Please get the ball rollin'. Target stop time will Monday morning.
Dr Spaceman wrote:.
Mutnt wrote:.
RSCD_3 wrote:.
Quotatious wrote:.
Dr Positivity wrote:.
drza wrote:.
eminence wrote:.
yoyoboy wrote:.
RebelWithoutACause wrote:.
LA Bird wrote:.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:.
Gregoire wrote:.
PaulieWal wrote:.
The-Power wrote:.
SKF_85 wrote:.
Narigo wrote:.
Joao Saraiva wrote:.
PCProductions wrote:.
Moonbeam wrote:.
theonlyclutch wrote:.
BallerHogger wrote:.
michievous wrote:.
JordansBulls wrote:.
Clyde Frazier wrote:.
thizznation wrote:.
SideshowBob wrote:.
fpliii wrote:.
Owly wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
1st ballot: Kevin McHale '87 I kinda went thru a big comparison between Howard/McHale, which I'll copy in the spoiler; it details my difficulty in deciding between the two:
Spoiler:
McHale vs. Dwight is an interesting comparison...... Offense Peak Dwight is much more athletic and---related to that---is a superior finisher: pretty much devastating when he gets the ball <3 ft from the rim; is basically the GOAT finisher outside of prime Shaq and perhaps peak Robinson (finishing >75% from that range in '10 and '11, despite huge volume there--->like 50+% of his shot load, often going thru 2 or 3 defenders and getting And1's). Has developed a nice little short-range jump hook (with either hand), too. Draws tons of fouls (and was shooting nearly 60% from the FT-line at his peak; which is not good, but not godawful for a big either; getting a 60% ft-shooter to the line is still fairly efficient scoring).
Admittedly, that's where his offensive prowess ends. He has no jump-shot or range to speak of at all, limited repertoire of post-moves, not much of a passer, and a touch turnover prone. Still, I don't mean to imply offensive mediocrity on his part (many of his critics attempt to do so, and it's absolutely untrue, imo). His hands, strength, explosiveness, etc, allow him to be in a GOAT-level tier when he gets the ball near the rim, and that cannot be trivialized. If taking a hack-a-Howard strategy, peak Howard's not as big a liability at the line as most versions of Shaq, Wilt, or Russell. Combined with even his limited post repertoire, this makes him a well-above average offensive player.
McHale, though, has a case for the GOAT where low-post game is concerned. Great footwork, makes excellent use of his lower body to create space and effectively post up to receive the ball in a position to score. Has a myriad of effective moves; I especially like the quick fake followed by the up-and-under for the layup; or the fake shot low-side, fake shot high-side, then (when defend leaves the ground) he ducks back under for the easy layup. And he made these moves quickly, much quicker than you'd think he's capable of when you see him run up the court; he simply doesn't appear as though he could possibly move that fast. He has the short-range jump hooks, the fall-away jumper, was a pretty good finisher despite vastly inferior athleticism (relative to Howard); just very nice soft touch near the rim. Had range out to at least 12-14 ft. And >83% FT-shooter at his peak. Guy was a scoring machine dropping 31.9 pts/100 possessions at 65.5% TS while playing damn near 40 mpg. Now certainly we can acknowledge that Bird's playmaking and the wealth of talent around him helped his efficiency. otoh, it also stole some primacy away from him. I could see peak McHale in other circumstances dropping 28-29 ppg (~36 per 100 poss) at maybe 61-62% TS in that time period. And he's less turnover prone than Dwight, and a bit better passer (when he chose to do so, though he was mostly a black hole if you gave him the ball in the post......not saying that's a bad thing, fwiw, when you consider what the typical result of giving him the ball in the post was).
So offensively, I give McHale a solid edge.
Defense McHale in ‘87 was an All-Defensive 1st Team forward, who often had to spend time guarding outside his position (on the opposing SF) to help hide Bird (though in Bird’s defense: Larry was a fantastic post defender). But that’s just one thing that helps illustrate McHale’s defensive versatility, because he was also an excellent low post defender, and he was also Boston’s primary rim protector, coming up with 2.7 blk/100 possessions.
So despite Dwight’s 3 DPOY awards (which I think marginally overstate his defensive value), I do think it’s close defensively. I probably give the small edge to Dwight, though, based him being sort of the sole anchor to his team’s defense, and the guy that they try to filter everything to. Although in the past I’ve criticized Dwight for his lack of footwork and timing (where it relates to shot-blocking), noting for example that in ‘13 Howard was avg 3.5 blk/100 possessions with a BLK% of 4.9%; meanwhile a 36-yr-old Tim Duncan was avg 4.5 blk/100 possessions with a BLK% of 6.4%. Even though he’s (even after his back surgery) considerably more athletic than a 36-yr-old Duncan, he’s getting soundly trounced in his shot-blocking stats. The primary reason, at least according to my observations, was that Duncan ascribed to (and executed) the fundamentals seen in shot-blockers like Russell and Dikembe, which involves keeping your arms up, moving your feet to stay close to the presumed shooter (so you’re in position to make the easier block), waiting for him to go up with the shot and then going up AFTER him to tip the ball just after it leaves his fingers…..a technique that requires attention to keeping your hands/arms up, footwork and timing; as opposed to relying on outstanding elevation. Dwight has a habit of doing the latter: just sort of vaguely drifting in the direction of a potential shooter, then relying on his outstanding athleticism, gathering himself for a giant leap and batting at the air in region of the arcing shot (occasionally coming up with the amazing grand-standing type of block).
However, I will say something for this method: while strictly speaking it may not be as effective in actually coming up with blocks, it does allow him to CHANGE more shots (because as he’s more just playing a region, rather than a player, he can “get in on” more plays defensively). And I do see Howard change a lot of shots that he doesn’t actually get a paw on.
I’ve also previously criticized this technique of his because it potentially puts him out of position for the defensive rebound; but I think I simply need to retract this criticism, looking at Dwight defensive rebounding numbers (which are obviously hyper-elite).
So overall, I likely give Dwight the small edge defensively.
Rebounding Here Dwight clearly has a sizable edge. Even relative to positional norms and expectations, it’s Dwight by a solid margin. I’ll point out one thing in McHale’s defense on this, however: part of what is depressing his rebounding numbers is what I’d mentioned above about him being forced to defend outside his natural position (guarding SF’s….that is: perimeter players)......this is at times putting him out of position for the defensive rebound.
Intangibles This is sort of vague, and of lesser import. I’ll give McHale the edge here….he just seems like the better teammate, and the more professional and cerebral player.
Durability This is the one that kinda hurts McHale. Based on all of the above, I’d give the small edge to McHale overall…...at least until faced with the reality that in his peak season, McHale’s body did break down and he played thru a serious injury (a friggin’ broken bone, iirc! Guy’s tough as nails) in the playoffs. While still good, even hobbled, he obviously wasn’t the McHale we’d seen throughout the rs. Howard, otoh, was healthy thru both rs and playoffs at his peak. So that’s a consideration which brings the comparison roughly back to parity for me.
Honestly, I’ve gone back on forth on this comparison, and I’m still not sure who I’ll rank in front.
I did ultimately go with Howard based on health (and performance) in the playoffs, but it was really tight for me. With Howard out of the picture, I'm fairly comfortable going with McHale here.
On the following line of thought: "McHale wasn't that great a scorer, he merely appears so as a result of Bird's playmaking".....
I'd already responded to this in the last thread with some observational stuff regarding McHale's isolation post game, as well as citing how in '89 (PAST his peak) when Bird missed basically the entire year, he still avg 29.9 pts/100 poss at 60.8% TS (comparable to peak Dwight, fwiw).
I'll augment my case by citing how he was with/without Bird in what I'm labeling his peak season ('87). Bird missed 8 games that season (McHale played in all 8 of those). Below are McHale's scoring numbers with and without Bird in '87:
69 games played with Bird: 25.9 ppg @ 65.5% TS, ~125.4 ORtg 8 games played without Bird: 28.0 ppg @ 65.6% TS, ~130.7 ORtg
I hope we can lay to rest this notion that Bird somehow "made" McHale as a scorer.
McHale (at his peak) is arguably the best pure scorer left on the table at this point, while simultaneously being an excellent defensive player. I'll be honest: how he doesn't have more traction at this point is baffling to me.
2nd ballot: Connie Hawkins '68 Touch of mystery surrounding early Hawkins, but here is how I see it.....
Physically, he’s listed as 6’8” (and from all photographic evidence I’ve seen, I think he’s a legit 6’8”.....not like a “generously 6’8” in his shoes” type of situation), and 210 lbs on bbref. He’s got a wirey strong build, a pretty long reach, and massive hands (which enable all the one-handed palm pass fakes, crazy sweeping scoop shots, etc):
And he’s got some grace, speed, and ups, as you can get a little sense of from in the videos below, as well as seeing some of the one-handed palming plays (and bear in mind when watching that almost all of that footage is him PAST his physical prime). Overall physically, he’s kinda reminiscent of Scottie Pippen, but with bigger hands.
He’s got some solid mid-range touch (again, see in videos below), and some good handles and passing for a biggish guy (was the original “point forward”, if I’m not mistaken).
Now before we get into what he did in his peak season (‘68), let’s first take a quick look at what he was still capable of in his late 20’s AFTER knee surgery (which I’m sure you’re all aware of how well players were typically able to come back after knee surgery in that day and age). Coming into the NBA as a 28-year-old rookie, one year after knee surgery, he went for a 10th-in-the-league 19.74 PER and .147 WS/48 in 40.9 mpg. His per 100 poss estimates: 24.8 pts, 10.5 reb, 4.85 ast @ +5.16% rTS. And fwiw, he was awarded All-NBA 1st Team honors alongside Billy Cunningham, and ahead of forwards Lou Hudson and Gus Johnson. Did nearly as well (on larger minutes) in the playoffs that year: somewhat inflated by pace, but he avg 25.4 ppg/13.9 rpg/5.9 apg in the ‘70 playoffs.
Again: this is what he was capable of past his physical prime. Statistically, he’s not far behind [an arguably peak] Walt Frazier, who we voted in at #32.
Anyway, I wanted to throw a little spotlight on what he was capable of in the NBA post-surgery because I want everyone cognizant of the very real possibility (if not the likelihood) that he was even better before his knee injury. If you don’t think the knee injury affected him, consider his scoring averages (it’s all that’s available on game log data of the time) in ‘69 before the injury: he was averaging 33.4 ppg pre-injury. In the 11 rs games AFTER coming back from injury: 19.9 ppg, followed by a significantly sub-standard (poor, actually) playoffs. I realize I cannot precisely extrapolate what he was in ‘70 by citing his late-season (post-injury) stats from ‘69; but anyway take it for what it’s worth.
In the ‘69 ABA season (marginally stronger than the ‘68 ABA, imo) there was also a presumably near-peak Rick Barry around for 35 games to compare to….. ‘69 Barry per 100 poss estimates: 36.0 pts, 9.95 reb, 4.1 ast @ +11.35% rTS PER 29.6, .301 WS/48 in 38.9 mpg
**‘69 Hawkins per 100 poss estimates: 33.6 pts, 12.6 reb, 4.35 ast @ +8.25% rTS. PER 29.7, .293 WS/48 in 39.4 mpg. **this includes the aforementioned 11 games (11 of 47 total) AFTER coming back from the injury, btw. Given the scoring drop I already outlined, it’s safe to assume his overall pre-injury numbers were a little better than what a near-peak Barry was doing in the same league. Frankly, he was probably a better player (before the injury) in '69 than he was in '68.
Now on to his ‘68 peak season (perhaps only peak by default, because he was actually healthy from start to finish)…... Yes, the ABA of the late 60’s was not overly loaded with talent, as Clyde Frazier pointed out. It wasn’t total bush-league, either. Mel Daniels was there, and there were several other legitimately “good” (if not truly “All-Star level”) players around: Donnie Freeman, Louie Dampier, Larry Jones, Roger Brown, Doug Moe, John Beasley, etc. And at any rate, Hawkins didn’t just distinguish himself in this crowd…….he utterly crushed them. He led the league handily in PER and WS/48, for instance, despite playing a league-leading 44.9 mpg. He had nearly twice as many OWS as the 2nd-place guy. He dominated that league to a degree that we haven’t often seen. Seriously: do a search for seasons with >28 PER (his was 28.8), >.270 WS/48 (his was .273), and >40 mpg (his was a whopping 44.9) in NBA and ABA history…...you come up with just 10 NBA seasons (3 of Kareem, 3 of Wilt, 2 of Jordan, 1 of Robinson, 1 of Shaq), and only 1 in ABA history (Connie Hawkins). If we change the requirement to 42 mpg, five of those NBA seasons disappear, btw.
Per 100 possession estimates for ‘68: 26.6 pts, 13.4 reb, 4.55 ast, just 2.8 tov @ +11.45% rTS. His 59.7% TS would be elite even by today’s standards.
And then he got even better in the playoffs.PER 30.0 and .310 WS/48 in 44.0 mpg in the playoffs, as he led the Pipers to the title. His numbers in the playoffs are gross even with considerations of pace: 29.9 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.6 apg, 3.4 topg @ 65.1% TS (which is like +16.8 rTS!!).
So yeah: regardless of the strength of the ABA in ‘68, I look at all of the above and absolutely I believe he’s a valid candidate at this stage.
3rd ballot: Bob McAdoo '75
Spoiler:
Hawkins vs. McAdoo (vs. McHale)
To start off, let’s just look at some base stats….. ‘68 Hawkins rs per 100 poss: 26.6 pts, 13.4 reb, 4.55 ast @ 59.7% TS (+11.45% rTS) 28.8 PER, .273 WS/48 in 44.9 mpg ‘75 McAdoo rs per 100 poss: 35.6 pts, 14.5 reb, 2.3 ast @ 56.9% TS (+6.68% rTS) 25.8 PER, .242 WS/48 in 43.2 mpg ‘87 McHale rs per 100 poss: 31.9 pts, 12.1 reb, 3.1 ast @ 65.5% TS (+11.73% rTS!!) 24.0 PER, .232 WS/48 in 39.7 mpg
Hawkins then got even better in the playoffs; McAdoo took a small dip in the playoffs, McHale (injured) took a more substantial dip in the post-season (though at 17.9 PER, .120 WS/48, and +2.0 BPM, he’s still pretty good). So taken at face-value, statistically Hawkins looks the best, McAdoo probably 2nd, McHale third. However, obviously we can’t merely take them at face-value; strength of competition must be factored in (especially considering that PER and WS/48 are standardized relative to the the league average player).
Without a doubt (imo), Hawkins played in the weakest league of the three, where there was precious few in the way of actual elite star level players for him to compete with.
The NBA of ‘75 was better, but still a bit “depleted” of talent relative to some other eras. Guys like West, Robertson, Chamberlain, Reed, as well as guys like DeBusschere, Gus Johnson, Jerry Lucas have all vanished. And the ABA has robbed them of much of the top-tier replacement talent: near-peak Dr. J, peak Gilmore and George McGinnis, as well as prime Dan Issel, Bobby Jones, George Gervin, Maurice Lucas, etc are all still in the ABA at this point. In ‘75, guys like Jim Price, Steve Mix, Charlie Scott, and aging and fading versions of Dave Bing and Gail Goodrich were all-stars. In ‘87, otoh, McHale is distinguishing himself in a league that has peak or near-peak versions of Magic, Larry, Worthy, Dominique, as well as prime versions of Jordan, Olajuwon, Moses, Barkley, Isiah, Parish, English, as well as several (maybe dozens??) of guys at a level similar to prime Mo Cheeks, Tom Chambers, Fat Lever, Mark Aguirre, and Bill Laimbeer.
Comparing Player Attributes…. I’m going to start with Hawkins (my 3rd ballot) and McAdoo (my top HM).
Scoring Some may be inclined to wave Hawkins aside as a scorer due to the competition in the early ABA. But even against weaker competition, Hawkins’ volume and efficiency (shown above; and he was going for even larger volume at 65.1% TS in the playoffs, too) is nothing to sneeze at. Combined with that: 1) we see in his pre-injury numbers in ‘69 that he was averaging approximately 36-37 pts/100 poss at probably 59-60% TS (~+9% or so rTS).....pre-injury (and presumably near-peak) Rick Barry was averaging around 37 pts/100 poss at ~62% TS in the same league. 2) Post-injury/surgery Hawkins in ‘70 (an NBA that was marginally better than that of ‘75, imho) was averaging 24.8 pts/100 poss at +5.16% rTS. If I assume pre-injury Hawkins was better (and his drop-off in late ‘69 is dramatic enough to suggest he likely suffered some permanent deficits)..... …...there’s plenty of room to credit Hawkins as a formidable scorer. There’s sufficient video evidence to see that he was a very good close-to-mid range (like 10-18 ft) shooter, excellent transition finisher, capable of amazing close-range one-handed shots (in the same vein as Gervin or Dr. J), and a good FT-shooter.
Ultimately, though, I have to give at least a tiny edge to McAdoo. Pretty massive volume scoring on very very good efficiency in a stronger league than Hawkins. Looking at how many mid-range (or short-to-mid range, like 10-16 ft) jumpers he took---often contested and off the dribble---that he was still able to shoot >51% FG% is remarkable. And being able to shoot so effectively off the dribble (and from decent range) when you’re 6’9” is an impressive and scary skillset. 80+% FT-shooter that year, too. And given guys like Chris Bosh, Kevin Love, Jack Sikma, and apparently now DeMarcus Cousins all learned to extend their range out to the 3pt line, I’ve no reason to believe that McAdoo couldn’t also. As result, I think he’d fit well into this era of floor-spacing bigs, pick-n’-pops, etc.
Passing/Playmaking/Handles Even relative to positional expectations, this one obviously goes to Hawkins. Can delve into this further if someone disagrees; but the wealth of evidence (ast and TO rates, limited video of Hawkins, reputation, etc) all point to Hawkins. Granted he’s slipping out of his prime by the time turnovers were recorded, but McAdoo actually appears a touch turnover-prone (whereas Hawkins appeared the opposite, in the early ABA at least).
Defense I’m not exactly sure what to think of Hawkins’ defense. There’s so little video available to the public of his peak, no defensive stats at all (late career stl/blk numbers look OK, fwiw), and limited anecdotal info available. The ONLY subjective thing I’ve heard of his defense was a rating as “bad” from a poster here whose credibility I question. Otherwise, I’ve heard nothing (good or bad). Overall, I guess I’d grade his defense as average to maybe slightly below (but with a big “*” by it, due to lack of info).
This would be fairly consistent with McAdoo’s defensive reputation, too, as his is pretty mediocre (to sub-par) as well. Although in McAdoo’s defense, part of that is likely in relation to the fact that he was forced to play most of his career at a position he was significantly under-sized for. otoh, mediocre defense is more difficult to “hide” when you’re a big man; so perhaps it’s less “forgivable” for McAdoo???
Overall, I’m going to call defense roughly a wash. I certainly don’t think it’s any sort of big divider between them.
Rebounding I’m calling this roughly a wash, too. McAdoo averaged 14.5 reb/100 poss vs. 13.4 reb/100 poss for Hawkins (pre-injury Hawkins averaged nearly the same in ‘69, too, fwiw). With positional expectations in mind---given McAdoo was 6’9” and playing C, while Hawkins was 6’8” and playing primarily on the perimeter (SF)---I’d give the edge to Hawkins if all other things were equal. But again: weak early ABA. Brings it back to a wash for me.
Playoff Considerations fwiw, McAdoo dropped off mildly in the playoffs, whereas Hawkins actually elevated his level of play even further in the playoffs.
Overall, this comparison is basically a wash to me. I’ve let Hawkins nudge him out for my ballot, perhaps based on the elevated playoff play, but I reserve the right to switch to McAdoo. I’ve flip-flopped more than once on this comparison.
How does McHale compare in these aspects of the game? Here’s how I see it….
I think he’s [clearly] the best scorer of the three. Seriously: 31.9 pts/100 poss @ 65.5% TS (+11.73% rTS) in a what is [perhaps by far] the most competitive league of the three is ridiculous. Critics may mention how the presence of Bird and Parish takes pressure off of McHale. Fair enough, but they also steal primacy (volume) from him. Look how a near-peak Chris Bosh’s volume fell when he arrived in Miami next to two stars. That McHale was a dominant enough scorer to warrant the volume he had among that company is remarkable. Critics may also cite Larry Bird’s playmaking as responsible for a big chunk of McHale’s efficiency. This is a touch misleading, imo; watching games from that era, McHale appears to be getting A LOT of his points on simple low-post isolations: he posts up, they dump him the ball, and he destroys whoever is guarding him. Simple as that. I’d further cite McHale’s ‘89 numbers as evidence of his prowess. Bird missed basically this entire season, and McHale is 31 years old and decidedly past his peak at this point (was really never quite the same after the injury late in ‘87), too: he still averaged 29.9 pts/100 poss @ 60.8% TS (+7.11% rTS).
McHale’s clearly [imo] the best defender of the three, too. Guy who can guard outside his position (had to often guard SF so Bird could guard a big), contests well, fundamentally sound post defender, and the team’s leading rim-protector (2.7 blk/100 poss in ‘87); All-Def 1st Team, too.
As a passer/playmaker, I’d rate him behind Hawkins, but likely at least marginally ahead of McAdoo from all I’ve seen. Takes care of the ball very well.
Rebounding: one of the weaker aspects of his game, likely last of the three, though likely just a little behind the other two. Again, I’ll point out that he had to often guard perimeter players (SF’s), which pulls him away from the rim and reduces his likelihood of getting on the defensive glass. Still averaged 12.1 reb/100 poss that year.
Based on all of the above, I’d rate ‘87 McHale significantly above both Hawkins and McAdoo…...in the regular season. But then there are playoff considerations: McHale was injured, and though still a significantly above average player despite a broken foot, he does suffer the largest post-season drop-off of the three. That’s the only consideration that keeps this relatively close for me. I’m still inclined to give him the edge because he was flat-out a better player for 90% of the season.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
1) How far off from McHale do you feel Parish was, in terms of peak value to Boston?
2) I still don't have a handle on what went wrong in 87. From When the Game Was Ours:
The 1987 playoffs represented the end of an era for the Boston Celtics. Walton's career was all but over. He spent the following summer in mourning, locking himself in his Cambridge home and listening to his Grateful Dead records over and over again. Bird went to visit a couple of times, but after a while he stopped. It was too depressing.
"The fun-loving guy I knew was gone," Larry said. "Bill was in such a deep funk, nobody could help him."
McHale underwent surgery to repair the gaping space in his foot and was told by the surgeon that he might suffer long-term effects from his decision to postpone the operation. He played six more seasons, but was never the same player.
Over the next four years, Bird underwent operations on both heels to remove bone spurs, then had major back surgery and played in constant pain for the remainder of his career. He approached each upcoming season as a new day, a new opportunity to coax his team back to the Finals against Magic and the Lakers, yet their West Coast foils appeared to be inching farther and farther away from their grasp.
It seems to make clear that the dynasty was over by 87. The McHale foot thing is also weird. Was he healthy through the 87 playoffs? Was it not an issue until after that year?
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
1) How far off from McHale do you feel Parish was, in terms of peak value to Boston?
Significant (though not massive) gap imo. Parish [imho] is probably a top 75 peak in his own right (maybe even top 65); McHale is more like top 35 imo. Given how tiny the difference between 35 and 40 (and so on) is for peaks, that's not as much space as it sounds like.
fpliii wrote:2) I still don't have a handle on what went wrong in 87. From When the Game Was Ours:
The 1987 playoffs represented the end of an era for the Boston Celtics. Walton's career was all but over. He spent the following summer in mourning, locking himself in his Cambridge home and listening to his Grateful Dead records over and over again. Bird went to visit a couple of times, but after a while he stopped. It was too depressing.
"The fun-loving guy I knew was gone," Larry said. "Bill was in such a deep funk, nobody could help him."
McHale underwent surgery to repair the gaping space in his foot and was told by the surgeon that he might suffer long-term effects from his decision to postpone the operation. He played six more seasons, but was never the same player.
Over the next four years, Bird underwent operations on both heels to remove bone spurs, then had major back surgery and played in constant pain for the remainder of his career. He approached each upcoming season as a new day, a new opportunity to coax his team back to the Finals against Magic and the Lakers, yet their West Coast foils appeared to be inching farther and farther away from their grasp.
It seems to make clear that the dynasty was over by 87. The McHale foot thing is also weird. Was he healthy through the 87 playoffs? Was it not an issue until after that year?
No, McHale was not healthy for the '87 playoffs. McHale broke a bone in his ankle in a rs game on March 27th. He chose to postpone treatment and keep playing, rather than sit out (what your excerpt is referring to). He was significantly effected by this injury (I mean, come on....how can you NOT be significantly effected by a broken bone in your foot?). And frankly I think that's the answer to what "went wrong in '87". I'd said this previously that I think the '87 Celtics were basically a Kevin McHale injury away from repeating as champs. Even with, they were still fairly close. I'd noted earlier about the end of game 4 of the finals: if McHale (+/- Parish) don't bobble the rebound on Kareem's missed free throw OR if Bird's buzzer beater has about 1" less legs on it......it's a then a 2-2 series instead of a 3-1 Laker lead.
And I'm a touch more forgiving about this injury of McHale's than I am of some others, because it's a not a chronic "wear and tear" type of thing (i.e. not a fundamental flaw with his physical/orthopedic design). He broke a bone in his ankle on a fluky kind of play, decided to keep playing on it and post-pone treatment until after the season as his team had a legitimate shot at winning it all that year; and consequently, the remainder of his career probably suffered for it (this too implied by your above quoted passage).
Aside from the evident playoff drop-off (in large part result of this injury), I'd also note his pre-injury and post-injury rs performance:
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
trex_8063 wrote:No, McHale was not healthy for the '87 playoffs. McHale broke a bone in his ankle in a rs game on March 27th. He chose to postpone treatment and keep playing, rather than sit out (what your excerpt is referring to). He was significantly effected by this injury (I mean, come on....how can you NOT be significantly effected by a broken bone in your foot?). And frankly I think that's the answer to what "went wrong in '87". I'd said this previously that I think the '87 Celtics were basically a Kevin McHale injury away from repeating as champs. Even with, they were still fairly close. I'd noted earlier about the end of game 4 of the finals: if McHale (+/- Parish) don't bobble the rebound on Kareem's missed free throw OR if Bird's buzzer beater has about 1" less legs on it......it's a then a 2-2 series instead of a 3-1 Laker lead.
Gotcha, thanks. Didn't know it was broken, thought it was just something that could become an issue in the future (and did).
Not to derail, but what can you tell me about Walton's status in 87 (particularly the playoffs)? From the minutes played, appears he was having a lot of issues (EDIT: looks like it was his ankle during the season, and his foot during the playoffs http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/08/sports/walton-is-sidelined-with-broken-foot.html).
So with Walton injured (which I'm presuming), you still give Boston a good chance of repeating in 87 if McHale is healthy, and plays as he did through March 27th the whole year?
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
1. 1974 Bob Lanier Could do it all. Has a good hookshot in the lowpost and has a solid jumper. He was a really solid passer. He was a excellent defender that anchored a better defense team than the Boston Celtics that had Hondo and Prime Cowens and the Bullets who had Unseld and Hayes with terrible support.
2. 1969 Willis Reed Im taking Reed over centers over Gilmore and Howard because imo he is a more capable scorer than both. Reed can shoot from the mid range area and he can also pretty good in the low post area as well. Probably not as good as Howard on defense but hes still above average on that end.
1996 Penny Hardaway Subject to change though. Its either 2015 Westbrook or 1975 Mcadoo or 1987 McHale
Narigo's Fantasy Team
PG: Damian Lillard SG: Sidney Moncrief SF: PF: James Worthy C: Tim Duncan
1st ballot - Willis Reed 1969 2nd ballot - Bob Lanier 1974 3rd ballot - Kevin McHale 1987 I choose McHale over McAdoo mainly because of his much better defense. It's really close though. After them I will vote for Rick Barry (who become very underrated), Connie Hawkins, John Havlicek (better at his peak than Pippen), maybe Brand... Need to think more about it.
1) How far off from McHale do you feel Parish was, in terms of peak value to Boston?
2) I still don't have a handle on what went wrong in 87. From When the Game Was Ours:
The 1987 playoffs represented the end of an era for the Boston Celtics. Walton's career was all but over. He spent the following summer in mourning, locking himself in his Cambridge home and listening to his Grateful Dead records over and over again. Bird went to visit a couple of times, but after a while he stopped. It was too depressing.
"The fun-loving guy I knew was gone," Larry said. "Bill was in such a deep funk, nobody could help him."
McHale underwent surgery to repair the gaping space in his foot and was told by the surgeon that he might suffer long-term effects from his decision to postpone the operation. He played six more seasons, but was never the same player.
Over the next four years, Bird underwent operations on both heels to remove bone spurs, then had major back surgery and played in constant pain for the remainder of his career. He approached each upcoming season as a new day, a new opportunity to coax his team back to the Finals against Magic and the Lakers, yet their West Coast foils appeared to be inching farther and farther away from their grasp.
It seems to make clear that the dynasty was over by 87. The McHale foot thing is also weird. Was he healthy through the 87 playoffs? Was it not an issue until after that year?
McHale was injured during the 87 playoffs, which is why I think 86 is his peak season. 86 playoff McHale played on the level of 87 RS McHale. Basically 25-30 ppg scorer with insane efficiency and great, versatile defense. Defensively, McHale is underrated in that he could defend multiple positions, from centers to small forwards, which let Bird not get abused defensively.
regarding Reed, it's actually incredible that Frazier went higher than Reed because at the time everybody knew that Reed was the best player on the Knicks until he got injured. Frazier was always the sidekick on that team.
Quotatious wrote: Bastillon is Hakeem. Combines style and substance.
Changed my votes quite a bit. Lanier and Reed emerged as great candidates because of their excellent all-around skill-set, and the fact they are centers, which earns a few points in my book, too- I give Lanier a slight edge, but it's basically a toss-up. Both were great offensively and defensively at their peaks, very good rebounders, too. Excellent in the playoffs, as well (and against #1 rated defenses, at that). It was an extremely tough choice to give Lanier the edge, but he looks marginally better, statistically, and that playmaking Lanier provided, is the thing that made me give it to him. Both guys really impressed me based on eye-test, too. Great post game for that era, good shooting touch, both really physical, but capable of finesse moves, as well. Especially Lanier's post game (that hook shot he had, was effective out to about 13-15 feet - that's awesome range for a hook shot or jump hook) was textbook perfect.
Connie remains in my top 3, but I'm not as high on him as I previously had been, because the ABA in its first season looks like a really weak league, compared to the NBA. Still, Hawkins dominated it so much that I think he deserves to get my vote (he also dominated the #1 and 2 ranked defenses in the ABA that year, in the playoffs - the Muskies and Buccaneers).
Comparing Kevin Love that year with Moses Malone in 1982 (his peak statistical year, and similar-ish team circumstances) Per 100: KL - 35.4/(3.9 O) 17.0/6.0 (2.5 TOV), 59.1% TS, 120 ORTG, .245 WS/48, 7.2 OBPM, 26.9 PER MM - 36.6/(8.1 O) 17.3/2.1 (3.6 TOV), 57.6% TS, 118 ORTG, .218 WS/48, 5.4 OBPM, 26.8 PER
Looking at the stats, Kevin Love is taking slightly less volume at slightly better efficiency, a wayyy better passer (21.4% AST vs 6.9% AST), and also better at taking care of the ball (10.3% TOV vs 11.9% TOV), now Moses is much better on the O-boards, but one must take into account that K-Love has a .355 3PAr, with the requisite spacing effect, and the fact that era differences are less favorable to crashing O-boards today.
In terms of team circumstances, K-Love lead a better team (3.1 vs -0.39 SRS), both teams dropped off by ~11 SRS when they left w/ mitigating circumstances (MIN injuries, HOU tanking). While the version of Moses that was voted in @ #25 is not '82, if one thinks that Moses '82 would be a top 30-35 peak, then there's not much justification for leaving K-Love out, given how remarkably similar these seasons seem to be...
theonlyclutch's AT FGA-limited team - The Malevolent Eight
PG: 2008 Chauncey Billups/ 2013 Kyle Lowry SG: 2005 Manu Ginobili/2012 James Harden SF: 1982 Julius Erving PF: 2013 Matt Bonner/ 2010 Amir Johnson C: 1977 Kareem Abdul Jabaar
Ballots people. We've got four voters who've turned theirs in, and thread ends tomorrow morning.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Alright then, calling it for Lanier. And I guess that's it.
Bob Lanier - 8 Willis Reed - 7 Kevin McHale - 4 Connie Hawkins - 3 Bob McAdoo - 1 Penny Hardaway - 1
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
trex_8063 wrote:Alright then, calling it for Lanier. And I guess that's it.
Bob Lanier - 8 Willis Reed - 7 Kevin McHale - 4 Connie Hawkins - 3 Bob McAdoo - 1 Penny Hardaway - 1
Would prefer you not let it die on the table… give it another shot
As I said, it’s so tight at this point as far as i’m concerned, it’s hard to decide on anyone definitively with the 2nd and 3rd ballots. 92 drexler, for example, has barely been mentioned at all and has a great argument against penny who nearly was voted in last. Was busy this weekend and still comparing the 2 before putting in my ballot.
Just think there’s a lot of solid discussion left to be had. Hope it doesn’t end here.
Clyde Frazier wrote:Just think there’s a lot of solid discussion left to be had. Hope it doesn’t end here.
Yeah, absolutely. I think we could just go 3 days per thread from this point on, like we did in the top 100 project last year. Let's get this thing to 50.
theonlyclutch wrote:Another plug for Kevin Love 2014 here:
Comparing Kevin Love that year with Moses Malone in 1982 (his peak statistical year, and similar-ish team circumstances) Per 100: KL - 35.4/(3.9 O) 17.0/6.0 (2.5 TOV), 59.1% TS, 120 ORTG, .245 WS/48, 7.2 OBPM, 26.9 PER MM - 36.6/(8.1 O) 17.3/2.1 (3.6 TOV), 57.6% TS, 118 ORTG, .218 WS/48, 5.4 OBPM, 26.8 PER
Looking at the stats, Kevin Love is taking slightly less volume at slightly better efficiency, a wayyy better passer (21.4% AST vs 6.9% AST), and also better at taking care of the ball (10.3% TOV vs 11.9% TOV), now Moses is much better on the O-boards, but one must take into account that K-Love has a .355 3PAr, with the requisite spacing effect, and the fact that era differences are less favorable to crashing O-boards today.
In terms of team circumstances, K-Love lead a better team (3.1 vs -0.39 SRS), both teams dropped off by ~11 SRS when they left w/ mitigating circumstances (MIN injuries, HOU tanking). While the version of Moses that was voted in @ #25 is not '82, if one thinks that Moses '82 would be a top 30-35 peak, then there's not much justification for leaving K-Love out, given how remarkably similar these seasons seem to be...
And yet Moses was a much better defender than Love. He wasn't necessarily a top tier defender or anything but a lot better than Love who was atrocious defensively in 2014.
Basketball is played on 2 ends of the floor, it's not all about offense.
mischievous wrote:Love who was atrocious defensively in 2014.
That's a myth. Love was about average defensively in '14. Ask yourself this question - how was it possible that the Wolves were a top half defensive team (12th) if Love and Pekovic played most of their minutes inside, plus they also played Kevin Martin (a truly atrocious defender) 32 minutes per game for 68 games? Pekovic was a really poor defender. Worse than Love.
Did Rubio really make up for their deficiencies? I find it really hard to believe that he had so much defensive impact as a point guard.
2013-14 Love was about the same as Harden in the 2014-15 regular season, defensively, which is about average.
Dr Positivity wrote:Ballot 1 - 1975 Bob McAdoo Ballot 2 - 1994 Scottie Pippen Ballot 3 - 2014 Kevin Love
Have been voting these 3 for a few threads
That may well be, but 1) people have the right to either change their minds or switch picks for strategic reasons. And 2) I'm not going to be responsible for scanning through prior threads to tabulate the votes that people might presumably still be backing. So if you don't show up in the ascribed time period......
At any rate, your ballots wouldn't change the outcome in this one.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
trex_8063 wrote:Alright then, calling it for Lanier. And I guess that's it.
Bob Lanier - 8 Willis Reed - 7 Kevin McHale - 4 Connie Hawkins - 3 Bob McAdoo - 1 Penny Hardaway - 1
Would prefer you not let it die on the table… give it another shot
As I said, it’s so tight at this point as far as i’m concerned, it’s hard to decide on anyone definitively with the 2nd and 3rd ballots. 92 drexler, for example, has barely been mentioned at all and has a great argument against penny who nearly was voted in last. Was busy this weekend and still comparing the 2 before putting in my ballot.
Just think there’s a lot of solid discussion left to be had. Hope it doesn’t end here.
I'm having a hard time justifying the time commitment to keep it going.
I've been trying to facilitate things for everyone as much as possible: a) when I post the new thread I include the list in the OP, so everyone know EXACTLY who's off the table AND what place they got (in case that's desired for comparisons to someone still on the table). b) I include links to all prior threads in case someone simply wants to cut and paste their ballots from the previous thread, or if they want to transplant a discussion from a prior thread, etc. c) Everyone gets quoted in the OP (including guys we haven't heard from in like 20 threads, just in case), so presumably everyone is getting a notification as soon as the new thread comes up. d) The 36-hour criteria is well known to all, so I'd assume that everyone can do the mental math to know when the proposed stop-time is (since they're getting notified when the thread goes up). But to make it even simpler (at least for all who reside somewhere in the Americas), I always directly state in the OP when the thread is to be shut down. e) Whenever I post a tally of the ballots up to a point, I AGAIN state when the thread is to be shut down, USUALLY again quoting everyone so they get a notification. f) I've probably posted more content in most of the individual threads past #30, and certainly if we looked at the last 15 threads collectively, I doubt anyone has posted more content (in effort to spark some more debate). g) I check back in to the PC forum often (seriously, really often) because I've been willing and wanting to babysit and nurture this project. But lately there's rarely anything new posted every time I check in. g) I even once stooped to guilt-tripping to get posters to come back.
......and yet here we hit the deadline with a mere four people (four!) casting ballots (only six showed up to say anything at all). I don't really want to put in all the above effort if others aren't going to put in any. I'd love to get out to #50, but I need to see that some people (no offense, but more than just you and Quotatious) are going to come along with me.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
