Grant Hill (98th)
Buck Williams (100th)

Slam (2011, went 500 deep)'s top 100 excluded the following from Simmons

Dan Issel (76th TBoB, 106th Slam)
Paul Westphal (79, 141)
Robert Horry (84, 355)
Arvydas Sabonis (85, 331)
Shawn Kemp (88, 150)
Chris Paul (90, 107)
Bailey Howell (91, 125)
Kevin Johnson (93, 102)
JoJo White (95, 118)
Tom Chambers (96, 120)
(That's not counting Slam's forgetting Gail Goodrich)

And that's lists that I think (Simmons plausibly influenced by Slam's listings in 97, 03 and perhaps 09, Slam's surely influenced by Simmons').

Beckett (2010)'s top 50 excluded 8 of Simmons' top 50 in listing made in the same year

Bill Walton
Dwyane Wade
Dave Cowens
Sam Jones
Nate Thurmond
Dave DeBusschere
Paul Pierce
Hal Greer

And it's easier to come to a consensus on the top 50 where larger gaps mean it's less a matter of context (and even criteria differences don't make such a difference).