1. We have a pool of Nominees you are to choose from for your Induction (main) vote to decide who next gets on the List. Choose your top vote, and if you'd like to, a second vote which will be used for runoff purposes if needed.
2. Nomination vote now works the same way.
3. You must include reasoning for each of your votes, though you may re-use your old words in a new post.
4. Post as much as they want, but when you do your official Vote make it really clear to me at the top of that post that that post is your Vote. And if you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same Vote post.
5. Anyone may post thoughts, but please only make a Vote post if you're on the Voter list. If you'd like to be added to the project, please ask in the General Thread for the project. Note that you will not be added immediately to the project now. If you express an interest during the #2 thread, for example, the earliest you'll be added to the Voter list is for the #3.
5. I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over). For this specific Vote, if people ask before the Deadline, I'll extend it.
Here's the list of the Voter Pool as it stands right now (and if I forgot anyone I approved, do let me know):
Spoiler:
AEnigma Ambrose ceilng raiser ceoofkobefans Clyde Frazier Colbinii cupcakesnake Doctor MJ Dooley DQuinn1575 Dr Positivity DraymondGold Dutchball97 f4p falcolombardi Fundamentals21 Gibson22 HeartBreakKid homecourtloss iggymcfrack LA Bird JimmyFromNz Joao Saraiva lessthanjake Lou Fan Moonbeam Narigo OhayoKD OldSchoolNoBull penbeast0 Rishkar rk2023 Samurai ShaqAttac Taj FTW Tim Lehrbach trelos6 trex_8063 ty 4191 WintaSoldier1 ZeppelinPage
Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):
Cliff Hagan
Al Horford
Shawn Marion
Tony Parker
Bill Walton
As requested, here's the current list so far along with the historical spreadsheet of previous projects:
VOTE: Tony Parker Alternate: Shawn Marion NOMINATION: Jack Sikma AltNom: TBD
AEnigma wrote:I imagine Trex will do a more thorough analysis later, but just as a cursory point for Tony Parker:
From 2002-2017, the Spurs were +7.7 with a 72.6% win rate with Parker, then +4.4 with a 64.7% win rate without Parker. By win percentage, that is on average — across sixteen seasons! — a shift from a 53-win team to a 59.5-win team. Respectable and valuable over that time span, but I can see why prime-focused people may not care much. So for the prime-focused, seems fair to look at 2006-15 as Parker’s best ten-year split (I think 2015 is slightly out-of-prime but whatever). Over that period, the Spurs are +7.3 with a 71.8% win rate with Parker, then +3.6 with a 62.7% win rate without Parker. Reasonably consistent with the career marks, although slightly higher change in net rating (+3.7) and raw win rate (51.5-win pace to 59-win pace).
Again, not a commendable peak, no… but all the remaining players with high (“weak MVP” or better) peaks have abysmal prime lengths, so give me the guy who spent roughly a decade as a low-end all-star and then added on six useful starter seasons past that.
The best criticism against him is that he might not be an all-star calibre player in the postseason. Reductive to an extent, but he is enough of a faller for me consider it. So then the question becomes, is having a functional but unspectacular point guard for that long worth more than having a pretty good but not great point guard for 60% of the time? At that level of difference, I lean no, but I am not excited about Parker, and I am consequently open to value-based cases for others.
Relatively indifferent to the Sharman/Grant debate. I am impressed by Sharman’s coaching career as an indicator of his overall basketball intelligence and possible locker-room influence, but among notable coach players I far sooner side with Billy Cunningham.
However, Cunningham only has one backer. Looks like Tatum, Davies, and Sikma all can have a couple. Of those five, I suppose I have the easiest time with Sikma for his total career longevity, success across different teams, and stronger title responsibility than anyone but Davies (who won his titles prior to both the shot clock and meaningful integration).
Induction vote: Tony Parker Starting PG for a virtual dynasty of more than a decade. Near his peak was good for around 20 pts and 7 ast on good efficiency, functioning as the primary driver of their offense......they were sometimes better offensively than defensively in that period. For example, he once anchored [led in pts and assists] a +6.3 rORTG [#1 in league]. Multiple other good ones around that time, too.
In '13 he was 9th in PER, 5th in WS/48 (and I think like 12th or 13th in BPM), while having the 2nd-best [behind only LeBron] RAPM in the league (RAPM including playoffs, fwiw) [note: other sources have him lower]; this for a 7th-rated offense that came one made trey away from winning the title in 6 games. Was top 5 in RAPM in '12, too by that same source: that was as the leader in ppg and apg (18.3 and 7.7, with +1.2% rTS and only 2.6 topg) for a +6.3 rORTG [#1 in league].
Other years lag behind; still, he's got really solid longevity to augment some of these bullet points. While I don't think he peaked any higher than roughly All-NBA 2nd Team level, I think [as far as CORP evaluations are concerned] he's got probably SIX seasons "All-Star level" or better, and a whopping ELEVEN at "Sub All-Star" or better (that's equal/more seasons than the entire careers of Walton and Moncrief), and probably FOURTEEN as at least Avg/role player (more than the full careers of all other candidates).
Anyway, he's perhaps comfortably my preferred candidate among this group.
Alternate vote: Shawn Marion 6'7", athletic, with long arms and high-set shoulders [sort of like Kevin McHale] making his "effective height" more like 6'9" or so, and helped make him a versatile [and at times disruptive] defender, and one of the best rebounding SF's in NBA history (so quick on the second jump). Weird looking shot that nonetheless went in an awful lot. He was good working the baseline or filling the lane, could make these little pseudo-runners, hit the three OK [made especially good use of the corner]---peaking at 38.7% on decent volume, 33.1% for his career---and a career 81% FT-shooter (peaking at 85.1% [twice])......again, despite that weird-looking shot. Very good in transition.
EXTREMELY limited in terms of passing, and generally not a good creator, but he also played within his game very well; consequently had a VERY good turnover economy for a wing or combo forward (averaged just 1.5 topg for his career, despite producing roughly 15/9/2 per game). Peaked at roughly All-NBA 2nd Team level [or pretty close, at least]; probably 8 seasons as at least a borderline All-Star, and some other useful years outside of that, including being a starter and key role player on a title team.
Among this crowd of candidates he's rather easily my alternate pick.
If it comes to any runoff, I'm presently ranking them: Parker > Marion > Horford > Hagan > Walton (with Hagan and Walton being very close)
Nomination: Horace grant Alt Nomination: Dominique Wilkins
Could see switching my alternate to Chris Bosh, pending how the tallies are turning out.
"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
Vote: Shawn Marion Similar to Nance in that he was a great finisher but not a guy who created his own offense. Also an excellent shotblocker for a forward and a more active player than Nance; particularly when he was with Phoenix. Phoenix didn't miss a beat when Amare went out for the year, replaced by Kurt Thomas and Boris Diaw, as Nash and Marion kept the offensive production high while Marion kept up his job of being all over the court defensively. Even post-prime, as Marion's offensive production greatly slowed, he was still the main defender on LeBron James's epic finals fail during Dallas's title run. Certainly that's on LeBron to a large degree but Marion and the Dallas defense deserves some credit for keeping him down and not letting him turn it around.
I would say more impact than Tony Parker, both career and peak, primarily due to his considerable defensive advantage over Parker.
Alternate Vote Cliff Hagan [/b] Not a long prime, weak era, but he was a guy that stepped up in the playoffs regularly and helped the Hawks win their only title. Thought about KJ but his healthy years weren't the teams' best years and he just seemed like he got injured or had issues at a high rate for his era.
Nominate: Bill Sharman Best shooting guard of his era, combined relatively good scoring with relatively good defense for an extended period. Still valuable up into the 60s.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Another guy who's been voted in 77-78 in the last 3 projects. Not a flashy scorer, but he was a high impact player. A couple of seasons of efficient scoring alongside prime Nash, but otherwise, he was around league average in rTS%. I have him with 6 ALL D level seasons. He was a beast defensively, as a giant wing who could rebound with the best of them.
Looking at his PIPM, he had 3 really good peak years, which were borderline weak MVP level. I err on the side of caution, so I only have them as ALL NBA level seasons, but ultimately, his great peak and defensive play is what gets him here.
Alt vote: Al Horford
Some uninspiring choices. Walton, his peak was great, but it was 2 seasons. Hagan, around 4 great years with the one amazing post season run, but again, I see him fringe top 100. Probably wouldn’t mind him at 95-100. Parker has some good rORTG numbers, but played with Manu and Duncan. It was a toss up between a guy who played a long time as a facilitator vs a guy who played a long time as a very good defensive player.
Ultimately, I’m going with Horford because I’m a homer. But also because when Horford has played in the green, I see how valuable he has been. Whether dominating Embiid, canning 3’s or working in the DHO with IT4, Horford has played exceptionally well. For his career he is a +4 in RAPM, +2 on O, -2 on D. He can plug and play with just about any team (sorry Philly).
Nom: Terry Porter
88-93 in the last 2 projects. I have him with 6 very strong seasons, 2 of which I have at a weak MVP level. His career had some longevity to it, though it wasn't at any great level.
These can be seen on his career PIPM graph.
His 3 year post season peak from 90-92, he averaged 20 pp75 on + 10.6 rTS%. I think an efficient PG makes team building so much easier, and if they can also not be a turnstile on defense, it helps even more. Porter did that really well. Playoff Porter increased both his usage and shooting against playoff defenses, and that's not something that can be said of a lot of players.
Alt Nom: Jack Sikma
Defensive anchor of the Late 70's early 80's Sonics. Historically, he's made the top 100 careers list every time, ranging from 78-99. I know I use PIPM graphs a lot, but Sikma's truly shows his value.
We can see that defensively, he was always an impactful player, with several seasons worthy of All D level. He was also playing at an all star level for 10-11 years. Offensively, his ability to shoot the ball, and free throws, cannot be overrated. A player vastly ahead of his time, I think he would thrive in the modern era.
Vote for #86: Shawn Marion. Feels a bit odd to vote for someone with such an odd looking shot, but the results show that he made more than you would think when looking at him. Finished 12th in 3 pt FG's in 03 and 25th in 3 pt% and was a career 81% on FT's. Excellent rebounder and defender for a SF, finishing in the top 20 in total blocks 3 times and received consideration in All Defensive voting 9 times. Four time all star was a very good all-around player.
Alternate vote: Tony Parker. Don't have particularly strong feelings here. Seems like a good but not elite peak with solid longevity and consistency. Six-time all star and four All NBA Team selections (three 2nd teams and one 3rd team).
Nomination: Billy Cunningham. Excellent peak but injuries cut his career short. But his peak was outstanding: MVP (ABA), three-time All NBA First Team, one All ABA First Team, and one All NBA Second Team. Very good rebounder with elite hops (hence his nickname of the Kangaroo Kid), very good passer and solid defender with excellent bbIQ. Career 21.2 point/game scorer. Biggest knock outside of longevity is that he wasn't a good dribbler. But he always played with heart and tenacity with a non-stop motor.
Alternate nomination: Jack Sikma. While the memory I have is that nearly unblockable jump shot that seemed to almost come from behind his head, Sikma was a very good all-around player. Seven time all star. Excellent rebounder, particularly on the defensive glass (led the league in Def Reb% once and finished in the top 5 nine times). Not a shot blocker but an otherwise very solid defender (All Defensive second team in 82). Also a very good screen setter and decent passer for a big.
Vote #1: Tony Parker -Good not great player generally, but got up into fringe All-NBA range at peak -Consistently played big minutes on strong teams -Strong longevity (25+ mpg from '02-'17) -Arguably the best career #3 (more noteworthy than a real argument)
Vote #2: Shawn Marion -Pretty close with Horford, not the strongest preference in the world -A bit more impressed with his time with Nash than anything Horford did -Strong defensive player
Nomination #1: Bob Davies -Clearly the most accomplished team leader left to be nominated -Decent longevity, came in a star, remained one for most of his career, and was a roughly average starting guard even at the end of the 10 year run -Regarded as the first great guard (HM to Haynes), the only player in the next generation who *might* have surpassed him was Cousy and I don't think it's any sort of clear gap. Takes until Oscar for a guard to find a clear new level -Best case for #2 in the world to Mikan over the first decade of post War pro-ball (a guy we voted in at #16, so I find the exclusion of the rest of the era odd)
Nomination #2: Jack Sikma -Not a huge difference between a lot of guys at this level, I can roll with honoring Sikma as the face of those Sonics -I generally think of them as a defense first team with Sikma in the middle of that -Strong in most areas of play you can think of, decent scorer, good shooter, strong passer, strong rebounder, solid defender -Decent run in Milwaukee as well
We're certainly in the phase where I'd be fine with plenty of guys getting on the board.
I just received a new rolling 3-year prior-informed RAPM dataset covering 1997-2023. I just wanted to comment on the 3 modern candidates: - Marion looks like a +5 player for the 2003-2005 stint through the 2005-2007 stint (3 stints). 5 other stints in the +2 to +3 range. End of career looks quite bad. - Parker has 2 stints in the +5 range (11-14 and 12-15), with 7 others in the +2 to +3 range. End of career looks quite bad (after the 12-15 peak). - Horford peaks with 3 seasons in the +4 to +5 range (16-18 through 18-20). Slightly lower peak than the other 2, but not by much. Most of the rest of his career sits in the +2 to +3 range, with 10 seasons at that level. Latest stint (21-23) still in the +1.5 range.
Horford looks the steadiest overall, but not a superstar.
DSMok1 wrote:I just received a new rolling 3-year prior-informed RAPM dataset covering 1997-2023. I just wanted to comment on the 3 modern candidates: - Marion looks like a +5 player for the 2003-2005 stint through the 2005-2007 stint (3 stints). 5 other stints in the +2 to +3 range. End of career looks quite bad. - Parker has 2 stints in the +5 range (11-14 and 12-15), with 7 others in the +2 to +3 range. End of career looks quite bad (after the 12-15 peak). - Horford peaks with 3 seasons in the +4 to +5 range (16-18 through 18-20). Slightly lower peak than the other 2, but not by much. Most of the rest of his career sits in the +2 to +3 range, with 10 seasons at that level. Latest stint (21-23) still in the +1.5 range.
Horford looks the steadiest overall, but not a superstar.
Thanks for sharing. Curious for other players in the +/- era not yet voted in. Here are some guys who previously made the list but aren't in yet:
Elton Brand Chris Bosh Carmelo Anthony Deron Williams
And a handful of guys most on my mind:
Baron Davis Jrue Holiday Klay Thompson Jayson Tatum Luka Doncic
If any of this is inappropriate to ask about, my apologies.
Perfect "Hall of Very Good" member. Been an impactful player since seemingly just after the Big Bang. I feel confident he can fit into almost any situation and provide high level defensive and floor-spreading impact. He takes almost nothing off the table and adds so many things to it. Other than volume scoring, he gives you almost everything you need and continues to do so in year 17. Feels like he could play today or 40 years ago equally well.
Nomination: Luke Doncic
Short career but no one in this range has a series, much less 3, on the level of his 2 Clippers series or especially his Phoenix series. Put up 29/9/9 as a 20 year old and seems to relish big moments. On/off numbers are troublesome but then so are Jokic's in the playoffs so I suppose like Jokic, I just don't believe the numbers that much in light of other things.
Not an ideal pick but the current crop of nominees is kid of underwhelming imo. After all the hubaloo about modern and recency bias over the last few threads, it's wierd to me no one takes an issue with the 80's and 90's still getting way more representation than any other decade in terms of inductees who have played and peaked and current nominees, including the 10's and 2000's which took place after foreign talent doubled within a span of 6 years and kept increasing.
Is no one going to push for a course correction here?
But I digress. LA Bird made Walton's case better than I could so...
Spoiler:
LA Bird wrote:Walton is one of the most polarizing player on all time rankings so I don't really expect this writeup to change the minds of most voters. But I did switched sides myself so maybe one or two of you might also join me in the Walton camp after reading this.
The first thing with Walton is the number of seasons. Many will immediately disqualify him from a career list because he played too little but not all seasons are equal. Like LeBron said, 2 points isn't always 2 points. Similarly, 2 seasons isn't always 2 seasons. ElGee's CORP method has become quite popular on this board but I don't think many still grasp the difference between an all time level peak like Walton's and 'regular' superstars. If we refer to the graph below, the equivalent of a +7 season is about 3 seasons in the top 10, 4.5 seasons as an All Star, or 10+ seasons as an average starter. Walton's short peak loses him the debate against any elite player with a sustained peak but those guys have all been voted in a long time ago. We have reached a point in the project where some of the candidates were rarely or even never top 10 in any season. Rodman was inducted recently - how many top 10 and All Star level seasons did he have in his career? How about Horford who is likely to be nominated soon? The number of seasons matter in a career comparison but so does the value of each season.
Estimating peak Walton as a +7 player might seem high but arguments for his impact at his peak is pretty ironclad. He was the clear leader on both offense and defense for a title team that completely fell apart without him. Walton is the WOWY GOAT in ElGee's dataset with a +10 net difference in 77/78 (raw MOV change without any teammate adjustment is even higher at +12) and he is ~100th percentile in Moonbeam's RWOWY graphs. Furthermore, the team's second best player was another big in Maurice Lucas, and they had a good backup center in Tom Owens so there is no question either if Walton's impact metrics were inflated by poor replacements. He is arguably the best passing center besides Jokic, one of the top 3 defensive rebounders ever by era-relative percentage (which synergizes perfectly with his outlet passing), and he is among the GOAT defensive players. Walton's skillset checks all the boxes you would expect from an impact monster and he has the numbers to back it up too. And since this is a career not peak list, I should also point out Walton consistently had massive impact outside of his peak years.
This is often overlooked but Walton actually played more than just 77/78/86. Obviously, him missing the 79-82 seasons is a giant red flag but unless we are penalizing players for missed potential, those years just get a zero from me. Now, from the team's point of view, was he a negative contract because he was getting paid a lot for nothing? Of course. But salaries and contracts are not a consideration in this project. The best player and the best player relative to salary (ie the most underpaid) are separate topics. Moving on to the seasons where Walton actually played over half the games, we get 76/84/85, three more years where he averaged 58 games per season. It is not a lot of games but we normally still count seasons of that length for other players. For example, 96/97/98 Shaq over three years averaged 55 games per season and I don't believe anybody is writing off those years because he didn't hit a threshold in games played. Such seasons get valued less than full 82 game seasons but they still usually get some credit.
Other than the numbers of games, the next thing with non-peak Walton is his minutes per game. He did play less but I think there is too much emphasis on the number of minutes itself rather than his impact in those minutes. Which, if we are being honest, seems a bit inconsistent for a board that already voted for a career 6th man in Ginobili at #39 because of his high impact in low minutes. Looking at samples with more than 10 games, Walton's raw WOWY scores were consistently quite strong even during his non-peak years (outside of an ugly rookie season)
By the same measure, Dantley had 3 prime seasons with a negative raw WOWY (1980: -0.1, 1983: -2.0, 1988: -2.0) and Hagan, as trex_8063 pointed out before, often saw his teams perform better without him too. In other words, if we remove any preconceptions about his health, these forgotten years of Walton still provided more lift for his team than prime Dantley and Hagan did. The box scores are not as favorable to Walton but then again, his box score stats were never that impressive even at his peak. Still, a 13/10/3 slash line is comparable to some of the prime seasons of non-scorers like Unseld and Draymond. Walton is often penalized for having a GOAT-level peak because seasons which would otherwise be viewed as prime for lesser players get written off as meaningless for him, which in turn makes his already short career look even shorter than it really is.
1986 is the only non-peak season of Walton that gets any recognition but it is still underrated in my opinion. Winning 6MOY is nice but it relegates him to a mere footnote as just a good bench player when his impact was so much more. The Celtics saw a bigger jump after adding Walton than the Sixers did with Moses or the Warriors with Durant.
The Walton team stands far above the rest despite the starters in 86 playing fewer minutes than in 85 and 87. The only other roster change in 86 was swapping Quinn Buckner for Jerry Sichting but that doesn't explain the improvement on defense or why the team fell back down to earth in 87 with Sichting still playing. Walton was the difference maker that elevated the Celtics from great to GOAT team status. I am guessing Walton's naysayers will still bring up his low minutes off the bench as rebuttal but focusing on minutes alone is pointless without evaluating his contribution in those minutes. There is no guarantee that a 40 minute starter would have more impact than a 20 minute reserve just because he played more. And once we move pass the labels, it's obvious to see how big of a difference Walton made to the Celtics.
TLDR • Walton's peak is so much higher that one season from him is equal to the top 3 or more seasons of the other candidates. • His non-peak impact signals are still better than prime Dantley, Hagan and he had 3 of those years averaging at ~60 games. • He added All Star level lift to the Celtics as a ceiling raiser despite overlapping with an existing All Star at the same position.
Impact portfolio only really cleanly topped by Lebron and Russell, a dominant championship, and an MVP, not to mention a key role in a second dominant championship is better than what everybody else on the board has to offer.
2. Shawn Marion
(prefer hoford and am willing to consider hagan
Nomination
1. Luka Donicic
(may swap if fp4 and i turn out to be on an island)
2. Horace Grant
Going with these two as they seem to have the most traction, but will make a case some other players I think more deserving than most of the current nominees(and maybe even a couple inductees).
Horace Grant
Not neccesarily the most deserving player, but with Sam Jones being pushed for a while now, I'd say Grant's case is probably a better version of Jones':
Spoiler:
OhayoKD wrote:
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
I've pointed this out before, but these box-numbers likely don't give Grant his full credit as a co-primary paint-protector on Chicago:
(if you want to check, 20 possessions are finished through 19:42 amd 40 are finished through 49:52)
Note it was very hard to make out players(besides pippen whose got a nasty case of roblox head), so i could be misattributing here and there though I used jersey numbers, names, commentator[url][/url]s, and head/body shapes the best i could. I also counted "splits" for both parties(which is why the numbers don't add up to 40)
Distribution went
Pippen/Grant 14 each
Purdue 6 or 7
Cartwright 4
Armstrong/Jordan 1 each
FWIW, Grant seemed more significantly more effective than Pippen but otoh, Pippen was trusted to deal with laimbeer far more than anyone else
All that aside, what's notable here is that it's the non-bigs who are checking rim threats the most. Not the centres. With one of the two deterring attempts, sometimes on an island, the rest of the team was enabled to try and force turnovers with suffocating pressure.
FWIW, Chicago postseason defense tended to be closer to their postseason offense than one might think.
Horace Grant also probably deserves at least some credit for the 2001 Lakers dramatically improved postseason defense(and overall) performance relative to their 2000 iteration(their rim-protection numbers in particular were significantly).
Probably fair to say he played a "key role" on 4 champions and 5 finalists with three distinct cores(though there was common ground between all 3 teams). Nothing mind blowing in terms of rs impact(similar to Sam Jones and Sharman), but there's a consistent trend in terms of playoff results:
-> Chicago improves drastically overnight as he and pippen see their roles increase in 1990, looks similar to the 91 Bulls in the first two rounds per M.O.V iirc -> Chicago has their worst playoff run of the dynasty with his depature(despite looking pretty good without him in the RS) -> Magic go from a first round out to a finalist(though the "real nba finals" was arguably in the West) -> Lakers go from one of the worst champions ever to statistically maybe the best
All these teams specifically see their defense and ability to protect the paint rise and drop with his arrival and depature in the postseason.
I think if we're going to have the jones and sharmans inducted, Grant should also probably be there as well. Replication across contexts and a more clear connect between team performance and the nature of his contributions are advantages for him here I think.
TLDR: While both have eh rs profiles, unlike Sam Jones, Horace Grant has a consistent pattern of joining teams and seeing their playoff performance jump, and leaving teams and seeing their playoff performance fall, with his specific contributions correlating with the side of the floor the team jumps the most in. He also had one chance taking up a bigger role in 1994 and played like a legit no.2 on a contender. Sam Jones has no track record to speak off without the biggest impact outlier in history. Moreover, while the Bulls clearly missed Grant vs the Magic when he left, the Celtics went on their most impressive two-year playoff run with Sam Jones as a 6th man beating the 68 Lakers(highest mov ever with west), the 68 Sixers(wilt + a team that was good without him), the 69 Lakers(merger of 2nd and 3rd best team in the league, core that won a championship soon after), and the 69 Knicks(rotation that won the next year's championship and made three finals, winning two in short order). All in all, I'd say there are bigger questions around Sam Jones replicability than Grant and don't really see why Sam Jones should go ahead.
Marc Gasol
This omission is really weird to me:
-> Was the clear best player on a fringe contender, most notably going 2-1 up on the eventual champion 2015 Warriors before their point guard got hurt. -> Post-prime, was the clear-cut defensive anchor on a toronto side that won a title and then contended without their best player on the back of an all-time defense: Said defense becomes all-time when he comes, and returns to mediocrity when he leaves. Team immediately turns from contender to fringe playoff team -> Was correctly identified as the best defender in the league in 2013, and an all-time menace for opposing bigs(giannis, gasol) even post-prime -> Was helping the Lakers post the best defense and rs record and srs in the league before injuries derailed their 2021 campaign
The comparisons that come to mind are are
already inducted Sam Cousy who -> did not co-lead a team as close to winning as what Gasol led -> did not show the same level impact post-prime on a winner
already getting inductee votes larry nance -> did not co-lead a team as competitive as the grizzlies -> never won -> not as clear-cut of a defensive anchor
Bill Sharman -> same as cousy except without the MVP
Gasol has yet to get a single nomination vote, I don't get it at all. Probably should have been inducted already tbh.
Iggy A few years as the star(and defensive anchor) of playoff teams, and then post-injury played a key role for 3 championships and 6 final apperances over two teams. Since championship role-players are in vogue right now...
Also strong rapm for what it's worth.
Luka Donicic
Better peak than anyone left on the board besides Walton and argument for being the best in a vacuum. His longetivity is a knock but he was pretty much better than anyone here besides Bill in his second year in the league if not his first and while people may not be overly impressed by the round finishes and rs record, on a series to series basis, Luka's Mavs have done pretty well:
-> went toe to toe with "maybe win the title if kawhi is healthy" clippers with kawhi -> beat "best record over the last 5 years" suns a year removed from their final run
Mavs have been a fringe contender with Luka in the playoffs and haven't been a good team without him in the regular season if you go by game instead of "few minutes without". If Walton is getting serious inductee consideration, Luka deserves some nomination love I think.
Davies
If he's the second best player of his period, it feels harsh not to include him. Stronger case than Sharman I think.
With Jones and Cousy getting some traction, i'll copy and paste some of the counterpoints offered in the #72 thread that I do not think have been satisfactorily addressed:
Skepticism on Sam Jones, Bill Sharman, and Bob Cousy
Spoiler:
OldSchoolNoBull wrote: As an era-relativist, I get irked when the only(or predominant) argument someone can come up with for one player over another is "tougher era".
I also take issue with "reasonably equivalent offensive production" when Sharman was significantly more efficient relative to his competition.
Ultimately though, my real gripe isn't that you might take Jones over Sharman(though I disagree with it), it's the fact that Sharman didn't make the Top 100 at all last time(or the time before that) while Jones made it both times. I just want to make sure Sharman is in the conversation because I don't see any argument for him not to make the list if Jones is in.
Or we can exclude both
Sam Jones does look better by WOWY, mostly by default:
In ’61, Sharman missed 18 games and the Celtics were (again) better without him.
This trend would hold throughout most of Russell’s career. In ’66, Sam Jones missed eight games and Boston’s performance didn’t budge. Jones missed 11 more contests in ’69 and the team was about 2 points worse without him. All told, as the roster cycled around Russell, his impact seemed to remain
I would have pause considering either for the top 100 simply because they were on championship teams. I also know some voters here have put stock into moonbeam's version of psuedo-rapm where Russell is the gold standard regularized and torches the field to a degree no one else across history does with his raw inputs(doubles 2nd place Wilt iirc over a certain stretch). Lots of emphasis on points and ts add on average offenses seems odd. Sam Jones defense has been praised but he is a guard and the defenses don't actually seem to care too much about whether he's there or not. 1969 is probably not fair since it's 6th man Sam Jones, but 1966 Sam Jones put up one of his highest point totals and fg percentages so if that version is not making a signficant impact, why is he being voted in here, let alone Sherman?
Honestly would be wierd to be putting more of Russell's teammates on this list than last time when we have a bunch of new evidence/argumentation suggesting Russell is more valuable individually than people were crediting him as the last go around and we have a bunch of new players to consider. Do these players actually warrant being considered over 100 other nba players?
Am pretty open to Cousy since he was post-prime with his own unimpressive signal and I assume he did something to earn the MVP but...
trex_8063 wrote:
Will first emphasize that your above comments appear to specifically delineate Cousy's post-prime. And I'll also acknowledge that the league/game progressed faster than Cousy did as a player.
That said, the limited/noisy impact metric from the very same source (Ben Taylor) reflects decently upon Cousy: his prime WOWYR is +4.4, career +3.9.
As always, when using these sorts of numbers I think it can be worthwhile to check what the sample here is. I don't know what exact years are factored into prime, but up until 1957, Cousy doesn't really miss time with the exception of 52 and 51 where the Celtics see a +1.3 SRS improvement when Cousy joins. I don't highlight that to criticize rookie Cousy, but rather to highlight a potential discrepancy:
With how WOWYR works(this is true in general when you take stretched singals vs concentrated ones but WOWYR's "adjustments" compound this considerably), that +3.9(and perhaps to a degree the +4.4) is disproportionately operating off that 1951 and 1952 wothout sample and transposing it as part of the off for all the other years(where cousy barely misses time) as well. Also note, unlike Moonbeam's version, the much larger sampled +1.3 mark is not factored in at all.
In other words, that score, mantained over a very small per-season sample, is likely significantly inflated by 9 games coming with a much weaker cast from Cousy's first two years.
I am also somewhat concerned with the lack of success in this pre-russell prime period where the team does not make a single final in a very weak league winnig a grand total of 4 series. The term "offensive dynasty" is thrown around for the Cousy years, but success on one side of the court is really not the point.
The Celtics having goat-level defenses is cool, but it matters to the degree it helped produce the most successful team ever, not because the goat defense isinofitself of extreme importance. Good on them for having the best offenses pre-Russell, but does it really matter if they weren't the all that close to being the best team?
eminence wrote: On Cousy.
I think his early career WOWY signal is unfortunately impossible to pin down.
He/Macauley arrive in Boston at the same time, the league contracts from 17 to 10.5 teams, both the without and with samples have large gaps between their ratings/win% (in opposing directions). It all combines to make the '50 vs '51 Celtics comparison very difficult, though I think it's clear the two combine with Red to turn the franchise around (they were absolute garbage their first four seasons and turned into a consistent .500+/playoff squad).
He then misses a grand total of 1 RS game prior to '57.
Agreed that 'offensive dynasty' oversells the Celtics of the period (hey, sometimes we're all sellers). They were a decent to good team, built around a strong offense. Related - I believe they only won 3 series over that period (you may have counted the '54 round robin as two wins).
0-2 vs Knicks '51 1-2 vs Knicks '52 2-0 vs Nats '53 1-3 vs Knicks '53 2-2 '54 Round Robin (2-0 vs Knicks, 0-2 vs Nats) 0-2 vs Nats '54 2-1 vs Knicks '55 1-3 vs Nats '55 1-2 vs Nats '56
For comparison the other Eastern conference squads from '51-'56 (not counting tiebreakers). Knicks 6 series wins Nats 8 (counting the '54 round robin as 2 wins) Warriors 2 (their '56 title)
A worse but healthier version of the Lob City Clippers.
My current sentiment on inclusion in the top 100 for both is Cousy as a maybe(entirely on the basis of him winning an MVP really), and Sam Jones as a no. The former does not have notable team-success in the "prime" we don't have substantial data for and Russell's Celtics play better without him in the post-period.
For the latter, we have a peak signal where the Celtics do not drop-off without him, a marginal bit of lift in the year he's a 6th man, and is his claim to fame is scoring prowess on an average offense with the possiblity that this is a result of scheme(which still only works if we assume Sam Jones had substantially better impact than what can be discerned statistically).
Possible he's just gotten unlucky with the games he's missed, but the evidence for Jones being top-100 worthy just isn't there I think.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
Partly because I’m underwhelmed with this ballot as a whole, partly because I just watched the four-part “Luckiest Guy In The World” 30 for 30 doc about Walton, I’m supporting Walton here, by far the highest peak on the ballot(and of all uninducted players probably).
This round looks like a tight race between Parker and Marion, and while I remain unimpressed with Parker’s individual numbers, I find the notion of Marion as a Top 100 guy so unconvincing that I’ll have to give Parker my #2 vote here.
Nomination Vote #1: Bill Sharman
Nomination Vote #2: Chet Walker
I nominate Sharman again. I implore you all to support him for his outlier scoring efficiency, his significant(by WS/48) contribution to multiple championship teams, his durability, and his overall athleticism.
See my in-depth arguments for Walker here: viewtopic.php?p=112016882#p112016882
Vote 1 - Tony Parker Vote 2 - Shawn Marion Nomination 1 - Bill Sharman Nomination 2 - Horace Grant
Parker has solid longevity on one of the best sustained stretches of team success in league history. While his impact relative to other spurs may have been uneven, I think he peaked pretty highly and is deserving at this point in the project. At his best he was a killer off the dribble, crafty finishing in the paint and a respectable shooter.
DSMok1 wrote:I just received a new rolling 3-year prior-informed RAPM dataset covering 1997-2023. I just wanted to comment on the 3 modern candidates: - Marion looks like a +5 player for the 2003-2005 stint through the 2005-2007 stint (3 stints). 5 other stints in the +2 to +3 range. End of career looks quite bad. - Parker has 2 stints in the +5 range (11-14 and 12-15), with 7 others in the +2 to +3 range. End of career looks quite bad (after the 12-15 peak). - Horford peaks with 3 seasons in the +4 to +5 range (16-18 through 18-20). Slightly lower peak than the other 2, but not by much. Most of the rest of his career sits in the +2 to +3 range, with 10 seasons at that level. Latest stint (21-23) still in the +1.5 range.
Horford looks the steadiest overall, but not a superstar.
Thanks for sharing. Curious for other players in the +/- era not yet voted in. Here are some guys who previously made the list but aren't in yet:
Elton Brand Chris Bosh Carmelo Anthony Deron Williams
And a handful of guys most on my mind:
Baron Davis Jrue Holiday Klay Thompson Jayson Tatum Luka Doncic
If any of this is inappropriate to ask about, my apologies.
Here's my full list that perhaps should be considered in this range:
Al Horford Andre Iguodala Andre Miller Andrei Kirilenko Baron Davis Carmelo Anthony Chris Bosh Deron Williams Elton Brand Jayson Tatum Jrue Holiday Klay Thompson Lamarcus Aldridge Luka Doncic Luol Deng Marc Gasol Paul Milsap Peja Stojakovic Rashard Lewis Shawn Marion Tony Parker Vlade Divac Yao Ming
I'll try to get some info up on each of these hopefully this evening. At first glance, Baron Davis, Lamarcus Aldridge, Andre Iguodala look strong. Iguodala looks like a better version of Marion--sustained +2 his whole career + peaks for three years in the +5 to +6 range. Jayson Tatum looks like an MVP, with last 2 stints in the +8 range. I would say the best candidate left. Doncic looks much worse with APM than box scores even with a very high prior--APM has his entire career in the +4 range.
Here's my full list that perhaps should be considered in this range:
Al Horford Andre Iguodala Andre Miller Andrei Kirilenko Baron Davis Carmelo Anthony Chris Bosh Deron Williams Elton Brand Jayson Tatum Jrue Holiday Klay Thompson Lamarcus Aldridge Luka Doncic Luol Deng Marc Gasol Paul Milsap Peja Stojakovic Rashard Lewis Shawn Marion Tony Parker Vlade Divac Yao Ming
I felt like some guys were missing and this is a very good list. Thinking of 5 picks...
Luka - pretty much the man on the Mavs. Marc Gasol - Check out some of his defensive impact numbers. Almost superstarish for the time. Carmelo Anthony - Just buckets bro. But he's an all timer at them. Def. if you like guys like Enligsh, you would like Melo. Peja - Changed the game with impact numbers from the 3. This trend didn't really really catch on until Curry's time, but Peja was a Euro all timer at this. Yao - Def. one of the biggest guys ever, who could throw it down with Shaq and Dwight. Deserves some debate.
Continuing to side with Hagan. Among the strong candidates, I much prefer Parker to Marion. As I've said many times before, Marion's of the category of guys who became unhappy in the best possible position for himself because of his ego and lack of understanding of the game. That puts basically anyone who was part of a core that actually lasted and achieved a lot ahead of him.
Nomination 1: Jayson Tatum Nomination 2: Bill Sharman
Continuing to side with Tatum, though more than anything else would like to see discussion.
Siding with Sharman quite easily over the guy who looks like the #2 candidate - Doncic - who I think has accomplished drastically less than people are crediting him with.
These can be seen on his career PIPM graph.
