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? ). Tim Hardaway and Mark Price are the best long peak guys left.
Wings: Bill Sharman, 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 Bob Cousy, Bobby Jones, Billy Cunningham, or Dennis Rodman here though can be convinced otherwise.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Below is a statistical comparison of Cousy to the last four PG's voted in (though Iverson perhaps more of a SG), and all guys we're considerably far removed from: none voted in more recently than 13 places ago, one as far back as 31 places ago!?!
Peak PER (rs) Allen Iverson: 25.9 Kevin Johnson: 23.7 Chauncey Billups: 23.6 Isiah Thomas: 22.2 Bob Cousy: 21.7
Prime PER (rs) Allen Iverson: 21.9 Kevin Johnson: 21.5 Chauncey Billups: 20.5 Bob Cousy: 20.1 Isiah Thomas: 18.9
Career PER (rs) Allen Iverson: 20.9 Kevin Johnson: 20.7 Bob Cousy: 19.8 Chauncey Billups: 18.8 Isiah Thomas: 18.1
Prime PER (playoffs) Allen Iverson: 21.2 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 Allen Iverson: .190 Bob Cousy: .178 Isiah Thomas: .173
Prime WS/48 (rs) Chauncey Billups: .207 Kevin Johnson: .187 Allen Iverson: .139 (42.2 mpg) Bob Cousy: .139 (37.4 mpg) Isiah Thomas: .126
Career WS/48 (rs) Kevin Johnson: .178 Chauncey Billups: .176 Bob Cousy: .139 Allen Iverson: .126 Isiah Thomas: .109
Prime WS/48 (playoffs) Chauncey Billups: .197 Isiah Thomas: .143 Kevin Johnson: .124 Bob Cousy: .121 Allen Iverson: .109
Career rs WS Chauncey Billups: 120.8 Allen Iverson: 99.0 Kevin Johnson: 92.8 Bob Cousy: 91.1 Isiah Thomas: 80.7
Career playoff WS Chauncey Billups: 20.6 Isiah Thomas: 12.5 Kevin Johnson: 9.4 Bob Cousy: 9.1 Allen Iverson: 7.3
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 31 places ago!), so it's not as though he really even needs to be "in the mix" in order to be a valid selection here. At any rate, he is somewhat comparable statistically to these guys.
Here he is compared to a couple of the other perimeter players, one getting discussion, the other just voted in (Sam Jones and Bill Sharman):
Spoiler:
Peak PER (rs) Bob Cousy: 21.7 (41.5 mpg) Sam Jones: 21.7 (32.2 mpg) Bill Sharman: 19.8
Prime PER (rs) Bob Cousy: 20.1 Sam Jones: 19.1 Bill Sharman ('53-'60): 18.3
Career PER (rs) Bob Cousy: 19.8 Sam Jones: 18.7 (27.9 mpg--->this is a big factor to me) Bill Sharman: 18.2
Prime PER (playoffs) Bob Cousy: 18.0 (40.7 mpg) Sam Jones: 18.0 (36.4 mpg) Bill Sharman: 16.7
Peak WS/48 (rs) Sam Jones: .222 Bill Sharman: .207 Bob Cousy: .178
Prime WS/48 (rs) Sam Jones: .188 Bill Sharman: .181 Bob Cousy: .139
Career WS/48 (rs) Sam Jones: .182 Bill Sharman: .178 Bob Cousy: .139
Prime WS/48 (playoffs) Sam Jones: .170 Bill Sharman: .163 Bob Cousy: .121
Career rs WS Sam Jones: 92.3 Bob Cousy: 91.1 Bill Sharman: 82.8
Career playoff WS Sam Jones: 15.2 Bill Sharman: 9.3 Bob Cousy: 9.1
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:
I'm beginning to feel corners of this forum are getting bit too shooting efficiency-centric. Related to that, WS or WS/48 (which LOVE shooting efficiency like I love my wife---which is to say: a lot) is being pushed as the most accurately descriptive advanced stat by far over PER or any other metrics (except for RAPM where available, for the impact stat devotees). And I don't think it always paints an accurate picture. As a few "for instances" from more recent times:
Lakers '08 thru '10: Pau Gasol had a better WS/48 and OWS than Kobe in each of those years, and on pretty significant volume, too (for that matter, Andrew Bynum bested Kobe on one or two occasions, as well). But is anyone here willing to claim Pau (or Bynum) was offensively better or more important to that Laker offense than Kobe? Because such would sound ridiculous to me, as it seems very plain [to me] that the triangle offense ran off of Kobe (much in the same way it ran off of Jordan in Chicago). And fwiw, ORAPM very clearly supports my opinion that Kobe was the most important offensive character on those teams (Bynum being no where even close; was actually an offensive negative, despite what WS say).
But perhaps Kobe is too different of a player type to Cousy. Then how about Jason Kidd? Note the similarities: both had mediocre or poor shooting efficiency (well, Cousy really not early in his career; is only in his late years), though still had some high-ish shooting volumes; both were considered the offensive catalysts for their teams despite their offensive advanced metrics sometimes looking sub-stellar; both were facilitators on teams better known for their defense; both were fantastic transition passers/facilitators. On that note....
'02 Nets: Jason Kidd's OWS/48 was .049. Kerry Kittles' was .070. Lucius Harris and Todd MacCulloch (in a reduced minute roles) had OWS/48 of .093 and .099, respectively. Now does anyone actually believe any of these guys was a better offensive player, or rather, was more important to their offense than Kidd in '02? Kidd's shooting efficiency was terrible (ts -3.6% to league average, while taking more FGA/g than anyone else on the team), and OWS or OWS/48 would have us reject outright the notion that Kidd was most important offensive player on that team; WS/48 might even have us question who was the best player overall on that team. But contemporary popular opinion at the time placed Kidd as far and away the best player on the team; eye-test today would do the same. PI ORAPM.....has to be terrible, right? No way it could be good while shooting so poorly, right?.........Actually, tied for 4th in the league that year (5th in league in combined RAPM).
'03 Nets: Kerry Kittles' OWS/48: .103 Richard Jefferson OWS/48: .090 Jason Kidd OWS/48: .088 His shooting is much better (actually marginally ahead of league avg ts this year); he again led the team in FGA/g. Here again OWS would call into question who was the best/most important offensive player on their team (Jefferson playing just 1.4 mpg fewer than Kidd, too). But again, at the time (and eye-test today likely to say the same) there was no question who was driving that bus. PI ORAPM? Again tied for 4th-best in league (and well ahead of anyone else on his team: Jefferson was actually a slight negative); also once again 5th in league in combined RAPM.
'04 Nets: Kidd's shooting was back to putrid (ts -3.1% to league avg), though he still once again leads team in FGA/g. Jason Kidd OWS/48: .055 Richard Jefferson OWS/48: .100 (and in marginally more mpg, too) Kittles very close at .052, as well. Again, just not quite consistent with perception. PI ORAPM? Kidd is tied for 10th in the league, well ahead of anyone else on his team, and ahead of some efficient scorers such as Ray Allen, fwiw.
I bring this up to emphasize that shooting efficiency (and related OWS) isn't the only yard-stick, and for some guys it appears the advanced metrics REALLY give a false impression.
General consensus seems to be that Sharman was a better defender than Cousy. And that's not a new impression; from what I've read that's consistent with in-era peer accounts, as well as media accounts of the time. So if Sharman was an equal (or better) offensive player as well, why is it that Cousy was consistently---by both media AND professional peers---considered to be the better player? Media voted on the All-NBA teams, and bestowed Cousy more highly and/or frequently than Sharman (despite the fact that he frequently scored more ppg than Cousy, and fans/media---especially then---seemed to attach a lot of value to points). Their professional peers---the players---voted for the MVP....and they consistently thought more highly of Cousy than Sharman.
People seemed to recognize Sharman as the more scrappy defender, AND he was often scoring more ppg (and on better shooting%, too).....yet no one seemed to think Sharman was the better or more important player. Are we to believe this is ALL just because Cousy was getting "style points" (for the better part of a decade)? Seems a bit of a stretch to me.
I think this is one of those cases where WS is not at all painting an accurate picture of what was going on. And unfortunately so little game footage from the 50's is publicly available to apply the eye-test too. Though even in watching Celtic games from '62 (just after Sharman is gone), it still appears that the offense flows thru Bob Cousy, even though he's past his prime by this point.
So....a word of caution on taking WS/48 (and the shooting efficiency it has such a casual relationship with) at face-value, yeah?
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 #70: Bob Cousy.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
The guys with 11+ seasons of WS/48 at or above .144 (which was a touch over 2000 player seasons when I compiled this, I think a couple of summers ago)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 18 John Stockton 18 Karl Malone 17 Tim Duncan 16 Reggie Miller 16 Shaquille O'Neal 15 Charles Barkley 15 Hakeem Olajuwon 15 Kevin Garnett 14 Kobe Bryant 14 Wilt Chamberlain 13 David Robinson 13 Dirk Nowitzki 13 Oscar Robertson 13 Moses Malone 13 Paul Pierce 13 Robert Parish 13 Bill Russell 12 Earvin "Magic" Johnson 12 Jerry West 12 Adrian Dantley 12 Ray Allen 12 Michael Jordan 11 Larry Bird 11 Bob Pettit 11 Bob Lanier 11 Larry Nance 11 Steve Nash 11 Bailey Howell 11 Detlef Schrempf 11
Mostly all in those that aren't should be in contention soon (Schrempf and Howell)
Same list for PER seasons above 17.9
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 18 John Stockton 17 Karl Malone 17 Shaquille O'Neal 17 Kevin Garnett 17 Tim Duncan 16 Hakeem Olajuwon 16 Kobe Bryant 16 Moses Malone 16 Charles Barkley 15 Paul Pierce 14 Clyde Drexler 14 Wilt Chamberlain 13 Dirk Nowitzki 13 Robert Parish 13 Michael Jordan 13 David Robinson 12 Oscar Robertson 12 Earvin "Magic" Johnson 12 Jerry West 12 Larry Bird 12 Steve Nash 12 Patrick Ewing 12 Dominique Wilkins 12 Allen Iverson 12 Adrian Dantley 11 Bob Pettit 11 Bob Lanier 11 Larry Nance 11 Pau Gasol 11 Elgin Baylor 11 Vince Carter 11 Chris Webber 11 Alex English 11
All in bar Webber. Webber has only 5 seasons over the WS/48 bar. Howell has 10 over the PER bar, Schrempf 7.
Nance has a solid consensus from the metrics he was good or better for a long time. He's a player with portability - particularly to good teams as he is defined not by volume scoring but D, efficiency, low mistakes, a leader, a solid passer, and as time went on spacing as he became a strong 15-18 feet jump shooter and was generally offensively versatile (post game, drive, transition, off the ball and the J, all appear to have been solid options).
From other earlier thread discussions, wins above good from the contenders (at that point, plus top numbers guys)
Wins Above Good (the same bar as before but rewards minutes and the distance over that bar)
WS-WAG Neil Johnston 37.50535 Bailey Howell 26.02558 Sidney Moncrief 23.0294 Walt Bellamy 20.93269 Sam Jones 19.9995 Amar'e Stoudemire 18.79104 Larry Nance 18.67998 Bob McAdoo 18.40183 Shawn Marion 18.08771 Elton Brand 17.67381 Marques Johnson 16.40483 Shawn Kemp 15.98746 Grant Hill 11.53165 Jack Sikma 10.18433 Wes Unseld 10.12033 Terrell Brandon 8.899083 Dennis Rodman 8.412583 Rasheed Wallace 6.774042 Bill Walton 6.547875 Bernard King 6.473833 Vlade Divac 3.322479 Bob Cousy 3.230292
Cousy still missing first year data. Moncrief and Jones have gone. Only Howell of those above Nance isn't a guy thought to be worse than their numbers (Johnston, Bellamy and STAT), and he too deserves consideration here. Still I think I prefer Nance's rounded game.
EWA-WAG
Neil Johnston 62.31428 Elton Brand 56.76358 Amar'e Stoudemire 53.01318 Bob McAdoo 49.68881 Walt Bellamy 47.441 Grant Hill 42.28965 Shawn Marion 37.39274 Larry Nance 33.13085 Shawn Kemp 32.23035 Marques Johnson 31.59547 Bob Cousy 29.94303 Terrell Brandon 26.5204 Bernard King 24.73716 Bailey Howell 23.32214 Sidney Moncrief 18.29985 Bill Walton 15.57692 Jack Sikma 12.07736 Sam Jones 10.72607 Rasheed Wallace 8.006766 Vlade Divac 6.38592 Wes Unseld 0.0602488 Dennis Rodman 0
McAdoo is off the board, as is Hill. Johnston, STAT and Bellamy again. Brand has had my backing but it seems like he's not on anyone's radar and he's overshadowed within his era so I'll hold off for the moment. Marion also a legit contender but some people have concerns about Marion's numbers being inflated by system/Nash and whilst I don't entirely agree, there may be some merit and I certainly wouldn't feel confident entirely rebutting it.
Nance is a great third option (offensively) for a contender (and played an important role on some really good when healthy Cleveland teams (most notably the '89 Cavs who posted a league leading 7.95 SRS on slow pace, and looked like the favourites until a vicious Mahorn elbow concussed Price late in the season, but also the 92 and 93 teams).
I don't know about anchoring arguments but FWIW looking at the numbers is there any real gap between Nance and McHale http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 4=&p5=&p6= (McHale has playoff WS advantage, but arguably that's due to superior teammates).
There's a few guys I'm looking at (including) Brand, Howell, Marion, maybe Bobby Jones and dynasty Celtics Cousy, Sharman and Howell (probably should start looking at Hagan too ...).
For combined seasons; played in the NBA/BAA; in the regular season; from 1946-47 to 2014-15; requiring Minutes Played >= 20000 and True Shooting Pct >= 0.550; sorted by descending Points Per Game.
This list is about who scored the most points per game efficiently ( ts% over 55 ). I am only listing players not already on our list. Number is where they rank on this list.
14: Bernard King 24: Mitch Richmond 26: Dan Issell 27: Amare Stoudemire 28: Walt Bellamy 29: Marques Johnson 32: Kiki Vandeweghe 34: Chris Bosh 35: Brad Daugherty 36: Michael Redd 38: Walter Davis 42: Glen Rice 44: Chris Mullin 45: Rolando Blackmon 48: James Worthy 49: Deron Williams 50: Kelly Tripuka
53: Larry Nance
54: Tony Parker 55: Peja Stojakovic 57: Carlos Boozer 58: Larry Johnson 59: Joe Dumars 60: Correy Maggette 61: Orlando Woolridge 62: Dale Ellis 64: Paul Westphal 66: David Lee 67: Mark Price 68: Jason Terry 69: Rashard Lewis 70: Ricky Pierce
Unguardable in his prime. He's got 4 seasons where he averages at least 24.8 points and 6.8 assists. He later became the heady leader of a multi-polar Boston Celtic squad which contended throughout Nate's time there, peaking with a title in 1981. Excellent free throw shooter, unselfish, and doesn't have problems other 1970s stars had aside from injuries.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
I don't have time at the moment to go in depth here, but in short:
-Jones has a reputation as a "take nothing off the table" guy. Played very hard, did a lot of very nice things. -In previous project, to those doubting his impact, what I've pointed out is that when Denver came to the NBA and had the best defense around, it was on the back of Jones. Their defensive signature was in causing turnovers, and Jones was the main guy doing that. When they fell off in that regard, so did their defense. This is important because when we see a guy getting blocks and steals, it's worth asking if he's burning his own team with gambles. In Jones' case, the evidence tells us that this was far from the case with him. The team needed precisely what he gave, and really, there were very few if any other guys who could give it. -That wasn't enough to sway everyone, but with the Pollack 76er data we've seen come out this year (thank fpliii) it seems like Jones was a +/- monster.
There is of course the issue of Jones' limited minutes, and that's not nothing, but down at the 70th spot, I think what you'll find is that the candidates with totally adequate durability and longevity are either voted in, or have some clear cut weaknesses too.
Vote: Bernard King He is simply the best scorer not already selected for the list. He was so efficient and had such a high peak. King's defense with the Knicks looked above average to me. Nets, Warriors and Knicks teams were better when King was on their team than they were the year before or after King was on their team. The Knicks made King their team captain. Not every player is lucky enough to play with quality teammates and winning cultures. Berard King seems to be the player left that could most help any team in NBA history if added to that team.
- 14 year career - 4x all NBA (2 1st, 1 2nd, 1 3rd) - 1 top 3 and 1 top 10 MVP finish - 1x scoring champ
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.
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.
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."
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.
I don't have time at the moment to go in depth here, but in short:
-Jones has a reputation as a "take nothing off the table" guy. Played very hard, did a lot of very nice things. -In previous project, to those doubting his impact, what I've pointed out is that when Denver came to the NBA and had the best defense around, it was on the back of Jones. Their defensive signature was in causing turnovers, and Jones was the main guy doing that. When they fell off in that regard, so did their defense. This is important because when we see a guy getting blocks and steals, it's worth asking if he's burning his own team with gambles. In Jones' case, the evidence tells us that this was far from the case with him. The team needed precisely what he gave, and really, there were very few if any other guys who could give it. -That wasn't enough to sway everyone, but with the Pollack 76er data we've seen come out this year (thank fpliii) it seems like Jones was a +/- monster.
There is of course the issue of Jones' limited minutes, and that's not nothing, but down at the 70th spot, I think what you'll find is that the candidates with totally adequate durability and longevity are either voted in, or have some clear cut weaknesses too.
Does Nance? He's got about 6500 (RS) minutes on Jones and might be slightly better boxscore wise (per minute).
Though we don't don't know about plus minus, where Jones is strong. So I thought I'd do a quick with/without.
'87: with Nance (69 games) -71, -1.029 per game without Nance (13 games) - 129, -9.923076923. Small sample but that team looks pretty bad without Nance.
I might look at '85 but there's an awful lot of moving pieces (Nance played the most minutes of anyone on the Suns at 2202, and he missed 21 games) so it figures to be very noisy. '88 he misses a few games but the trade has a few pieces that make that noisy. Maybe I'll look at a few smaller absences.
On King's D
Rick Barry's Pro Basketball Scouting Report 89-90 wrote:In bygone days, King's defense was predicated on the reasonable assumption that hew wouldoutscore his man. If his man scored 25 - so what! King more than likely scored 30-plus. But as his average has dropped, it's pretty much a wash; he'll score 20 but his man can easily score the same. The problem is that his lateral movement is severely compromised by the injury. King was an awesome rebounder as a collegiate (Tennessee) and in his early years in the pros (9.5 a game in his rookie year). But these days, at 32 years old (33 in December), with a reconstructed knee, he's below-average (4.7 a game) for his position. Defense Grade: C
That was from summer '89. The next year he was a B-, then a C again (summer '91), C ('92). So not a good defender post injury. There's suggestions there that earlier he wasn't committed to D though it's hard to get a confident read.
I don't have time at the moment to go in depth here, but in short:
-Jones has a reputation as a "take nothing off the table" guy. Played very hard, did a lot of very nice things. -In previous project, to those doubting his impact, what I've pointed out is that when Denver came to the NBA and had the best defense around, it was on the back of Jones. Their defensive signature was in causing turnovers, and Jones was the main guy doing that. When they fell off in that regard, so did their defense. This is important because when we see a guy getting blocks and steals, it's worth asking if he's burning his own team with gambles. In Jones' case, the evidence tells us that this was far from the case with him. The team needed precisely what he gave, and really, there were very few if any other guys who could give it. -That wasn't enough to sway everyone, but with the Pollack 76er data we've seen come out this year (thank fpliii) it seems like Jones was a +/- monster.
There is of course the issue of Jones' limited minutes, and that's not nothing, but down at the 70th spot, I think what you'll find is that the candidates with totally adequate durability and longevity are either voted in, or have some clear cut weaknesses too.
Does Nance? He's got about 6500 (RS) minutes on Jones and might be slightly better boxscore wise (per minute).
Though we don't don't know about plus minus, where Jones is strong. So I thought I'd do a quick with/without.
'87: with Nance (69 games) -71, -1.029 per game without Nance (13 games) - 129, -9.923076923. Small sample but that team looks pretty bad without Nance.
I might look at '85 but there's an awful lot of moving pieces (Nance played the most minutes of anyone on the Suns at 2202, and he missed 21 games) so it figures to be very noisy. '88 he misses a few games but the trade has a few pieces that make that noisy. Maybe I'll look at a few smaller absences.
I don't think Nance qualifies as "totally adequate" on that front either, but certainly he's got a case to be ranked over Jones.
I've always been pretty impressed with Nance, but I don't tend to classify him in that category of "everyone loved that guy as a huge team guy, and analytical analysis makes him look even better than I thought" where I have guys like Jones and Ginobili.
Rick Barry's Pro Basketball Scouting Report 89-90 wrote:In bygone days, King's defense was predicated on the reasonable assumption that hew wouldoutscore his man. If his man scored 25 - so what! King more than likely scored 30-plus. But as his average has dropped, it's pretty much a wash; he'll score 20 but his man can easily score the same. The problem is that his lateral movement is severely compromised by the injury. King was an awesome rebounder as a collegiate (Tennessee) and in his early years in the pros (9.5 a game in his rookie year). But these days, at 32 years old (33 in December), with a reconstructed knee, he's below-average (4.7 a game) for his position. Defense Grade: C
That was from summer '89. The next year he was a B-, then a C again (summer '91), C ('92). So not a good defender post injury. There's suggestions there that earlier he wasn't committed to D though it's hard to get a confident read.
How many young great scorers play good defense on bad teams? Pre Knicks King may not have done as well at defense as he should have. The Warriors did win 45 games once with King. As Barry sort of says once you lose your lateral mobility playing good defense is a very difficult; so Bullets King has a bit of an excuse for playing bad defense.
Knicks play 4 games vs the 1983 76ers. The series has no blow out victories. Erving is held to 17 points a game at 40% shooting. Presumably King is guarding Dr J. Erving averaged 21.5 points a game at 51.5 FG% http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#PHI-NYK
King as a Knick holds Bird a bit below his normal numbers during the regular season. In the playoffs Bird scorches the Knicks while King has his fabulous scoring primarily vs Maxwell who is a very good defender. http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 2=birdla01
Let's look at a comparison of Bernard King vs. James Worthy. These guys should be the next small forwards in, I think, but I'd side with Worthy for now. King certainly had a higher peak, but Worthy has a longevity edge (nearly 5000 MP), and he is ahead in several career-spanning metrics:
WS: Worthy 81.2, King 75.4 WS/48: Worthy .130, King .123 PER: King 19.2, Worthy 17.7 Net O/D: Worthy +4, King +1 BPM: Worthy 1.7, King 1.6 VORP: Worthy 27.9, King 26.4
Obviously King had those godly playoffs in 1983 and 1984, but Worthy was rightly known as a playoff star in his own right.
Postseason WS: Worthy 14.8, King 3.4 Postseason WS/48: King .173, Worthy .138 Postseason PER: King 22.2, Worthy 18.3 Postseason Net O/D: King +6, Worthy +5
Consider that Worthy had playoff O+ from 1985 onward of 8.07 (12.05 from 1985-89) on a Score+ of 2.072 (3.338 from 1985-89), and those are obviously big sample sizes, and those career numbers are likely to go up if we include his 1984 season. I won't post King's numbers (they are negative) as they only include 2 brief postseason appearances and miss his supernova years. They are likely to be very good in their own right, though (probably superior to Worthy, though not sure until I impute the relevant missing data for pre-1985 years).
In head-to-head comparisons of these guys against other leading 80s small forwards (Bird, Erving, Dantley, English, Aguirre, Marques Johnson, Nique), here are some summary stats taken from this spreadsheet:
King:
77 wins, 121 losses on +0.16 SRS above expectations Relative PPG down 0.93, opponent relative PPG up 0.03 (net -0.64 PPG vs. opponent) Relative RPG down 0.86, opponent relative RPG down 0.06 (only available from 1987 on, net -2.17 RPG vs. opponent) Relative APG down 0.28, opponent relative APG up 0.01 (only available from 1987 on, net -0.35 APG vs. opponent) TS down 1.84%, opponent TS up 0.15% (only available from 1983 on, net -0.72% TS vs. opponent)
Worthy:
131 wins, 64 losses on +1.47 SRS above expectations Relative PPG up 1.23, opponent relative PPG down 1.25 (net -4.03 PPG vs. opponent) Relative RPG up 0.20, opponent relative RPG up 0.27 (only available from 1986 on, net -0.29 RPG vs. opponent) Relative APG up 0.20, opponent relative APG down 0.38 (only available from 1986 on, net -0.24 APG vs. opponent) TS down 0.05%, opponent TS down 0.38% (net +2.59% TS vs. opponent)
So while Worthy tended to be outscored by big-time SFs (though he had a sizable edge in efficiency), he increased his scoring output and his opponents saw a dip in their output and efficiency, and there was no real difference in rebounds or assists. King was also outscored by his SF opponents (though by much less and also on slightly worse efficiency), and his opponents did not see any dropoff in their production or efficiency when facing him. I don't want to read too much into the rebounding or assist statistics as they only account for his post-injury years. Still, it appears that "Big Game James" had a notable bump in his production and a notable decrease in that of his opponents, even during the regular season.
I've got a lot of respect for King and prefer him as a player (he's probably one of my top 20 favorite ever players), but I'm not sure I'd have him ahead of James Worthy.
I'll go ahead and cast my vote for Bob Cousy again, for the reasons outlined in the previous thread:
Spoiler:
I think trex has done a good job of backing him. I think he was a brilliant offensive player who we risk underestimating because Boston's most successful teams did not dominate offensively and their style of play may have contributed to him having relatively poor efficiency. His statistical footprint changed throughout his tenure in Boston: from 1952-57 he generally put up 22+ points per 100 possessions on above average efficiency, his efficiency dipped thereafter (though so did his true shot attempts) but his assists per 100 possessions went up (8.92 from 1952-1955, 8.70 from 1956-1959, 9.53 from 1960-1963). He was the engine that drove the Boston offense, and showed himself to be more than capable of fueling league-leading offenses early on.
Happy to see some support for Larry Nance, one of my favorite players. He's currently #88 on my list, but I'd definitely be open to bumping him up. As it stands, I'm very open to changing my vote to Worthy, and also potentially open to Rodman, Neil Johnston, Bill Walton, and Bernard King. Not sold on Tiny or Bobby Jones yet, though I should look into them more closely, it seems.
Hoping to see some support for the following other guys soon:
Joe Dumars Ben Wallace Maurice Cheeks Bill Sharman Horace Grant
Do good win shares stats somewhat require a winning team? For combined seasons; played in the NBA/BAA; in the playoffs; from 1982-83 to 2014-15; requiring Minutes Played >= 300; sorted by descending Win Shares Per 48 Minutes.
1 Jordan 2 LeBron 3 Dejuan Blair 4 Magic 5 Chris Anderson 6 David Robinson 7 Duncan 8 Dirk 9 Barkley 10 Durant 11 Hakeem 12 C Paul 13 D Howard 14 Billups 15 Bernard King
16 Kawhi Leonard 17 Shaq 18 Reggie Miller 19 Tiago Splitter 20 Moses Malone 21 Baron Davis 22 Larry Bird 23 Elton Brand 25 Adrian Dantley 26 Jeff Foster 27 Johny Moore 28 Manu Ginobli 29 Kevin McHale
33 Dwayne Wade 35 John Stockton 38 Horrace Grant 44 John Salley 45 Bradley Beal 52 Kevin Garnett
53 Larry Nance
75 Scottie Pippen 94 James Worthy
Obviously there are serious defects with the win shares formula which this career playoff Win Shares per 48 stat list is revealing. what are Dejuan Blair and Tiaggo Splitter doing so high up on this list?
Still Bernard King is 15th while James Worthy is 94th.
“Bernard King was the toughest matchup of my career. And I say that from the heart.” –Julius Erving [HOF 1993]
“Bernard King… is the best forward in the league, hands down”. – Larry Bird [HOF 1998]
“We are just in awe of Bernard” — Isiah Thomas [HOF 2000]
Now consider that Larry and Isiah’s praise came before the 1984 playoffs and epic Showdown in Motown where
KING AVERAGED 42 PLAYOFF POINTS ON 60% SHOOTING!
No other player in NBA history has ever averaged over 40 playoff points on 60% shooting in the playoffs – not Wilt in ‘62, not Jerry in ‘65, and not Michael in ‘88. Not Kareem, Shaq, Kobe, or Lebron.
Only Bernard King.
King also did it while battling Isiah, the flu, and dislocated fingers in both hands.
Afterwards, King was asked about his “hot streak”. Bernard asked back:
Like ronnymac says - he was unstoppable at his peak (remarkable scorer and playmaker, led the best offense in the NBA in the '72-'73 season), and despite injuries, still was able to put together a nice career - about 6-year prime (averaged about 27/3/9 on 54.5% TS between '72 and '77), and then became one of the key players on a contender (even a championship team in '81) in Boston. His career arc reminds me of Grant Hill's, but Archibald's peak was even better, and so were his post-prime contributions.
6-time All-Star, 3-time All-NBA 1st team, 2-time All-NBA 2nd team, 54th in career MVP shares.
King or Worthy. Or Rodman. Or Jones. Or Cousy. Or maybe this is the point we bring up Walton, or Penny. I'm genuinely on the fence here. Somebody convince me one of these guys is better than the others, please...
There is no consolation prize. Winning is everything.
Ben Wallace, Dennis Rodman, Larry Nance, Bobby Jones, Shawn Marion
Why Wallace? Time after time, stronger analytics have emphasized the role of the shot blocking defensive intimidator being more valuable than any other defensive skill. Wallace is the epitome of this role and a multiple DPOY who anchored a defensive powerhouse NBA title team.
Why not? Arguably the worst offensive player to ever start in the NBA. Didn't impress after he left the Pistons.
Why Rodman? GOAT rebounder, excellent defender (still good defender during peak rebounding years even if he cheated off his man at times), a key piece on championship teams in both Detroit and Chicago.
Why not? Headcase and disruptive force. Brings very little offensively.
Why Nance? He (or Kirilenko) is the greatest shotblocking non-center ever. Very efficient offensive player who could score at a reasonable level, passed well, good moving without the ball. Won the first NBA slam dunk contest over Julius Erving among others.
Why not? Always a complimentary player. Stats dropped in the playoffs. Average rebounder. Didn't create shots.
Why Bobby Jones? More 1st team all-defense awards than anyone else in NBA history. Extremely versatile, able to play C, PF (played a lot of both in Denver), SF, and even SG (next to Julius Erving in Philly). Very efficient offensive player, good passer, extremely high motor. Willing to sacrifice own minutes and ego for the team, even willing to come of the bench. Was best player on the team with the best record in the ABA in 1975, consistent winner throughout his career.
Why not Bobby Jones? Not a volume scorer or strong rebounder. Played limited minutes throughout his career.
Why Shawn Marion? One of the best rebounding SFs ever, excellent defender both in man and in help, versatile enough to play 3 positions, when Amare went down with an injury, he and Nash kept Phoenix rolling without missing a beat, was a good roleplayer post-prime including the primary defender role frustrating LeBron James in Dallas's NBA title. Great off ball explosive player who can lead team in scoring without having to run isos for him.
Why not Marion? More efficient with Nash than without; whined a bit in Phoenix and was ineffective when first traded away until he adjusted to his new role. Production dropped off in the playoffs.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
lukekarts wrote:I'm torn in so many directions right now.
King or Worthy. Or Rodman. Or Jones. Or Cousy. Or maybe this is the point we bring up Walton, or Penny. I'm genuinely on the fence here. Somebody convince me one of these guys is better than the others, please...
The case for King: Peak ('84,''85), playoffs (including impressive series versus very good teams - Philly '83, Boston '84) The case against the case for the for King: Length of peak (1 and 2/3rds seasons, then at best "merely" good by the boxscore, in a player whose best contributions were boxscore), playoffs are very good but a small sample (4 series, one a 2 game mini-series).
The case against King: Substance abuse issues especially the major related incident. The manner in which so many teams gave up on him. See for instance the Hollander profiles ... (also covered here his D)
Hollander Complete Handbook of Basketball wrote:78 (written summer 77) Attitude is a question, but the ability is there ... hasn't bothered much with defense yet
79 (written summer 78) [Team level D analysis] Man to man the defense is weak ... King is too busy scoring points
Trouble with police in Tennessee and a one game suspension handed out by Loughery for being late to practice did not help his image. 80 (written summer 79) [Team D level analysis] In what Loughery calls his trapping defense, George Johnson isi able to remain in the middle and wat away a lot of shots. After leading the league in blocked shots two years ago, he slipped to second last season. Van Breda Kolff thinks defense and so does another strong forward, Tim Bassett, which still doesn't make up for King.
His most remarkable statistic is that he didn't miss a game despite all his brushes with the law, traffic problem [sic] and knack of falling asleep at the strangest places and times.
-[also there's a comparison with John Drew here, which might be an interesting comparison] 81 (written summer 80) [After that year, the background is assumed to be known] Trouble, trouble hopefully all behind him. Bernard has been reactivated and makes a fresh start ... He's in a rehabilitation program and is in Alcoholics Anonymous. 82 (written summer 81) [Team D analysis] King hustles
His longest season is over ... One of the few guys who ever got a second chance and made the most of it ... During summer of '80 his life was a wreck: he as an admitted alcoholic, he had endured a very messy trial in Salt Lake City converning a morals violation, and he was not wanted by one of the worst teams in the game, the Utah Jazz ... Attacked the problems one by one, drying out in a California home for alcoholics, falling in love with an understanding school teacher , and enduring the ritual of playing in the California Summer League to prove he could still do it ... The Warriors were impressed enough to send Wayne Cooper to Utah for him. 83 (written summer 82) [same sentiment as prior year] 84 (written summer 83) [shorter recap of "the King story", but still basically the same] 85 (written summer 84) Net ownership thought him too risky and sent him to Utah, where his drinking problem caught up with him ... Knicks got him for Michael Ray Richardson and obviously got better of the deal 86 (written summer 85) [nothing on personality or D, obviously high praise for his game at this point] 87 (written summer 86) His personality, always on the arrogant side, worsened ... Refused to let media, teammates or management know exactly how his rehab was coming along ... Team captain attended very few games, annoying some execs and teammates ... Scheduled to earn $874,000, but there are indications he wants a raise. How's that for nerve? 88 (written summer 87) Ego is as large as the Empire State Building ... Played in six games after sitting out two years with knee injury, then declared "I'm terrific" and was looking for new contract for over million a year ... Angered teammates because he stayed away from practice and games ... Won them over when he stepped back on the court
Major chemistry/PR risk (and you can't bring him back or get much for him if anything like Utah happens). Anecdotaly D peaked at above average (GS) but was more typically average/not noteworthy one way or the other (NYK) but was quite a bit worse at the start and ends of his career (NJ, Utah, Bullets). The case against the case against King: High peaks give you a (relatively speaking) large boost in championship probability. King at his apex was a scorer extrodinaire (high volume, high efficiency, low turnovers). In his best years, the years that make his career noteworthy (NYK playing era, and to a lesser degree the Warriors), character wasn't percieved to be an issue, nor was his D.
Worthy The case for Worthy: Efficiency, Playoffs The case against the case for Worthy: He's playing with Magic (suddenly "aged", percentages plummeted when Magic retired). He's playing a fast paced, fast break system. The West during most of Worthy's prime was full of patsies (and arguably weak defenses, by vague conference based reputation though you'd have to look opponent by opponent), artificially boosting his scoring volume and efficiency. Then in the playoffs, whilst elite first option types suffer because of additional attention he arguably benefits from the extra attention paid to Magic and Abdul-Jabbar. One might argue that (like Isiah) his improvement in the playoffs is from a solid but unremarkable baseline.
The case against Worthy: Absence of elite RS peak. Longevity?(9 good years). Beneficary of Magic and of Showtime legacy Halo effect? Game, though a better defender than most (all?) the 80s scoring SFs, wasn't that rounded - and he wasn't that big of a scorer, lack of accolades The case against the case against Worthy: Playoffs? (see above arguments- see where you come out; also we'll all weigh playoffs differently anyhow) some might feel his playoffs were sufficiently good (over a large sample) that the lack of either a substantial peak and great longevity are unimportant. The counterargument to the points about being a beneficiary of playing with Magic (and Jabbar) and Showtime's legacy is perhaps elsewhere he would have been allowed to score more. The lack of accolades (2x All NBA 3rd team, only in one year getting MVP votes getting 7 points - a unanimous 1st choice would have scored 780 cf: http://www.apbr.org/nbamvps.html) probably isn't felt to be a huge issue here because I suspect most here consider that such things are perhaps useful supporting evidence but not a particularly effective measure of quality of play.
Despite King's better peak, I think I'd favour Worthy, because of more quality years; better, specifically, more consistent, defense and without the intangiable concerns.
Okay, this took a while, may look at other comparisons and cases if I get time.
). Tim Hardaway and Mark Price are the best long peak guys left. 
