RealGM Top 100 List #80

[penbeast0]

PG: Tony Parker and Mookie Blaylock are the two I'm looking at. Parker for how much he contributed to the greatest run of this century so far; Blaylock for his defense and 3 point shooting (a skill much underestimated in his day). Hal Greer was a combo guard but his accolades put him in this discussion as well (and he has more accolades than any other guards except maybe Sharman). Mo Cheeks, Tim Hardaway, and Mark Price get a mention . . . maybe Penny Hardaway though he never impressed me as much as he did the TV guys of his day.

Forwards: Marques Johnson and Chris Mullin would be the main scorers; maybe Carmelo Anthony though between his season of discontent in Denver and his playoff numbers, I'd have to be persuaded. Billy Cunningham, Bob Dandridge, Chet Walker, and Mitch Richmond also come to mind.

Bigs: Mel Daniels has 2 MVPs and 3 rings, albeit in a weaker league; similarly Neil Johnston has the best raw numbers in an even weaker league than Daniels. Amare Stoudamire and Jerry Lucas bring great numbers but defensive questions (Johnston is defensively questionable too); Bill Walton has the highest peak (though that's it for true career value -- 1 year then failed to stay healthy to the playoffs the next and 1 year as a reserve role player). Rasheed Wallace got support earlier though I've never been a fan of his.

There are a lot of other good players but as we are into the last quarter, that's my short list.

Chris Mullin v. Marques Johnson; Mel Daniels v. Neil Johnston; Tony Parker v. Mookie Blaylock; Jerry Lucas v. Chris Webber; those are the other comps I am looking at and would love feedback on.

By the boxscore numbers I go for Jerry Lucas or Chris Mullin. By the eye test I go for Mel Daniels or Marques Johnson.

VOTE Mel Daniels. Not as impressive statistically as Marques Johnson (or Jerry Lucas/Chris Webber) but has a strong defensive impact (more of a Moses Malone/Wes Unseld type as he wasn't a great shotblocker), excellent rebounding, good if not great offense, and came across similarly to Alonzo Mourning when you watched him as just a pure warrior type.

[Joao Saraiva]

My vote goes to Bill Walton.

Peaked higher than anyone left, won the MVP award, the finals MVP award and even had good contribution from the bench in Boston.

I think his lack of longevity has been punished enough, and he deserves to be in this list.

[Owly]

First instinct is to look at Sharman and Bailey Howell, but I need to think about this one. I guess I'd give some consideration to Bellamy and Johnston, maybe Sikma. There'll be others. I think might listen to arguments, look at it more.

[penbeast0]

Is Walton's 1.5 years as an MVP caliber player (plus one year as a reserve) worth more than Mel Daniels' 7.5 years of All-Pro NBA play including 2 MVPs? Walton was unquestionably better but I just find Daniels' longer window enough at his ABA MVP (though worth clearly less than NBA MVP) level to be superior.

It's just too difficult to build around Walton in the hopes that you have a team that is healthy, peaking, and without dissension in the one year he stays healthy enough to make it to the playoffs when he demands to be a max money player for 5-8 years despite never being healthy. Portland did it and Jack Ramsey deserves a ton of credit; I think it's easier to build a champion within Daniels' 4 year prime where he was a league leading rebounder, strong defensive force, and solid scorer though never up to Walton's level as a passer or shotblocker.

Similarly Neil Johnston is clearly a superior scorer relative to his league than Mel Daniels. However, the NBA in the 50s to me seems weaker than the ABA from 69-73 when Daniels starred and Johnston's defense was not strong from what I have read. Then Johnston's scoring (like so many great scoring, weak defense bigs) didn't seem to correlate strongly with team success, unlike his teammate Paul Arizin. Daniels has a good defensive rep (albeit as a bit of a thug) and his play correlated to 3 ABA titles (though George McGinnis was the star on the third one and Roger Brown played the Paul Pierce to Daniels' Kevin Garnett on the 1st two). Similar arguments apply to Walt Bellamy (NY trades him for Dave DeBusschere and NY clearly improves while Detroit gets worse, particularly defensively) plus Bellamy was not liked by his coaches or teammates though his longevity is better.

So, I support Mel Daniels over Walton, Johnston, or Bellamy.

[Joao Saraiva]

Is Walton's 1.5 years as an MVP caliber player (plus one year as a reserve) worth more than Mel Daniels' 7.5 years of All-Pro NBA play including 2 MVPs? Walton was unquestionably better but I just find Daniels' longer window enough at his ABA MVP (though worth clearly less than NBA MVP) level to be superior.

It's just too difficult to build around Walton in the hopes that you have a team that is healthy, peaking, and without dissension in the one year he stays healthy enough to make it to the playoffs when he demands to be a max money player for 5-8 years despite never being healthy. Portland did it and Jack Ramsey deserves a ton of credit; I think it's easier to build a champion within Daniels' 4 year prime where he was a league leading rebounder, strong defensive force, and solid scorer though never up to Walton's level as a passer or shotblocker.

Similarly Neil Johnston is clearly a superior scorer relative to his league than Mel Daniels. However, the NBA in the 50s to me seems weaker than the ABA from 69-73 when Daniels starred and Johnston's defense was not strong from what I have read. Then Johnston's scoring (like so many great scoring, weak defense bigs) didn't seem to correlate strongly with team success, unlike his teammate Paul Arizin. Daniels has a good defensive rep (albeit as a bit of a thug) and his play correlated to 3 ABA titles (though George McGinnis was the star on the third one and Roger Brown played the Paul Pierce to Daniels' Kevin Garnett on the 1st two). Similar arguments apply to Walt Bellamy (NY trades him for Dave DeBusschere and NY clearly improves while Detroit gets worse, particularly defensively) plus Bellamy was not liked by his coaches or teammates though his longevity is better.

So, I support Mel Daniels over Walton, Johnston, or Bellamy.

The build arround argument is fair, but that's not all that needs to be taken into account here. I value peak over longevity, and in 77 and 78 he achieved a level of play that none of the other guys ever achieved.

Also late in his career he contributed really well for Boston and was important in that 86 championship run. Despite not contributing with a ton of minutes, his level of play was really good, and has to be taken into account.

Despite all the adversity, I'd rather value his peak play and his adjusment to succeed despite his bad luck.

I understand if no one else votes for him, but at this point I feel he deserves this spot. I'm not even sure about some guys I voted before him...

[SactoKingsFan]

I'm not voting for a player that only stays healthy enough for ~120 prime RS games, 1 elite role player season and less than 15K career RS+PS mins. That's just not enough career value for me to put Walton over Webber, Sheed, Kemp, Grant, Lucas, Issel, Amare, Laimbeer, Divac, etc.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Hal Greer

He was the second best player on arguably the greatest team ever, and the second best offensive option on what was at the time the greatest offense ever, the first offense to ever break the 100 Offensive Rating barrier (1967 Philly). In the playoffs, he was even better that season: 27.7 points to lead the team, and 5.3 assists, which was second to Wilt.

Factoring in his consistency, he was the best guard of the decade after Jerry West and Oscar Robertson. Combo guard who could shoot from the mid-range, make plays for others, or slash and get fouled. 80% career free throw shooter.

[trex_8063]

Is Walton's 1.5 years as an MVP caliber player (plus one year as a reserve) worth more than Mel Daniels' 7.5 years of All-Pro NBA play including 2 MVPs? Walton was unquestionably better but I just find Daniels' longer window enough at his ABA MVP (though worth clearly less than NBA MVP) level to be superior.

It's just too difficult to build around Walton in the hopes that you have a team that is healthy, peaking, and without dissension in the one year he stays healthy enough to make it to the playoffs when he demands to be a max money player for 5-8 years despite never being healthy. Portland did it and Jack Ramsey deserves a ton of credit; I think it's easier to build a champion within Daniels' 4 year prime where he was a league leading rebounder, strong defensive force, and solid scorer though never up to Walton's level as a passer or shotblocker.


Similarly Neil Johnston is clearly a superior scorer relative to his league than Mel Daniels. However, the NBA in the 50s to me seems weaker than the ABA from 69-73 when Daniels starred and Johnston's defense was not strong from what I have read. Then Johnston's scoring (like so many great scoring, weak defense bigs) didn't seem to correlate strongly with team success, unlike his teammate Paul Arizin. Daniels has a good defensive rep (albeit as a bit of a thug) and his play correlated to 3 ABA titles (though George McGinnis was the star on the third one and Roger Brown played the Paul Pierce to Daniels' Kevin Garnett on the 1st two).

While I agree the ABA during Daniels' prime ('68-'73) was stronger than the NBA of Johnston's prime ('53-'58), I personally don't feel the gap is all that huge. But the statistical gap between them is kinda massive:

Peak PER
Johnston: 26.6
Daniels: 22.4

Peak WS/48
Johnston: .267
Daniels: .173

Prime PER
Johnston: 25.2
Daniels: 21.1

Prime WS/48
Johnston: .249
Daniels: .151

Career PER
Johnston: 24.7
Daniels: 20.1

Career WS/48
Johnston: .241
Daniels: .139

I know Johnston wasn't noteworthy as a defender, but to some degree I'm wondering where Daniels' defensive rep is coming from, and is it enough to overcome the deficits as an offensive player?
The first year we have a DRtg for Daniels is early post-prime (or at best, late prime), and it's good (but not elite, though is 6 pts better than his team avg).
All-Defensive awards were doled out beginning the final true year of his prime ('73), but it went to Gilmore.
And as far as his team DRtg....
'68: 1st of 11
'69: 2nd of 11
'70: 6th of 11
'71: 4th of 11
'72: 2nd of 11
'73: 2nd of 10 (now have All-ABA/NBA Defensive guard in Don Buse in limited minute role)
'74: 7th of 10

.....looks mostly good, though not super consistent.


Johnston does bear some of the same concerns (as Brand) regarding his numbers not translating to team success (for me, at least). To me, it's the only reason he doesn't come into consideration much much earlier; I mean, his offensive numbers otherwise rival Mikan's! (and in a marginally tougher era, too)
To what degree can these concerns/criticisms be overruled? Defense arguments were made to justify overlooking or otherwise invalidating these concerns for Brand. If valid with him, some of the same defenses also appear to apply to Johnston, imo. His supporting cast in '53 was atrocious. It gets a little better in '54, though still not impressive.
Further, I disagree with the notion that Arizin's presence translated to team success to a higher degree than Johnston. Arizin was added in '55, and they only improved by 4 games (1.7 SRS improvement). It was only after adding Tom Gola in '56 that things really appeared to have gelled. Further, they do appear to suddenly take a sharp decline as soon as Johnston is made obsolete by injury in '59 (Arizin still playing at a high level at that point, and Woody Sauldsberry seems like he should be filling some of the gap).

So overall, I don't think he suffers from these criticisms as much as Brand should.

[trex_8063]

My top two choices for this spot are Tony Parker and Dan Issel. My next choices would likely be Chris Webber followed by Hal Greer. (then a small gap until guys like Billy Cunningham, Jack Sikma, and Jerry Lucas) EDIT: Forgot about Chris Bosh . He'd probably be my 3rd or 4th most favored option for this spot.

For now, I think I'll stick with Tony Parker again, and hope he starts getting some support. He ranks #51 in my elaborate formula, #77 in the other (formulas cited in #78 thread; can repost on request). Further arguments in the spoiler below:

Spoiler:

There's a great deal of positive to be said for him......
In the last 12 seasons (not counting this current one) he's been no less than the 3rd-best---often the 2nd-best---player on FOUR title teams. He's been no less than 3rd-best on.....well, 10-11 contenders (because the Spurs have legitimately been contenders nearly every season of his career); and in the case of '12, at the very least, you can make an argument he was actually the #1 guy (at least a #1A/1B scenario) on a contender-level squad.

His rs stats over that 12-year span (863 rs games):
17.8 ppg/6.1 apg/2.6 tov @ 55.4% ts
19.7 PER, .156 WS/48, 110 ORtg/104 DRtg (+6) in 32.9 mpg

And he did this for what is generally one of the best and most balanced teams in the league.
He's fantastic at breaking guys down off the dribble (for his career 35.8% of his fga are from inside 3 ft), an outstanding finisher (career 65.4% from <3ft), and really a very good mid-range pull-up shooter, too. I have little doubt that a peak Tony Parker could have annually been putting up 22-24 ppg on decent efficiency for a lesser team.

wrt post-season, I think his playoff woes get marginally over-stated. His ps numbers over this same span do take a bit of a dip; however, closer scrutiny reveals that it's in a large part due to TWO bad playoff years ('03 and '05). If we look at the other TEN seasons in this span, his playoff numbers are:

19.04 PER, .103 WS/48 in 35.8 mpg. This is basically a typical post-season dip that we see from most players.

On the grandest stage (the Finals), he's had some poor performances, though he does have at least one very very nice finals performance in '07: 24.5 ppg/5.0/3.3 apg/3.0 tov @ 59.5% ts (Finals MVP).
And really, he was pretty good last year in the finals, too: 18.0 ppg/4.6 apg/2.0 tov @ 55.0% ts (non-existent rebounding, although you're not really counting on boards from your PG anyway).


I don't think DRtg (and thus ORtg/DRtg comparisons) really do him justice, as DRtg has a somewhat causal relationship with not only steals/blocks (which he doesn't get many of), but also defensive rebounds (which he's not a very good rebounding PG-->not really a big slam on him, because......PG; it's typically the least relevant skill/attribute for a PG).

Generally I would say Parker appears "checked in" on defense, certainly not a huge liability on that end (like say....certain years of Steve Nash, or Derrick Rose, whose defensive effort is abominable at times).

Non-scaled PI DRAPM for Parker:
'03--> +0.9
'04--> +0.5
'05--> -0.2
'06--> +0.9
'07--> -2.2
'08--> +1.01
'09--> +0.48
'10--> -0.21
'11--> -0.44
'12--> +1.16
'13--> +1.06
'14--> +0.20

Aside from one poor year in '07, he generally appears entirely decent defensively based on impact data (particularly for a PG).

His best 3-year and best 5-year combined PI RAPM marks are similar to guys like Tracy McGrady and Kevin Durant, and a little better than Pau Gasol.

Vote: switched to Hal Greer. (see reasons in post #19)

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #80 - Hal Greer

- 15 year career (all with same franchise)
- 7x all NBA 2nd team
- 1 top 10 MVP finish
- Sixers all time leader in games played, minutes played, FGM, total points

As stated in the last thread, I was looking at greer, cunningham and carmelo. Also compared them to brand and parker. I came away most impressed with greer’s overall body of work. He had marked consistency throughout his career, along with impressive durability and longevity for his time. He played in 79+ games in 10 of his 15 seasons, which spanned from 59-73. He scored on above average efficiency relative to his era, putting up the following #s from 61-70:

22 PPG, 5.6 RPG, 4.4 APG, 45.4% FG, 80.3% FT (6 FTAs per game), 51% TS, .135 WS/48

He performed similarly in the playoffs, playing a major role in the 67 sixers championship run, commonly considered one of the best teams of all time:

27.7 PPG, 5.9 RPG, 5.3 APG, 42.9% FG, 79.7% FT (7.9 FTAs per game), 48.7% TS (league avg that yr 49.3%), .130 WS/48

"I knew Hal when I got there [as the Sixers' business manager] in '68. I was with him for one year," said Pat Williams, who was raised in Wilmington and later became the Sixers' general manager for 12 seasons. "Tough little bulldog. He was tough as nails. And quiet. Didn't talk much ... but would just go out and perform. Maybe the best middle distance jump shooter of all-time. You could argue that. That 15-, 16-, 17-foot range. It was like a layup to him.”

http://www.app.com/article/BZ/20121227/ ... /312270026

It’s been echoed elsewhere that he had the best mid range jumper of his generation. Also effective on both ends of the floor, and could post you up on either baseline. Stayed within the confines of his game, which ultimately led to team success. If he had range out to 17 feet, it stands to reason he would’ve been able to develop a 3 pointer in this era.

Some great videos on the 67 sixers from (I believe) our own Dipper 13:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tbuMbhngis[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Np29MW_XN8[/youtube]


More insight on Greer per Dipper 13 (be sure to click spoiler):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bzGDqtDHqg&t=14m8s

Tremendous athlete as well, great agility & quickness and could stop on a dime and pull up. It is not surprising to see Greer fall this low, seeing as he apparently was underrated by most even during his playing days. Not being a self promoter or big interview with the press will do that, plus he was overshadowed by Wilt during some of his best years. I'm sure if the Sixers had repeated in 1968, then Greer would have been voted in well before this point. Wilt even said he was on par with Robertson or West, for what it is worth.

Spoiler:

Season of the 76ers: the story of Wilt Chamberlain and the 1967 NBA champions - Wayne Lynch

"I think I'm better than the fourth guard," Greer told reporters. "You gotta realize that Oscar is the greatest. Jerry West is right behind Oscar, but I think I should be up there. I think I'm on a par with West.



Dynasty's End: Bill Russell And the 1968-69 World Champion Boston Celtics - Thomas J. Whalen

"Hal needs a certain amount of recognition to show people that he's on par with Robertson and West," All-Star teammate Wilt Chamberlain said afterward.

Greer needed no convincing himself. He knew he was the equal of any elite guard in the league, and that included Sam Jones of the Celtics. "He's on a team where they work for him," Greer said. "Our team is balanced. We're a team all the way. We don't work for one guy. Sam doesn't really have to work for his shots. They work for him. He's strictly offense, I'm offense plus I move the ball, too. I move on the fast break." Always intense and demanding of himself as a player, Greer strove for nothing short of basketball perfection in every contest. "After a game," he once revealed, "I think about the mistakes I made on defense that night. Sometimes I stay up all night thinking about defense, like after I've been chasing Oscar all over the court. That's enough to keep any man awake."'



The Sun - Nov 16, 1965

It's generally acknowledged in basketball circles that there are three superstar backcourters, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West and Sam Jones . . . and then there's Philadelphia's Hal Greer. Greer is the most underrated player in the league. He's among the top five in my opinion. Teammate Al Bianchi adds, "He has to be one of the greatest backcourt shooters ever." He rates with Sharman, Robertson, and West when it comes to hitting the 15-20 foot jumper.

The league alerted everybody about West and Bailey Howell nearing 10,000 points. Forgot Greer of course. "My wife and I talk about it a lot", admits the eight year veteran who climbed over the 10,000 figure with 33 tallies at New York's expense Saturday night. Howell and West reached it Sunday. "I don't like it but what can you do about it. As long as we're winning that's the important thing. The ink is all right but winning is the thing. I think I'm better than the fourth guard in the league."



The Black Athlete: Emergence & Arrival - 1968

No one in basketball is more effective than Hal Greer at sprinting down the middle of the court on a fast break, stopping just beyond the keyhole and scoring on a jump shot. "Hal," said one NBA coach, "has the finest middle-distance shot in the game." From fifteen to eighteen feet, Greer is more deadly than the Big O." At 6 ft. 3 in. and 178 pounds, Greer frequently gives away 40 pounds and 6 inches to NBA adversaries assigned to shutting off the middle. The key to Greer's success, therefore, is maneuverability and speed. Particularly speed.



Great teams of pro basketball - 1971

First there was Hal Greer, one of the best guards in the game. He was fast. "I must be fast," Greer said, "always, always quick. The day I slow down I'm finished." And he was a constant scoring threat. Said his former coach, Dolph Schayes, "Hal has the finest middle-distance shot in the game. From 15 to 18 feet, Hal is more deadly than Oscar Robertson." At 6'2", 175 pounds, Greer was agile, strong and not prone to injury. An eight-year veteran of NBA play, he could be counted on to average 20 points a game and contribute steadily in assists.



The Game Within the Game - Walt Frazier





Hal Greer: Productive, Consistent and Durable

This article originally appeared in the January 2006 issue of Hoop.

Star Guard on a Team for the Ages

Hal Greer made the All-NBA Second Team seven straight years but never was selected to the All-NBA First Team. That’s what happens when you play during the same era as Oscar Robertson and Jerry West, but Greer--a 10-time All-Star who was honored as one of the NBA’s 50 Greatest Players--accomplished something that neither Robertson nor West did: being the leading playoff scorer on a team that defeated Bill Russell’s Boston Celtics in the playoffs and went on to win an NBA championship.

Russell’s Celtics won eight straight titles and 11 in 13 seasons, but many observers still maintain that the greatest single season team in NBA history is the 1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers. The Sixers beat Boston 4-1 in the Eastern Division finals and then defeated the Rick Barry-Nate Thurmond San Francisco Warriors in the NBA Finals. Greer produced 27.7 ppg, 5.9 rpg and 5.3 apg in the playoffs, while his teammate Wilt Chamberlain posted these mind-boggling numbers: 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg and 9.0 apg. Hall of Famer and Top 50 selection Billy Cunningham, the sixth man on the 1967 championship team, says, “Hal Greer was such a smart player. In his mind he had a book about every player he played against and what he had to do to make sure that he got free to get shots. He was probably as fine a screener as a guard as anybody. The thing about it was he knew that if he set a good screen then he would be open because he would force a switch and he would end up being matched up with a bigger, slower player that he knew he could easily beat to get whatever shot he wanted.”

Remember the old shoe commercial with playground legend Lamar Mundane? The voiceover said that Mundane would shoot as soon as he crossed midcourt and the fans would yell, “Layup!” That would be a good way to describe Hal Greer’s top of the key jump shot; Sixers coach Alex Hannum said that Greer made that shot at a 70% clip and gave Greer the green light to launch from that range whenever he was open. Greer’s jump shot was so fluid and so deadly that he shot his free throws that way, connecting on better than 80% of his career attempts. Cunningham offers high praise for Greer’s jump shot: “It was as good as anybody’s who ever played the game. I think the beauty of Hal Greer’s game is that he knew where he was most effective and he never shot the ball from an area where he was not completely confident and comfortable. He never went outside of 18-20 feet maximum, but he was deadly and he had the ability to get to that spot.”



The Palm Beach Post - Apr 2, 1967

"Greer plays the complete game,' said Hannum, "He's an offensive threat every minute he's in there. He has the perfect disposition, is well liked by everybody. We wouldn't have near the record this team has without Hal. You hear about our powerful front line of Wilt, Luke Jackson, Chet Walker and Billy Cunningham, but Greer's outside shooting helps make this possible."

Greer admits that the toughest guard in the league against him is Boston's K.C. Jones, but denies the rap placed on him by some writers that he gets "K.C.-itus"

"The three best games of my career have been against Boston," he notes. "I scored 50 points against them my first year in the league, 45 against them here, and 38 this season in Boston."

While he is recognized generally as one of the top offensive players in the game, few people are aware that Greer can play defense with the best. Often, Hannum will send Greer after Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Rick Barry, or Sam Jones, at least until the 76ers' guard gets into foul difficulty.

[Clyde Frazier]

As of post #10:

Mel Daniels - penbeast0

Bill Walton - Joao Saraiva

Hal Greer - ronnymac2, Clyde Frazier

Tony Parker - trex_8063

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I am thinking about David Thompson and Marques Johnson. I might prefer Tim Hardaway, Mark Price and Chris Paul to Parker and Greer. I am considering Shawn Kemp.

Walt Bellamy has the stats to be considered.

At #80 I could join the Walton or Parker vote because I have some bias against 1960s ball and don't know that I want Greer in at 80. But Greer will probably be back in the runnoff at 81 if he does not get in now.

Thompson and Walton both had short primes.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

"I knew Hal when I got there [as the Sixers' business manager] Maybe the best middle distance jump shooter of all-time. You could argue that. That 15-, 16-, 17-foot range. It was like a layup to him.”

Hell no.
Greer shot lay ups at better than 45% so we know he is shooting mid range shots at worse than 45% If mid range shots were like a lay ups to him he would have a higher shooting percentage.

In the films I saw his mid range shot was not well defended. There are probably more than 100 guys that played in the NBA who could shoot an open mid range better than Greer but most of those guys played after Greer. I wonder what Earl Boynkins could do if inserted into 1967.

[Clyde Frazier]

"I knew Hal when I got there [as the Sixers' business manager] Maybe the best middle distance jump shooter of all-time. You could argue that. That 15-, 16-, 17-foot range. It was like a layup to him.”

Hell no.
Greer shot lay ups at better than 45% so we know he is shooting mid range shots at worse than 45% If mid range shots were like a lay ups to him he would have a higher shooting percentage.

In the films I saw his mid range shot was not well defended. There are probably more than 100 guys that played in the NBA who could shoot an open mid range better than Greer but most of those guys played after Greer. I wonder what Earl Boynkins could do if inserted into 1967.

I get that everyone judges eras like the 60s differently, but you’re starting to delve into “i discount the 60s entirely outside of a few all time greats” territory with comments like that. Really doesn’t seem warranted to me. I think it’s clear that we should always take opinions of people close to the player with a grain of salt, and a bit of hyperbole at times. Regardless, I don’t doubt that he was a very good midrange shooter.

As was discussed in the last thread, even when adjusting for pace, he was still one of the most productive and consistent players of his generation. And when it comes to efficiency, you aren’t “adjusting” for that era, but simply comparing his efficiency to that of his peers, at which he was above average. I think the sample sizes are large enough that it still gives you a good idea of his performance.

[trex_8063]

"I knew Hal when I got there [as the Sixers' business manager] Maybe the best middle distance jump shooter of all-time. You could argue that. That 15-, 16-, 17-foot range. It was like a layup to him.”

Hell no.
Greer shot lay ups at better than 45% so we know he is shooting mid range shots at worse than 45% If mid range shots were like a lay ups to him he would have a higher shooting percentage.

You don't know that to be true (at least to any significant margin). Lay-ups are almost always heavily contested, and some players (even excellent scorers) are not good finishers. And incidentally, these guys often tend to have a low proportion of their shots coming from <3 ft, too (because they're not good finishers). Thus, % from <3 ft range doesn't skew their overall fg% too far.

Examples:
1) Kirk Hinrich is only 52.9% from <3 ft for his career, with less than 1 of 6 attempts coming from there.
2) Allan Houston (have data for his final 5 seasons) was an awful finisher, and actually WORSE from <3 ft than he was from the rest of the field: just 40.1% from <3 ft; luckily only about 1 of 13 attempts came from that range.
3) Kyle Korver: he shoots a fairly nice 59.3% from <3 ft, but being primarily a jump-shooter (like Greer), he's almost never getting shots in that range (largely just the uncontested gimmes)-->barely 1 in 16 attempts coming from that range.

So it's not inconceivable to think that for someone like Greer (mostly noted for the mid/outside shooting) that the lay-ups factor perhaps isn't skewing his fg% upwards too much.

But even if it is somewhat, bear in mind that generally for perimeter players shooting %'s from the 3-10 ft and 10-16 ft ranges are the worst (lower than from 16-23 ft). It's because they're not point-blank at the rim but ARE heavily contested, and often runners or other high degree of difficulty shots. So even if his <3 ft % brings his total fg% up a little, it's likely that it is largely cancelled out by the poor % seen in the 3-16 ft range).

Just as further suggestive evidence, here are a whole bunch of guys with very little deviation between their % from 16-23 and their total FG% (sometimes they're marginally better from 16-23).....

Chauncey Billups: total FG%-->42.0%; 16-23 ft--->41.5%
Kirk Hinrich: total FG%-->41.2%; 16-23 ft--->40.9%
Allan Houston (final five seasons): total FG%--->44.1%; 16-23 ft--->46.0%
Tracy McGrady (all but first 3 seasons): total FG%-->43.4%; 16-23 ft--->41.5%
Kyle Korver: total FG%--->44.3%; 16-23 ft--->44.6%
Jamal Crawford: total FG%--->41.0%, 16-23 ft--->42.4%
Allen Iverson (all but first 4 seasons): total FG%--->42.4%; 16-23 ft--->39.7%

In short, I don't see any reason to believe that Greer's % from the ~15-23 ft range was really substantially less than his overall FG% (of 45.2%).

In the films I saw his mid range shot was not well defended. There are probably more than 100 guys that played in the NBA who could shoot an open mid range better than Greer but most of those guys played after Greer. I wonder what Earl Boynkins could do if inserted into 1967.

Hmm.....
Here's a vid from the 1974 NBA finals, late in game 6:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9NUC_mflTI[/youtube]
Here are the mid-range shots I see going up.....

Heavily contested mid-range shot at 1:49.
Oscar, heavily contested pull-up at 6:35.
Lightly contested 22 footer at 8:22.
Cowens, lightly contested 18 footer at 9:48.
Kareem, heavily contested 15-foot fall-away at 10:10.
Hondo, lightly (or light-to-moderately) contested 17 footer at 11:08.
Hondo, lightly contested (though is a quick transition shot, and in extreme pressure circumstance, fwiw) 15 footer at 12:02.
Heavily contested Dandridge jumper (about 13 feet) at 12:35.
Cowens open corner J (~20 feet) at 13:22.
***EXCELLENT EXAMPLE of what the officiating on dribbling was like at the 13:30 mark, btw: never in a million years would that be called a carry today (and this is as late as 1974; they were even more restrictive in the 50's and 60's). But it provides a great example of the dribbling restrictions players had to operate under at the time, which casual fans today completely ignore when watching these old clips.****
Chaney minimally contested 20 footer at 13:53.
****Another decent example, imo, of some of what WAS allowed defensively (I know some people don't buy the accounts that the game was kinda rough/physical at times). But look at how Havlicek is hanging all over Dandridge at 14:40, bumps him with the body on the shot, too......one or both would likely get called today.****
(not a mid-range, but check out the tough contested hit by Havlicek at 16:30)
Moderately contested 14-footer by Robertson at 16:45.
Jo Jo White, heavily contested 13-footer at 17:23.
Havlicek, minimally contested 17-footer at 17:58.
Heavily contested 12-13 footer at 21:02.
Havlicek heavily contested 11-footer at 21:19.
Kareem, pretty well-contested (as much as was possible with that shot) sky-hook from 13 feet at 22:42.

So I was a bit liberal with what I'll call mid-range (all the way down to 11-12 feet), given there's no 3pt line. Throughout this section of the game, I counted 16 mid-range shots going up, only 6-7 of them uncontested or lightly contested, by my estimation. The remainder were at least reasonably contested to my eye.


Here's a Hondo mix (highlights):
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsYAICmVMHA[/youtube]

Several of these look pretty contested (especially the very first shot---though is closer range---the one at ~0:55, the one at 2:03, etc). Many other tough contested runners in the paint here, too. Many of the others that aren't heavily contested are off the dribble either in transition of off a high screen, which isn't much different from today.


And by way of supportive evidence, to show that there are plenty of open mid-range shots today, here's a random modern video---Westbrook/Curry (fwiw, all I did was a quick YouTube search for a Russell Westbrook big game, clicked on the first suitable one I saw, knowing there would be many examples in it):
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-Dtq2CEAnw[/youtube]

Uncontested mid-range right off the bat at 0:07.
Minimally contested 16 footer by Green at 0:58.
Westbrook, minimally contested coming off a high screen at 1:35.
Morrow (I think) curling off a screen minimally contested 18 footer at 2:28.
Perry Jones curling off a screen, minimally contested 18 footer at 5:21.
Westbrook, completely uncontested 23-24 footer (can't tell if a three) off a screen at 5:38.
Speights wide open 17-footer at 5:46.
Perkins completely uncontested 15-16 footer at 5:55.
Livingston, uncontested 8 footer off the dribble (could have had an uncontested 17 footer, if he'd wanted it) at 6:12.
Westbrook, quick dribble to get man off balance, but still.....uncontested 22 foot pull-up at 6:35.
(Moderately contested 18-foot pull-up at 6:55.)
Curry, off the dribble, minimally contested 17 footer at 7:20.

So here is a video of just ONE modern day game, and not even the whole game, but rather only the offensive plays that Curry or Westbrook were involved with; and only the plays where someone scored at that (not even including missed attempts)......and still I counted 11-12 uncontested or only lightly contested mid-range shots in this video.

I'm not suggesting that defense is poorer today than it was for Havlicek or Greer or West. I'm just pointing out that players are still getting PLENTY of "open" looks from the mid-range, really no different from Hondo/Greer/West's time. Pay attention to any modern game....you're going to see it at a similar frequency as I'm suggesting with the above video. If you're not seeing that, I'd suggest you're only seeing what you want to see from the respective eras.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

It was in the 1960s, mostly playoffs games that I felt the mid range shots were not properly contested. I think the contesting of mid range shots got better in the 1970s. In Hondo's case his shooting got better in 1969-70 and stayed better despite my assertion that the defense against mid range shots was also getting better.

Many players have improved their shooting after being in the league for while. I don't really understand why I player would become a better shooter after being in the league for years. You would think that they would get whatever benefit they could get from practice and coaching in their first 4 years. I can sort of understand guys losing their athleticism focusing on their outside shooting but do athletic guys really neglect their outside shooting?

I the case of Greer he wast often the fastest guy on the court and I think he got plenty of fast break layups that you would expect to be high percentage shots.

I have seen more Havlicek than Greer. 1960 version Havlicek was definitely getting plenty of fast break layups and shooting them at a high percentage so his 1960s mid range shooting was below 43%.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I get that everyone judges eras like the 60s differently, but you’re starting to delve into “i discount the 60s entirely outside of a few all time greats” territory with comments like that. Really doesn’t seem warranted to me. I think it’s clear that we should always take opinions of people close to the player with a grain of salt, and a bit of hyperbole at times. Regardless, I don’t doubt that he was a very good midrange shooter.

I am just not voting on players based on what they were relative to their era.

I might vote for Sam Jones instead of players that were better than him just because he was such an important player on so many championship winners but that extra consideration is based on his championships rather than his being amoung the best of his era.

I am not claiming that there is any logic to me giving Sam Jones bonus points for championships while not giving Greer bonus points for being elite for his era.

I was OK with Cousy being on the top 100 list because his ball handling skills were elite for any era. Cousy might not have had enough speed to use those be all handling skills if he was defended by Rondo or perhaps even if he was defended Greer. Regardless whether Cousy had enough speed to be effective today and regardless how atrocious Cousy's shooting was at least Cousy had elite all time ball handling skills.

I don't know that Greer is elite at any particular skill compared to modern players. He would still be a very good mid range shooter, would still be fast and would still be a good passer particularly for an off guard.

I don't doubt that Greer, Sam Jones, Jerry Lucas and Chet Walker could play in the current NBA but I am not sure if they would be stars.

Bill Sharman made the 50 greatest players list. Bill Sharman was a shooting specialist who was not a good enough shooter to be allowed to shoot for a current NBA teams. I suspect that Kirk Hinrich would make a better Bill Sharman than Bill Sharman was. Sharman would not make my top 200 list regardless of his importance to his era. I don't know if Greer and Sam Jones make my top 100 list but they do make my top 200 list.

I have doubts that early 1960s NBA is better than international ball or NBDL with a few NBA stars added to the NBDL or international league.

Greer is good but is he better than Gilbert Arenas or Paul Westphal? Was Greer only on the 50 greatest players list because his era was weak?

I don't want be voting for players because their Era was weak. I also tend to be more of a peak guy rather than a longevity guy.
I also want to understand why Walt Bellamy gets so much less respect than Greer and Nate Thurmand.

[penbeast0]

Actually, Greer probably played in a tougher era than Westphal. The massive expansion starting in the late 60s and continuing to the end of the ABA quickly more than doubled the number of guys with NBA jobs. Before, you had to be one of the 8 best at your position to earn a starting job so competition was fierce; when it tripled in 10 years to 24+ teams, there were a lot of great players who might not have gotten a chance but there were also a lot more stiffs and mediocre guys. This is greater at the center position where the player pool is smaller but it still applies to Greer and Westphal. Not saying that Greer wasn't as good as Westphal, just saying that the era he played in was STRONGER, not weaker.

As for Bellamy, big numbers without team results combined with everyone who ever coached you and most of your ex teammates being less than enthusiastic raises a lot of questions. I think of him as a rich man's version of Joe Barry Carroll. He might be a top 100 player all time; he had excellent post moves and good size and those early expansion numbers are eye popping but he probably slips out of my top 100.

[trex_8063]

I was waiting to see if someone was going to cast a vote that pushed us into run-off. But given we're about 3 hours past the 48-hr mark and the last post is over 6 hours old......I'm just going to switch my vote to Hal Greer so he can take it outright (changed in original post).

Was the 3rd or 4th-best guard in the league for like a solid decade, a major component of the offense for what may be the greatest team of all-time. 15-year career (14 of those relevant, 10-year prime).
I've made other arguments in support of him in this and the previous thread. It's a suitable enough spot for him; let's move on.

[SactoKingsFan]

Are we moving on to the next spot?

Was just about to vote for Parker. Other than Webber, I think he's the most deserving candidate due to his longevity (02-14: 1,115 RS+PS GS; ~38k RS+PS MP) great finishing ability, playmaking, decent defense and his role on 4 championship teams/perennial title contender.