RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #88 (Jack Sikma)

[penbeast0]

It would depend on how efficient and how much scoring difference we are talking about for me. I'd much rather have an efficient secondary scorer than an inefficient primary scorer (rather than neutral as in your example) and generally I'd assume that a primary scorer significantly below league average efficiency I tend to take as a negative.

True, but these are mostly hypothetical worries imo (maybe a few exceptions, but not players being discussed here). Truly inefficient players just don't last as volume shooters.

Guys near the bottom of the above list and having it held against them (Nique/Melo) both have career 100 TS+ numbers, and were often more efficient than that in prime.

Allen Iverson is the poster boy here and lasted a long time as such. Cade Cunningham currently. Below average efficiency scorers that teams want to use as a #1 scorer that I think get overrated because they shoot high volumes.

[Doctor MJ]

Note: My availability will be limited for the next week, so in addition to handing of thread running to other mods, I'm basically expecting to repeat my vote for a bit.

Induction Vote 1: Cliff Hagan
Induction Vote 2: Bill Sharman

So in the current Nominee pool, I see 3 legends, a talent whose ego damaged his prime significantly, and a player I love but I can't really separate from a lot of other guys.

I'll take the two legends with decent longevity. Between Hagan & Sharman, here's the thing that's had me leaning Hagan:

I see Hagan as a guy who, in practice, was more of a self-creator, and was exceptionally good at it. The fact that he was doing this on offense-dependent teams, with greater volume, and even more known for this in the playoffs, all while being 3 inches taller, makes me just see Hagan as a more capable star than Sharman.

It's possible that I'm flat out wrong in my assessment of what happened, and and possible that Sharman was capable of doing more along these lines but wasn't given the opportunity next to Cousy. It's possible I'm mistaken on neither, but Sharman's defense was enough better that that should be the determining factor, but at this point I'm not convinced it should be.

Nomination 1: Jayson Tatum

So, I expect I'll be quoting DSMok's post until Tatum gets voted in, and as much as I want to credit him, I don't want to push notifications to him every dang thread. Hence, the quote below will be nameless.

[quote=]

Spoiler:

OK, as promised here are the 3-year stint RAPM results for relevant modern players. These are stints with a minimum of 5000 minutes, so at least 2 solid seasons within the 3 year window covered by a given run.

This RAPM uses a new custom prior at the season level that is based on team efficiency, 2D position/role, minutes, and accolades. (For instance, an All-Star appearance in a given season increases the prior by +1 on offense.)

Code: Select all

3 Year Stints within the 1997-2023 era above points/100 possession thresholds
5000 Min. Minimum       >8     >7     >6     >5     >3     >1
Al Horford               0      0      0      0      3     13
Andre Iguodala           0      0      1      2      5     15
Andre Miller             0      0      0      0      1     11
Andrei Kirilenko         0      1      2      3      6      8
Baron Davis              0      0      0      4      7     10
Carmelo Anthony          0      0      0      0      3     11
Chris Bosh               0      0      1      2      7     11
Deron Williams           0      0      0      0      1      9
Elton Brand              0      0      0      1      4      7
Jayson Tatum             1      2      2      4      5      5
Jrue Holiday             0      0      1      3      8     11
Klay Thompson            0      0      0      1      4      7
Lamar Odom               0      0      0      0      4     10
Lamarcus Aldridge        0      0      0      2     11     13
Luka Doncic              0      0      0      0      3      3
Luol Deng                0      0      0      0      5     11
Marc Gasol               0      0      0      0      6     10
Metta World Peace        0      1      1      5      7     10
Paul Milsap              0      0      0      1     12     13
Peja Stojakovic          0      0      0      0      2     10
Rashard Lewis            0      0      0      1      5     10
Shawn Marion             0      0      0      0      4      8
Tony Parker              0      0      0      1      5     11
Vlade Divac              0      0      0      0      5      7
Yao Ming                 0      0      0      1      6      6

By point of comparison---LeBron has 13 stints above +8, and Duncan has 10.[/quote]

Sure looks to me like Tatum is head and shoulders above the rest of the guys here. Look, folks who have been consistent about weighing longevity heavily have a perfectly reason to keep voting some other guys in above Tatum, but I would challenge the idea that Tatum's "just not that good".

It's not that I don't think better guys exist than Tatum right now, but Tatum's an only-not-MVP-because-others-better guy to me, not someone who'd stick out as the worst MVP if he ended up taking home one of those trophies. And the man's been incredibly consistent in his impact almost from the jump. That really adds up quick for me. I tend to see the run of a standard core to be something like a 5 year thing, and but the Celtics were deep playoff teams right from the jump in Tatum's career 6 (well closer to 7 now I suppose) years ago and while he was a smaller part then, he was still utterly essential.

Nomination 2: Bob Davies

I'll take the opportunity to give Davies love without threat of yanking my support away for a while. For me, I'm sold on him relative to the competition still in play. I think he was the leader and MVP of the first offensive dynasty in NBA history, and the result was a couple of chips in an epoch where all the others went to Mikan. And I think he showed better judgment about his own shot as he aged than Cousy did. I really think Cousy was convinced his schtick was working considerably better than it was because of the defense-driven team success.

[eminence]

A relevant example would be something like '79 Issel vs '88 Nique.

Issel played 33.9 mpg, scored 17.0 pts/g (3rd on the squad behind Thompson/McGinnis) @ 107 TS+ for 93.8 TS Add on the #10 Ortg/SRS squad (22 teams)

Nique played 37.8 mpg, scoring 30.7 pts/g (2nd on the team was Rivers at 14.2) @ 99 TS+ for -18.5 TS Add on the #5 Ortg/#4 SRS team (23 teams)

Issel has the notably better TS Add. Nique was easily the better/more impactful scorer.

[eminence]

It would depend on how efficient and how much scoring difference we are talking about for me. I'd much rather have an efficient secondary scorer than an inefficient primary scorer (rather than neutral as in your example) and generally I'd assume that a primary scorer significantly below league average efficiency I tend to take as a negative.

True, but these are mostly hypothetical worries imo (maybe a few exceptions, but not players being discussed here). Truly inefficient players just don't last as volume shooters.

Guys near the bottom of the above list and having it held against them (Nique/Melo) both have career 100 TS+ numbers, and were often more efficient than that in prime.

Allen Iverson is the poster boy here and lasted a long time as such. Cade Cunningham currently. Below average efficiency scorers that teams want to use as a #1 scorer that I think get overrated because they shoot high volumes.

I agree they tend to get overrated generally. But it's generally because defensive players are underrated, less often is it because lower volume higher efficiency offensive players are underrated.

[Samurai]

Vote for #88: 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.

Alternate vote: Bill Sharman. Probably the best pure shooter of his time. Elite FT shooter (led the league 7 times), 9 top 20 finishes in both TS% and FG%. Six top 20 finishes in assists/game. Penbeast described him as a good defender for his time, similar to Klay Thompson. Assuming that is true, that makes an excellent all-around player when combining it with elite shooting.

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: Walt Bellamy. While I was never a big fan of his, I also admit that I only saw him play in the latter (post-prime) half of his career. Had the impression that he was kind of an 'empty stats' guy who put up big numbers that didn't necessarily translate into big impact. His WOWY isn't too impressive and he didn't seem to raise his game in the playoffs, although he didn't have any playoff appearances during his peak years. But he was a strong scorer who shot a high percentage for his era, finishing in the top 10 in TS% nine times. Was a good (but not elite) rebounder with seven top 10 finishes in reb/game. Excellent WS numbers with seven different seasons of 10+ WS (more than any of our current nominees), including a 16 WS rookie year.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I would not say anything relying that heavily on win shares is an equal assessment. Posting the TS Added metric is not too distinct from what you end up doing with win shares based on how the win share formula works; maybe throw in a bonus for rebounds and/or playing on a team with a lot of expected wins. This time at least you specify you used TS Add just to assess the scorers, and that alone is already a more fair and context-minded approach.

I mean, it just sounds like you're not big on that stat. We can disagree. I just think if the argument is that x players should be considered for induction because they're among the best remaining players at y skill, then it makes sense to use a stat that measures y to make that point.

You ask later on, why not look at the top rim protectors, playmakers, etc. I would point out that on that list I made with the TS Adds, there are a disproportionate number of players on that are known primarily as scorers. There aren't many rim protectors on it, most of the defensive guys on that list are perimeter guys. As for playmakers, it's Davies, Porter, Tiny, maybe Greer, maybe Hill, maybe DJ/Gus. You'll notice that Gus and Greer are guys I said I'd consider for my last spots. And Greer is someone I'm iffy enough on that I'd consider taking someone else. I'm not sure there's any stat that shows those any of those guys as far ahead of the pack as playmakers as TS Add shows Mullin/Walker/issel(and Zelmo/Hawk, and Worthy if you stop at 1990) to be ahead of the pack as efficient volume scorers.

The more holistic value analysis you did for Chet I think overstated his case (Thurmond also dropped off from starter level) to get a relatively typical +12 win percentage, and for Mullin I generally would say it does not reflect well outright (you can argue wing overlap, but that is mostly just a means to under-emphasise the weakness of those impact indicators). Perhaps those values feel fine to you, but by comparison they are either normal or outright weak.

And in turn, I'll argue that you're overestimating the importance of Thurmond to either of those Bulls teams. He was already in decline in 74-75, and was enough of a disappointment to the Bulls that his minutes got cut in the 75 playoffs. Further, the Bulls were already a good team before they got Thurmond, having made the WCF in 74 and posting high SRSs before that. I don't really think Thurmond had anything to do with it. As I said in writeup, it is fair to think about Sloan's absence also having an effect, but I still think Walker's retirement was the biggest factor in that collapse. The guy was the best scorer on the team by a wide margin for 5-6 years in a row, then he leaves, and the team collapses. I think it's notable.

As for the WOWY stuff I posted for Mullin, I see the team doing better with him than without in most cases, and I see him posting +2.5 on/off as late as 94(and he posts good on/off again in his role player years). I don't see why this wouldn't reflect well.

As for Issel, while did not miss time (to his credit), he did change teams. He joined the Colonels in 1971, and in what was arguably the best season of his career relative to his league environment, the team did not look all that different. Not totally holding it against him because of how much non-Pacers teams shifted in that time, but it is not an impressive signal. He has a decent signal when he leaves the Colonels… but then he does not really seem to improve the Nuggets much (if any) from their prior year. In the back years of his career, the team improves as he ages and then is only a point worse after he retires outright. Much like the rookie year, nothing damning, and in this case not even unexpected with the team makeup, but it is also not much of an argument for him in the fact of criticisms of how his mediocre to poor frontcourt defence limited Denver.

I mean, with his scoring numbers and and rebounding numbers and team success(whatever his primacy may or may not have been), if he was also a plus defender, he would've gotten in a long time ago. His defensive deficiencies are maybe a good reason not to not induct him until now. I don't see it as a reason to not induct him at all.

I agree, Cunningham was great in-era. If you care to join Samurai, we should be able to nominate him. But then I have questions about this era-relative process, getting back to a standard by which you are voting for three guys who were not exactly true standout talents.

I might give a nomination vote to Cunningham, depending on how the votes look.

And again, Walker was constantly at or near the top of the league as a scorer throughout his Bulls tenure.

Chris Mullin was an absolutely elite scorer in his prime. Five years of 25+ppg on high efficiency. Good enough to make the Dream Team and not look out of place playing with Jordan/Magic/Barkley/DRob/etc. And then later in his career, he was one of the best 3P shooters in the league in an era when a 40%+ 3P shooter would stand out more because there were fewer of them. Like, I truly don't see how that's not standout in his own era.

This kind-of plays exactly to my point: if we are not following strict rules, and most of us have not been (although the more CORP-minded people are a bit closer to doing so), then the branches we decide to elevate and emphasise this late in the project are a matter of vibes. And that is fine. If your list ends up being how it plays out, I would object to Issel and Mullin going through at the exclusion of two of English, Dominique, Davies, and Beaty (more Issel specific), but overall I think it would make for a respectable list covering the history of the league. However, there are clearly arbitrary cutoffs in your approach. You say you are exclusively era relative, but then you show minimal consideration to Bob Davies as the league’s best pre-Cousy guard (and some would argue best pre-Oscar guard). You emphasise success but then manage to fit in Mullin and list Issel ahead of Beaty.

I have been clear and consistent about why I'm withholding support for Davies, though. It's because we lack even the most basic of certain categories of box data for the earlier part of his career. I understand the argument for Davies, and I think in era-relative terms he has a case. There just isn't a player that's been considered in this whole project that we have less data for, and that's what holds me back. It's not that I don't think he was good enough or accomplished enough in his era or that he played too long ago. There's just a distinct lack of data for him. It's not arbitrary imo, I have a clear reason.

Re the success thing. First off I said it could be statistical reasons OR success reasons, I never said it had to be both. Even so, I take note of Mullin leading his team to playoff upsets while putting up huge statlines(and in one case leading his rebound-deficient team in rebounding):

WCQF vs Jazz: 32.7ppg/5rpg/5apg/2.0spg on 62.6% TS
Leads the #7 seeded Warriors to an upset 3-0 sweep of the #2 seed, 4.01 SRS/+5.1 Net Rtg Malone/Stockton Jazz

WCQF vs Spurs: 25.3ppg/7.3rpg/3.5apg/1.8spg/1.3bpg on 62.6% TS
Leads the #7 seeded Warriors to a 3-1 upset over the #2 seed, 4.30 SRS/+4.5 Net Rtg D-Rob Spurs

and I also take note of his mostly good box and impact numbers during his years as a high-end role player in Indiana where they were a contender every year.

Re Issel/Zelmo - I didn't eliminate Zelmo from consideration. I said I'd consider him for one of the last spots, and I will. But statistically, like I said before, they are both scorers, and as scorers, based on TS Add, there is a big disparity for Zelmo between ABA and NBA(197.8 vs 85.6), while for Issel, it's much closer(108.5 vs 120.7) and in fact his numbers look better in the NBA. Maybe that shouldn't matter, but it's something I take notice of.

And the funny thing with how we otherwise broadly agree on the approach to be taken is that those exceptions are the players about whom you feel most strongly. We could be pushing Cunningham with Samurai right now, and I think I at least will edit to jump in with Samurai on that, but instead you are busy tying yourself to Chris Mullin.

I just want to end this by pointing out that when I first started championing Mullen and Walker in my "A Look At Borderline/Former Top 100 Players For The Top 100 Project" thread back on New Year's Day, three months ago, you seemed supportive. This is you from that thread:

Good idea for a discussion, and I like your more thorough write-ups.

Chris Mullin(94/2014, 96/2011, 85/2008, 80/2006)
Yeah, think he deserves it.

Chet "The Jet" Walker(95/2017)
Absolutely.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2344459#p110278756

I am curious what changed for you.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

A relevant example would be something like '79 Issel vs '88 Nique.

Issel played 33.9 mpg, scored 17.0 pts/g (3rd on the squad behind Thompson/McGinnis) @ 107 TS+ for 93.8 TS Add on the #10 Ortg/SRS squad (22 teams)

Nique played 37.8 mpg, scoring 30.7 pts/g (2nd on the team was Rivers at 14.2) @ 99 TS+ for -18.5 TS Add on the #5 Ortg/#4 SRS team (23 teams)

Issel has the notably better TS Add. Nique was easily the better/more impactful scorer.

Come on, I don't know whether it was on purpose or not, but you picked the single lowest-scoring year of Issel's career and the single highest-scoring year of Dominique's career. Issel scored 20+ 11 times in his career, six of them coming in the NBA.

Issel averaged 22.6ppg on his career, Dominique averaged 24.8. In the playoffs, Issel averaged 22.1ppg for his career, Dominique averaged 25.4.

We can also look at PER 100 - for his career, Issel averaged 28.6pp100 RS and 27.1pp100 PO*, while Dominique averaged 34.7pp100 RS and 33.8pp100 in the PO.

*We don't have PER 100 for Issel's first three years.

There is a volume gap, but your example exaggerates it.

Also, if scoring high volume on average efficiency is induction-worthy, then how come we're not talking about Chris Webber(who also did a number of non-scoring things better than Dominique)?

[OldSchoolNoBull]

If he does not qualify, then a lot of those lower peak players do not qualify.

Quality for what?

You have not really made those cases though, or at least not in a way I would say is any sort of equal assessment.

I mean, I've done pretty long writeups for Walker and Mullin that I've posted multiple times, but I'll post them again here, along with my shorter Issel writeup(in a spoiler so as not to make the post gigantic):

Spoiler:

Chet Walker
I'm going to add something new before I quote myself re:Chet Walker. I want to look specifically at his 1971-72 season, which statistically is his peak season. He posted a .268 WS/48 RS and 231.1 TS Add, both career highs. This peak season for him also looks like the peak season for that era of the Bulls, as they won 57 games, posting a 7.91 SRS and +7.6 Net Rtg. The Bulls had the third best record in the NBA that season(in a league of 17 teams by then). The only teams ahead of them were the defending champion Bucks and that season's champion Lakers.

But unfortunately for the Bulls, they were in the Western Conference, and the playoffs were shorter, so their first playoff opponent was the 1972 Lakers in all their glory, and they dismantled the Bulls. But I don't think Chet or the Bulls should be punished for not being able to hang with that team, while I do think it's worth noting that that Bulls' era's peak team statistically coincided with Chet's peak statistical season.

And my earlier writeup:









Walker just looks like one of the league's best scorers for nearly a decade between 66-67 and 74-75.

Chris Mullin
I might be biased because he's a guy I grew up watching and I just love his game, but I think prime Mullin is one of the most underappreciated scorers of his era. He wasn't just a shooter, either - at 6'7'/215lbs, he had legit size, he could put the ball on the floor a little, and he was surprisingly crafty/adept at finishing around the rim. He made the Top 100 four times before missing the last two, so I don't think it's too out there to say that I think he deserves to make it back in.

I understand what the arguments against him could/will be - that he lacks longevity as an elite player, that he often didn't seem to lift his team's floor enough, that he didn't have enough playoff success, but I think the argument is there, and I may have gone overboard in articulating it here.

The Five-Year Prime
After having issues with alcohol early in his career, Mullin got sober in 1988, and from 1988-89 until a torn right thumb ligament in February 1993 kicked off a string of injuries and effectively ended his prime, Mullin had a five season run(he played over half the games in 92-93) in which he scored at least 25ppg on at least +4 rTS in each season(the exact rTS are +4.4, +10.6, +8.4, +5.5, and +4.2). I haven't been able to do a comprehensive search, but it seems that not that many players have accomplished that feat, and most of the ones that have have either already been inducted on the 2023 list or were inducted on prior lists.

In 1989, he led the Warriors in WS/48(.165), BPM(4.0), and TS Add(164.0, #12 in the league).
In 1990, he led the Warriors in WS/48(.174), BPM(5.0), and TS Add(322.7, #4 in the league).
In 1991, he led the Warriors in WS/48(.176), BPM(4.7), and TS Add(285.6, #4 in the league).
In 1992, he led the Warriors in WS/48(.155), BPM(3.7), and TS Add(194.2, #7 in the league)
In 1993, when he played 46 games, he slipped a bit - #3 in WS/48(among those who played significant minutes, .122), #2 in BPM(3.3), #1 in TS Add(86.8).

And remember he was playing with Tim Hardaway for four of those seasons and Mitch Richmond for three. It's a very, very good five-year peak. Run TMC is a team remembered for its novelty, and Mullin was their best player, imo(I think Mullin has a better case than Richmond for the Top 100 and probably an equal case with Hardaway, though I'm not as high on Hardaway as others might be).

In addition to the scoring, he also recorded 5+ RPG and 3+ APG in those seasons, and seems to have a reputation as having been a solid man defender, and at the very least box stuff(steals/blocks) supports that.

Playoffs During Prime
Now, the question is the playoffs for those five seasons. I do think the extent to which Mullin might be a playoff faller is overstated. He delivered some great playoff performances during his prime.

1989
WCQF vs Jazz: 32.7ppg/5rpg/5apg/2.0spg on 62.6% TS
Leads the #7 seeded Warriors to an upset 3-0 sweep of the #2 seed, 4.01 SRS/+5.1 Net Rtg Malone/Stockton Jazz

WCSF vs Suns: 27.4ppg/6.4rpg/4.2apg/1.6spg on 60.0% TS
Warriors fall in 5, no shame in losing to that 6.84 SRS 55-win Suns team

1990
The Warriors missed the playoffs by four games, despite it being the first year of Run TMC. Everyone was healthy, so I'm not entirely sure what happened here, besides a glaring lack of rebounding. It seems difficult to blame Mullin for it though, when he put up 25.1ppg/5.9rpg/4.1apg/1.6spg on +10.6 rTS and, as I said before, leading the team in WS/48, BPM, and TS Add.

1991
WCQF vs Spurs: 25.3ppg/7.3rpg/3.5apg/1.8spg/1.3bpg on 62.6% TS
Leads the #7 seeded Warriors to a 3-1 upset over the #2 seed, 4.30 SRS/+4.5 Net Rtg D-Rob Spurs

WCSF vs Lakers: 22.3ppg/7.3rpg/2.3apg/2.0spg/1.8bpg on 61.5% TS
Warriors fall in 5 to Magic and the Finals-bound Lakers, even less shame in losing to them than the 1989 Suns.

(A side note: The Warriors were so deficient on the boards that Mullin's 7.3rpg led the team in the playoffs.)

1992
WCQF vs Sonics: 17.8ppg/3.0rpg/3.0apg/1.3spg on 51.3% TS
A poorer showing vs the Sonics, to be sure, in a 3-1 defeat.

1993
The Warriors missed the playoffs after Mullin only played 46 games.

1994
WCQF vs Suns: 25.3ppg/4.7rpg/3.7apg/1.7bpg on 68.1% TS
After missing the end of 92-93 and the beginning 93-94, Mullin helps Sprewell and Webber to 50 wins and, in his last playoff hurrah as a star, has a big series vs the #3 seeded Barkley Suns that were coming off a Finals appearance. His stellar performance wasn't enough to prevent a sweep.

So Mullin played in 24 playoff games between 1989 and 1994 and, while the team had limited success, he was putting up superstar box statlines for the bulk of it, and in fact led them to two playoff upsets vs fellow Dream Teamers Malone/Stockton and Robinson and also put up a monster statline against fellow dream teamer Barkley in a series loss. It's not as much as you might like to see, but it is something.

There is the question of why the Warriors were always playing from a lower seed, why wasn't their floor being raised higher, but as I alluded to before, I don't think it's fair to pin it on Mullin when the roster the front office constructed had such glaring rebounding and defensive deficiencies and also when they're making questionable trades like Richmond for Owens after the 91 playoffs.

Injury Plagued Years
So anyway, 1993-1996 was an injury-plagued time for Mullin, and the team missed the playoffs three out of four of those seasons, but here are the WOWY breakdowns for those seasons:

92-93(torn right thumb ligament)
20-26(.435) with
14-22(.389) without

93-94(torn ligament in fifth finger on right hand)
39-23(.629) with
11-9(.550) without

Also worth noting that Mullin had a +2.1 on/off in 93-94(via Pollack), which took a dive in 95 and 96(due to his further injuries and the fact that the team just got bad after Webber was traded).

94-95(chip fracture/sprained ligament left knee/sprained left hamstring, and then bruised left ankle)
8-17(.320) with
18-39(.316) without

95-96
24-31(.436) with
12-15(.444) without

I haven't done a deep dive into who else might've been in/out at various times that could've effected the outcomes(other than knowing Hardaway missed all of 93-94), but on the surface it looks like they were marginally better with him as he declined, with that margin shrinking as time went on and his injuries took their toll(also as the team around him got worse).

Last Year With The Warriors

Mullins last season with the Warriors - 1996-97 - was his healthiest season since 1991-92, and signaled the beginning of a late stretch of his career in which he'd re-invent himself as a role player.

He recorded 14.5ppg/4.0rpg/4.1apg/1.6spg, but even though Sprewell and Joe Smith scored on more volume, Mullin was much more efficient and ended up leading the team in TS Add(194.2), WS/48(.124), and BPM(2.8), and shot 41.1% 3P. This may not be saying much, because that Warriors team simply wasn't good, but it does show that Mullin was still a positive contributor at the point despite the diminished role.

Pacers Years
Mullin was dealt to the Pacers in the summer of 1997.

In his first season there - 1997-98 - he played and started all 82 games. Because he was in a smaller role, playing only 26.5mpg, and taking far fewer FGAs than in his prime, his counting stats took a hit - 11.3ppg/3.0rpg/2.3apg/1.2spg - but he shot 44% from 3 and was still #2 on the team - behind Reggie Miller - in TS Add(126.8), WS/48(.168), and BPM(4.3), and #4 on the team in points per 100 possessions(23.3) with a +7.8 on/off on a 6.25 SRS 58-win team.

In the playoffs, he looked like an elite role player for the first two rounds before having a poor shooting series vs the Bulls.

ECQF vs Cavs: 10.5ppg/4.0rpg/1.0apg/1.0spg/1.8bpg on 76.9% TS in 3-1 win
ECSF vs Knicks: 11.0ppg/3.4rpg/2.4apg/1.8spg on 56.7% TS in 4-1 win
ECF vs Bulls: 6.4ppg/3.4rpg/1.0apg on 48.5% TS in 3-4 loss

He had a 3.3 BPM and a -3.3 on/off(looks like that Bulls series really hurt him on that front - credit to Scottie I guess) for the playoffs.

In the lockout-shortened 1999 season, Mullin played and started all 50 games. He put up 10.1ppg/3.2rpg/1.6apg and shot 46.5% from 3 while leading the team in BPM(4.5), and being #2 behind Reggie in TS Add(86.1) and WS/48(.167) with a +5.6 on/off on a 3.86 SRS team that was in a three-way tie for the league's fourth best record.

Similar to 1998, he looked like a very good player in the 1999 playoffs.

ECQF vs Bucks: 11.3ppg/1.3rpg on 63.2% TS in 3-0 sweep
ECSF vs 7ers: 10.0ppg/1.3rpg/1.3apg/1.3spg on 54.8% TS in 4-0 sweep
ECF vs Knicks: 8.3ppg/1.8rpg/1.3apg on 53.5% TS in 2-4 loss

He had a 1.6 BPM and a +2.5 on/off for the playoffs.

He was replaced in the starting lineup with Jalen Rose for 1999-00 and played much less, and hardly at all in their run to the finals(10mpg), and his counting stats are pretty small, but his advanced box stats and on/off speak well of his impact in limited minutes.

.142 WS/48, 3.4 BPM, 59% TS(+6.7 rTS and 40.9% 3P), +2.6 on/off in 12.4mpg in 47 games
.148 WS/48, 3.6 BPM, 60% TS, +5.6 on/off in 10.0mpg in 9 playoff games

He played one more best-forgotten year with the Warriors after that, and that was it.

Conclusion
Mullin had a five-year prime where he was one of the league's elite scorers(again - five consecutive seasons of 25+ppg and 4+ rTS) and solid rebounder to boot, and he put up some superstar playoff performances upsetting higher-seeded teams, even if his own team never got past the second round.

After a string of injury-plagued seasons, he became a high-level role player for the late 90s Pacers. I do think this adds real value to his career, especially in light of certain other players who maybe don't accept a lesser role as gracefully in their later years.

There are reasons to argue against him, but there are players that made the last Top 100 that, like Mullin, are primarily known as volume scorers, but did so much less efficiently while not having much more in the way of playoff success - I'm thinking of Carmelo Anthony here, as well as Dominique. Those two had one 100+ TS Add season each, while Mullin has six(and it would've been seven if he hadn't gotten hurt in 92-93). Like Mullin, Dominique never got past the second round as an alpha, and Melo only did it once in a season where Chauncey Billups was arguably the better player. Melo and Dominique have alpha longevity over Mullin, but the efficiency gap is pretty big.

As a final note - Mullin was on The Dream Team, and there have always been people that say it should've been Dominique(even though he wouldn't have been able to play anyway due to his achilles injury), but I firmly believe it was the right choice, both because of the fit(Mullin could play off-ball and the team needed that release valve guy) and because Mullin was dramatically more efficient in 1990-91 when the selections were being made.

I really think Mullin deserves a spot, and if he doesn't get in, he'd be the only Dream Teamer other than Laettner to miss the cut.

Also, Dan Issel hasn't gotten much discussion yet, so here's my pitch:

1. He's got the highest career RS WS/48 - .181 - of any of the yet-to-be-inducted players we've been discussing and/or who made the 2020 list. I looked at 29 such players(including the five currently on the ballot), and Issel is tops, and that's over fifteen seasons where he never really had a big fall-off.

I don't necessarily think this is the be-all, end-all, by any means, but I do think being #1 on that list at the very least indicates he should be discussed more than he has been.

2. He recorded 11 100+ TS Add seasons(and 2 200+ TS Add seasons) in his 15 year career. Between this and the WS/48 factor, it just seems like he was remarkably consistent.

3. He went to four ABA Finals and won an ABA ring. I know he wasn't #1 on any of those teams(and maybe not even #2 on some), and that the ABA Nuggets were already good when he got there, and that he never got to a single Finals in the NBA, but he still had a fair bit of team success in the ABA, and unless you just think he was consistently in the right place at the right time, you can't ignore it. He did have two additional WCF appearances in the NBA too, winning 6MOY on the second of those teams in his last season.

4. He was amazingly durable. There is almost no WOWY W/L sample of note for him because the guy only missed 24 games in 15 years. It's just a strong longevity/durability combo.

I don't feel as strongly about Issel as I do about Sharman/Walker/Mullin, but I did want to bring him up. Maybe I'm missing something with him.

And I'll add some of trex's response to my Issel post:

That career .181 WS/48 is while averaging of 34.3 mpg for his 15-year career, too; and as you later pointed out, he was extraordinarily durable over that span, missing just 24 games total in his career (only 13 in his first 13 seasons).

The guy played nearly 42k rs minutes (only five non-inducted players have ever played more).

He's consequently got more career rs WS than any non-inducted player (he's 25th all-time; one has to walk 16 places further down the list to find the next non-inducted player, and another 10 places after that to find the next one after that).

Though I'll also point out he was very efficient in terms of ball control. His career [minus '77] mTOV% is 7.71%, which is very elite among big men. Basically the only ones better in this regard are those that are often referred to as the "GOAT tier" of big-man turnover economies (e.g. LMA, Dirk, Horace Grant, AD, Al Horford).

Overall the Nuggets were reasonably successful in the NBA during his stint. In the nine NBA seasons he was there, they had a winning record and positive SRS six times, AVERAGED 43.7 wins per season [.533 win%] collectively, and made it into the playoffs 7 of 9 years, FOUR times making it past the 1st round (once by automatic berth to the semifinals, by winning at least one series the other years), and [as you said] twice getting to the WCF (not getting swept in either instance, fwiw).

Overall, I view him much like Amare Stoudemire......except with FAR better durability and longevity, and better ball-control. If we're considering someone like Cliff Hagan here, I see absolutely no reason why Dan Issel should not also be considered.

I do not think it is inherently either one, but Artest has pretty strong support for his value in a way I would not say shows up as clearly for those three (even if part of it is a matter of lessened movement and time missed).

IMO those three being three of the Top 5 scorers by TS Add yet to be nominated is supportive of their value. Maybe you disagree.

But I think you're looking for WOWY stuff. Issel and Walker barely missed any games. Walker does have the impact signal of the Bulls collapsing when he retired. And Mullin's WOWY records(they're in the writeup in the spoiler tag) during his injury-plagued years look decent.

In-era, yes. In the absolute, eh. Will give Cunningham points for effort, and effort matters (easiest criticism of Hill defensively), but playing in the same league I would not qualify defence as an overall advantage for Cunningham. And I am not even high on Hill’s defence the way some are.

As an era-relativist, everything is in-era for me. But also, Cunningham's value has to be coming from somewhere, and his scoring efficiency is only a little above average.

That is fine enough but then we should be making clear that it is more about the “vibes” of who should be in… and if we are talking “vibes”, I am not seeing why Issel should be anything other than a fringe mention. I am not seeing what makes Mullin a clear yes either.

If I am going with vibes, give me Gus, Cunningham, Wilkins, English, Worthy, Hill, Davies, and McAdoo. Somehow I doubt everyone agrees with that instinctive predilection.

That is not what I said...that's reductive. It's not about 'vibes'. I said, who stands out to me, for any reason, the most. Any reason includes actual statistical reasons, or team success reasons. It's not a gut feeling and it's not about cultural relevance either.

Mullin/Walker/Issel stand out because they're all among the most effective volume scorers, based on TS Add, of anyone left.

Worthy stands out because of his outstanding scoring efficiency during his eight-year prime and for his team accomplishments as part of Showtime.

McAdoo stands out because he won an MVP in his prime and rings in his post-prime, and because of his monster box stats in Buffalo.

Cunningham stands out because he was productive in a number of ways, played well in both leagues, won a ring in the NBA and an MVP in the ABA.

Grant and Dandridge stand out because they won in multiple contexts.

Gus Williams stands out because he was a huge playoff riser on a championship team.

If it was just 'vibes', I'd be inclined to support Dominique, but I'm not really supporting him atm. Same for Hill.

If it's any help, Chet Walker was considered a plus defender, better man defender than help defender, but in the Billy Cunningham type category of a guy who put in the work on both ends of the court. So were most of the other names you mention except Mullin, McAdoo, Issel, and Nique though, as you said, opinions on Grant Hill's defense varied widely.

Another good argument for Chet.

[AEnigma]

I would not say anything relying that heavily on win shares is an equal assessment. Posting the TS Added metric is not too distinct from what you end up doing with win shares based on how the win share formula works; maybe throw in a bonus for rebounds and/or playing on a team with a lot of expected wins. This time at least you specify you used TS Add just to assess the scorers, and that alone is already a more fair and context-minded approach.

I mean, it just sounds like you're not big on that stat. We can disagree. I just think if the argument is that x players should be considered for induction because they're among the best remaining players at y skill, then it makes sense to use a stat that measures y to make that point.

You ask later on, why not look at the top rim protectors, playmakers, etc. I would point out that on that list I made with the TS Adds, there are a disproportionate number of players on that are known primarily as scorers. There aren't many rim protectors on it, most of the defensive guys on that list are perimeter guys. As for playmakers, it's Davies, Porter, Tiny, maybe Greer, maybe Hill, maybe DJ/Gus. You'll notice that Gus and Greer are guys I said I'd consider for my last spots. And Greer is someone I'm iffy enough on that I'd consider taking someone else. I'm not sure there's any stat that shows those any of those guys as far ahead of the pack as playmakers as TS Add shows Mullin/Walker/issel(and Zelmo/Hawk, and Worthy if you stop at 1990) to be ahead of the pack as efficient volume scorers.

Mark Jackson is 25% ahead of Andre Miller and Rajon Rondo for the list of assist leaders we have excluded. Eaton is over 20% ahead of Tree Rollins for the list of excluded block leaders.

That is without getting into how scoring quality is about more than raw scoring efficiency.

The more holistic value analysis you did for Chet I think overstated his case (Thurmond also dropped off from starter level) to get a relatively typical +12 win percentage, and for Mullin I generally would say it does not reflect well outright (you can argue wing overlap, but that is mostly just a means to under-emphasise the weakness of those impact indicators). Perhaps those values feel fine to you, but by comparison they are either normal or outright weak.

And in turn, I'll argue that you're overestimating the importance of Thurmond to either of those Bulls teams. He was already in decline in 74-75, and was enough of a disappointment to the Bulls that his minutes got cut in the 75 playoffs. Further, the Bulls were already a good team before they got Thurmond, having made the WCF in 74 and posting high SRSs before that. I don't really think Thurmond had anything to do with it. As I said in writeup, it is fair to think about Sloan's absence also having an effect, but I still think Walker's retirement was the biggest factor in that collapse. The guy was the best scorer on the team by a wide margin for 5-6 years in a row, then he leaves, and the team collapses. I think it's notable.

The Bulls traded their starting centre for Thurmond. They did not get him for free, and even if you want to argue the Bulls were done with him in the playoffs, that leaves a 2500 starting centre void to fill! (Oh, and incidentally, Thurmond started in the conference finals the next year.) Boerwinkle takes up 900 of that, alright, now what about the other 1600? Oh, that is right, you trade your primary two bench wings for two backup centres who combine to cover two thirds of that.

Age 29 Chet leaves the 76ers and they drop a point, and he joins the Bulls and they maybe go up a point. You really need to believe Chet retired at his peak to not have that weigh on what you see looking at the 1976 Bulls.

As for the WOWY stuff I posted for Mullin, I see the team doing better with him than without in most cases, and I see him posting +2.5 on/off as late as 94(and he posts good on/off again in his role player years). I don't see why this wouldn't reflect well.

Because those are not characteristically superstar values. “Usually doing better with than without” is a bare minimum standard. You were just giving Artest grief for being +1 over 15 playoff games, but a +2.5 full season value two years removed from an arguable peak season is a good signal?

I mean, with his scoring numbers and and rebounding numbers and team success(whatever his primacy may or may not have been), if he was also a plus defender, he would've gotten in a long time ago. His defensive deficiencies are maybe a good reason not to not induct him until now. I don't see it as a reason to not induct him at all.

You can take that approach with almost anyone. If Horace Grant were a volume scoter he would have gone in before Kevin McHale. Yeah, Issel being a weak frontcourt defender is what limits him; why would that stop now?

And again, Walker was constantly at or near the top of the league as a scorer throughout his Bulls tenure.

No, he never had a top ten finish playing his entire career in a league with 9-18 teams.

Chris Mullin was an absolutely elite scorer in his prime. Five years of 25+ppg on high efficiency. Good enough to make the Dream Team and not look out of place playing with Jordan/Magic/Barkley/DRob/etc. And then later in his career, he was one of the best 3P shooters in the league in an era when a 40%+ 3P shooter would stand out more because there were fewer of them. Like, I truly don't see how that's not standout in his own era.

Because that is not a real comparison. Andre Iguodala was on the 2012 Olympic team that was nearly as dominant as the Dream Team. Carmelo was on that one, plus the Redeem Team, plus some more. Your talk of shooting and scoring can apply to a similar degree for players like Kiki Vandeweghe, Dale Ellis, Mullin’s teammate Mitch Richmond, and so on. Yeah, he was a good player. Anyone who was not would not be discussed.

I have been clear and consistent about why I'm withholding support for Davies, though. It's because we lack even the most basic of certain categories of box data for the earlier part of his career. I understand the argument for Davies, and I think in era-relative terms he has a case. There just isn't a player that's been considered in this whole project that we have less data for, and that's what holds me back. It's not that I don't think he was good enough or accomplished enough in his era. There's just a distinct lack of data for him. It's not arbitrary imo, I have a clear reason.

It reads like a copout reason. A guy gets recognised as an MVP and is the key common thread across two title teams, but you know, other box score data could look better for a teammate, so we should overlook it. Again, you can use whatever approach you want, but that is functional exclusion of the most decorated guard on the board.

Re the success thing. First off I said it could be statistical reasons OR success reasons, I never said it had to be both. Even so, I take note of Mullin leading his team to playoff upsets while putting up huge statlines(and in one case leading his rebound-deficient team in rebounding):

WCQF vs Jazz: 32.7ppg/5rpg/5apg/2.0spg on 62.6% TS
Leads the #7 seeded Warriors to an upset 3-0 sweep of the #2 seed, 4.01 SRS/+5.1 Net Rtg Malone/Stockton Jazz

WCQF vs Spurs: 25.3ppg/7.3rpg/3.5apg/1.8spg/1.3bpg on 62.6% TS
Leads the #7 seeded Warriors to a 3-1 upset over the #2 seed, 4.30 SRS/+4.5 Net Rtg D-Rob Spurs

and I also take note of his mostly good box and impact numbers during his years as a high-end role player in Indiana where they were a contender every year.

Sure, but that is an adjusted standard with little connection to any comparative approach. “Oh well he feels like more of an outlier scorer, his accomplishments are not that light, and he seems generally good enough.” He does not really fit outside of how you are personally assessing him as a higher tier talent.

Re Issel/Zelmo - I didn't eliminate Zelmo from consideration. I said I'd consider him for one of the last spots, and I will. But statistically, like I said before, they are both scorers, and as scorers, based on TS Add, there is a big disparity for Zelmo between ABA and NBA(197.8 vs 85.6), while for Issel, it's much closer(108.5 vs 120.7) and in fact his numbers look better in the NBA. Maybe that shouldn't matter, but it's something I take notice of.

But there is more to their game than sheer scoring, and they had their best years at basically the same time with us being able to see Beaty was better.

And the funny thing with how we otherwise broadly agree on the approach to be taken is that those exceptions are the players about whom you feel most strongly. We could be pushing Cunningham with Samurai right now, and I think I at least will edit to jump in with Samurai on that, but instead you are busy tying yourself to Chris Mullin.

I just want to end this by pointing out that when I first started championing Mullen and Walker in my "A Look At Borderline/Former Top 100 Players For The Top 100 Project" thread back on New Year's Day, three months ago, you seemed supportive. This is you from that thread:

Good idea for a discussion, and I like your more thorough write-ups.

Chris Mullin(94/2014, 96/2011, 85/2008, 80/2006)
Yeah, think he deserves it.

Chet "The Jet" Walker(95/2017)
Absolutely.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2344459#p110278756

I am curious what changed for you.

What changed is that I did not have a strong sense of what it means to go 100 deep adding some options past what you would choose. Wilkins and English and Worthy were not even doubts the way those two conceivably were, and now it looks shaky for at least one of them and possibly all three.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Mark Jackson is 25% ahead of Andre Miller and Rajon Rondo for the list of assist leaders we have excluded. Eaton is over 20% ahead of Tree Rollins for the list of excluded block leaders.

That is without getting into how scoring quality is about more than raw scoring efficiency.

Well, fair enough. But no one has ever argued for those guys to be in the Top 100, while Mullin has made it four times before and Issel five times. Now, I don't lean on that argument too hard because you can say the same type of thing for Dominique and English and some others that I'm less excited about, and newer players are always entering the discussion, but at the very least we can say that historically there has been support for Mullin and Issel where there never was for Jackson or Eaton. Maybe people didn't value the right things, I don't know, but it's worth thinking about.

The Bulls traded their starting centre for Thurmond. They did not get him for free, and even if you want to argue the Bulls were done with him in the playoffs, that leaves a 2500 starting centre void to fill! (Oh, and incidentally, Thurmond started in the conference finals the next year.) Boerwinkle takes up 900 of that, alright, now what about the other 1600? Oh, that is right, you trade your primary two bench wings for two backup centres who combine to cover two thirds of that.

First, I see Boerwinkle with 2045 MP in 75-76, not 900. To compare Thurmond 75 to Boerwinkle 76:

Boerwinkle 76: 8/10 on 35.6 TS Add, 3.0 DWS, .147 WS/48 in 2045 MP
Thurmond 75: 7.9/11.3 on -155.8 TS Add, 5.4 DWS, .081 WS/48 in 2756 MP

I don't mean to imply Boerwinkle>Thurmond generally(of course Thurmond was better and had the better career), but I do think Thurmond was on the downswing by the time he got to Chicago(otherwise why would they have traded him?), and it does not seem like there was a dramatic drop in production at the center position.

And FWIW, in the 12 games Thurmond played for the Bulls in 75-76 before being traded, they were 3-9. If you truly think Thurmond was that much better in 1974-75 and dropped off that much in one offseason, ok, but I don't think that's what happened.

Now, it is true that the center DEPTH got worse. Having worse backups may have been part of the collapse. But it's still hard for me to believe that that was as big a factor as losing Walker.

Age 29 Chet leaves the 76ers and they drop a point, and he joins the Bulls and they maybe go up a point. You really need to believe Chet retired at his peak to not have that weigh on what you see looking at the 1976 Bulls.

I mean, if you look at Walker's career trajectory, his numbers DO get bigger later on, possibly/probably due to him having greater primacy as a scorer in Chicago than he had in Philly.

Six of his eight highest raw PPG came in his last six years in Chicago.
Three of his four highest TS Adds came in his last four years.
The 168.5 TS Add he posted in his final season is the fourth highest of his 13 year career.
The 174.8 TS Add he posted in his penultimate season is the third highest of his 13 year career.
And because these things are correlated, his .205 WS/48 in his final season was the third highest of his career.
The 2.9 DWS he posted in his final season was tied for the fifth highest of his career.

I don't know that I can say he peaked in his last year, but by the numbers he was still playing some of his best basketball at the end. This is not a guy who fell off. He was remarkably consistent.

Because those are not characteristically superstar values. “Usually doing better with than without” is a bare minimum standard. You were just giving Artest grief for being +1 over 15 playoff games, but a +2.5 full season value two years removed from an arguable peak season is a good signal?

I didn't give Artest grief about it, I noted it one time and you took strong issue with it. And maybe you were right seeing as that +1 appears to be a low outlier in his playoff career.

Anyway, Mullin had sustained a couple of injuries between said "arguably peak season" and 93-94. I don't know that I'd assume his on/off in 89, 90, 91, or 92 would be the same as that 94 number. Particularly since he posted higher on/offs with the Pacers later on(+7.5 in 98, +5.6 in 99).

We just don't have a whole lot of individual impact data for Mullin. I'm not saying that the little we have is some hugely strong argument, I just don't think it hurts him at all the way you're saying.

You can take that approach with almost anyone. If Horace Grant were a volume scoter he would have gone in before Kevin McHale. Yeah, Issel being a weak frontcourt defender is what limits him; why would that stop now?

It doesn't stop being true, but most of the players left have glaring weaknesses you can point to. Why should Issel's defensive deficiencies be more disqualifying than Dominique's inefficiency, Hill's lack of playoff accomplishment, Luka/Tatum's lack of longevity, etc etc.?

And again, Walker was constantly at or near the top of the league as a scorer throughout his Bulls tenure.

No, he never had a top ten finish playing his entire career in a league with 9-18 teams.

Depends, top ten in what? Are you talking about PPG? Because, as I've stated before, Walker had a plethora of Top 10 league finishes(and even a few Top 5 finishes) in TS Add and WS/48:

In those six seasons, his TS Add was Top 5 in the league twice and Top 10 in the league five times.

69-70 - 143.2(next on team - Bob Love, 82.8), #9 in league
70-71 - 135.7(next on team - Bob Love, 60.3), #11 in league
71-72 - 231.1(next on team - Jim King, 3.7), #3 in league
72-73 - 128.6(next on team - Clifford Ray, 28.1), #7 in league
73-74 - 174.8(next on team - Clifford Ray, 42.8), #5 in league
74-75 - 168.5(next on team - Matt Guokas, 40.4), #7 in league

For five out of six seasons, Walker was #1 on the team in WS/48(the one season he wasn't, he was .004 below #1). In those six seasons, his WS/48 was Top 3 in the league three times, Top 5 4 times, and Top 10 5 times.

69-70 - .172(#10)
70-71 - .178(#11)
71-72 - .268(#2)
72-73 - .213(#3)
73-74 - .191(#5)
74-75 - .205(#3)

Because that is not a real comparison. Andre Iguodala was on the 2012 Olympic team that was nearly as dominant as the Dream Team. Carmelo was on that one, plus the Redeem Team, plus some more. Your talk of shooting and scoring can apply to a similar degree for players like Kiki Vandeweghe, Dale Ellis, Mullin’s teammate Mitch Richmond, and so on. Yeah, he was a good player. Anyone who was not would not be discussed.

A few things. First, you ignored the first part where I said those five consecutive 25+ppg in 4+ rTS seasons stand out to me. No one else we're talking about has done that.

Second, Mullin played a bigger role on the Dream Team than Iggy did.

Iggy/2012: 12.8pp36, 8.3rp36, 4.1ap36 on 70% FG while playing 12.0mpg
Mullin/1992: 21.4pp36, 2.7rp36, 6.0ap36 on 61.9% FG while playing 21.6mpg

And I believe my reasons for not supporting Melo are known by now.

Third, regarding the other guys you mentioned. Since we're talking about them in the context of scoring/shooting, Richmond and Ellis aren't close to Mullin in career average TS Add - Richmond is 65.5, Ellis 61.9.

Kiki, on the other hand, is actually about three points higher than Mullin in career average TS Add. So why hasn't he ever gotten close to the Top 100 and Mullin has made it four times? I'm guessing because of defense?

I wouldn't call Mullin a high-level defender or anything, but Kiki looks like a turnstile, a genuine liability. I don't think DWS is the most optimal measure of individual defense, but it's kind of the best individual stat we've got for these pre-databall guys.

So, if we first look at career total OWS, the two are very close - 69.2 for Mullin and 66.8 for Kiki. But when we look at career total DWS, it's 23.8 for Mullin and an anemic 8.8 for Kiki.

For reference, most of the really good defenders that haven't gotten in yet are in the 30s and 40s for career total DWS. Mullin is not on that level defensively, but it looks like he's at least passable, which is more than you can say for Kiki.

It reads like a copout reason. A guy gets recognised as an MVP and is the key common thread across two title teams, but you know, other box score data could look better for a teammate, so we should overlook it. Again, you can use whatever approach you want, but that is functional exclusion of the most decorated guard on the board.

I don't think it's a copout at all, and it's not like I just made it up - I've been saying this for weeks. And you can't possibly think I'm excluding him because of era when I've been the biggest champion of Sharman in the project and when I was a supporter of Mikan and Arizin and all the other 50s guys that have made it. And when I was voting for Hagan before the bottom fell out of his support.

You mention that Davies was on two title teams. We literally don't have playoff stats or any assist numbers or any measure of scoring efficiency for the first of those teams. This is what I'm talking about.

Sure, but that is an adjusted standard with little connection to any comparative approach. “Oh well he feels like more of an outlier scorer, his accomplishments are not that light, and he seems generally good enough.” He does not really fit outside of how you are personally assessing him as a higher tier talent.

I feel like we're starting to talk in circles about Mullin. I also feel like part of the disconnect is that you don't seem to value hyperefficient volume scoring as much as I do. If that's the case, I don't know what else to say.

But there is more to their game than sheer scoring, and they had their best years at basically the same time with us being able to see Beaty was better.

Yeah, like I said, something about those two peak years of Beaty's strikes me as very odd. He misses a full year of play, then at the age of 31, comes back in the earlier ABA and posts two seasons that statistically surpass anything he did in the NBA? And then after those two years he declines fairly quickly? I get what you're saying, but I just have this skepticism that I can't shake.

What changed is that I did not have a strong sense of what it means to go 100 deep adding some options past what you would choose. Wilkins and English and Worthy were not even doubts the way those two conceivably were, and now it looks shaky for at least one of them and possibly all three.

FWIW I think Worthy has a much stronger case than the other two.

[eminence]

A relevant example would be something like '79 Issel vs '88 Nique.

Issel played 33.9 mpg, scored 17.0 pts/g (3rd on the squad behind Thompson/McGinnis) @ 107 TS+ for 93.8 TS Add on the #10 Ortg/SRS squad (22 teams)

Nique played 37.8 mpg, scoring 30.7 pts/g (2nd on the team was Rivers at 14.2) @ 99 TS+ for -18.5 TS Add on the #5 Ortg/#4 SRS team (23 teams)

Issel has the notably better TS Add. Nique was easily the better/more impactful scorer.

Come on, I don't know whether it was on purpose or not, but you picked the single lowest-scoring year of Issel's career and the single highest-scoring year of Dominique's career. Issel scored 20+ 11 times in his career, six of them coming in the NBA.

Issel averaged 22.6ppg on his career, Dominique averaged 24.8. In the playoffs, Issel averaged 22.1ppg for his career, Dominique averaged 25.4.

We can also look at PER 100 - for his career, Issel averaged 28.6pp100 RS and 27.1pp100 PO*, while Dominique averaged 34.7pp100 RS and 33.8pp100 in the PO.

*We don't have PER 100 for Issel's first three years.

There is a volume gap, but your example exaggerates it.

Also, if scoring high volume on average efficiency is induction-worthy, then how come we're not talking about Chris Webber(who also did a number of non-scoring things better than Dominique)?

Yep, I picked a strong example of my point that approximately matched the gap on your career TS Add list - the point being TS Add is of questionable value as a proxy for overall scoring goodness.

A ton of valuable information is lost moving from even just Pts/g and TS+ to only TS Add.

Nique had 24.8 pts/g @ 100 TS+
Issel had 22.6 pts/g @ 107 TS+ (more volume in the ABA, more efficient in the NBA)

That's a 7% scoring efficiency gap and a 10% volume gap. 1% in one isn't equal to 1% in the other, but both should be acknowledged.

Team context/self creation levels/turnover economy/etc all need to be weighed as well, and overall I find Nique comes out looking quite good as a scorer from that listed group.

Webber is a perfectly reasonable player to discuss at this level. He was a good player, overrated in contemporary awards like many offense focused players, held back by injury issues.

[eminence]

Vote #1: Jack Sikma
-Moves to the top of my ballot
-Very versatile big, no clear areas of weakness
-Decent longevity
-Part of the core of a successful Sonics Squad

Vote #2: Al Horford
-Similar player to Sikma
-Ding him for some notable mid-prime injuries

Sharman>Hagan>Walton for the rest of the nominees.

Nomination #1: Bob Davies
-All around offensive guard, good volume scoring and playmaking, at good efficiency on very good offenses
-Strong level of team success as a star

Nomination #2: Horace Grant
-Undecided vs Bosh, but saw he had some support, so went with Grant
-Another good all-around big, saw a ton of team success as a 3rd guy

Tons of other guys worth considering, I still want to build a Greer case at some point, and can see myself hopping aboard the Metta train in coming rounds.

[penbeast0]

Re: Dan Issel. Kentucky was my main team after the Capitols moved to Richmond and before the Bullets moved to Washington so I always had a soft spot for him. Nonetheless and despite his consistently outstanding scoring, I always saw him as someone that needed to be upgraded or moved to PF in Denver.

I will say that center defense seemed disproportionately more important in Issel's day. I always thought you needed a legit post defender next to him to leave him free to score. Even today, centers with good scoring numbers can get buried on the bench for failure to anchor a defense. Today we also seem to value range and passing from bigs more than in the 70s/80s but defense is still a huge key (unless you are Jokic where you are so incredibly good they just rewrite the team construction rules for you).

[AEnigma]

RealGM crashed so keeping this shorter.

The Bulls traded their starting centre for Thurmond. They did not get him for free, and even if you want to argue the Bulls were done with him in the playoffs, that leaves a 2500 starting centre void to fill! (Oh, and incidentally, Thurmond started in the conference finals the next year.) Boerwinkle takes up 900 of that, alright, now what about the other 1600? Oh, that is right, you trade your primary two bench wings for two backup centres who combine to cover two thirds of that.

First, I see Boerwinkle with 2045 MP in 75-76, not 900.

He added 900 to his 1975 total.

To compare Thurmond 75 to Boerwinkle 76:

Boerwinkle 76: 8/10 on 35.6 TS Add, 3.0 DWS, .147 WS/48 in 2045 MP
Thurmond 75: 7.9/11.3 on -155.8 TS Add, 5.4 DWS, .081 WS/48 in 2756 MP

I don't mean to imply Boerwinkle>Thurmond generally(of course Thurmond was better and had the better career), but I do think Thurmond was on the downswing by the time he got to Chicago(otherwise why would they have traded him?), and it does not seem like there was a dramatic drop in production at the center position.

And FWIW, in the 12 games Thurmond played for the Bulls in 75-76 before being traded, they were 3-9. If you truly think Thurmond was that much better in 1974-75 and dropped off that much in one offseason, ok, but I don't think that's what happened.

Now, it is true that the center DEPTH got worse. Having worse backups may have been part of the collapse. But it's still hard for me to believe that that was as big a factor as losing Walker.

The team essentially dropped twenty wins losing Walker, mostly losing Sloan, and losing pretty much all of Thurmond. Their core remaining rotation from 1975 — Sloan, Love, Van Lier, Boerwinkle, and Thurmond — played five games together (went 2-3). You can say Thurmond was washed, but losing 2500 minutes of starting centre play is tough to overcome with no real replacement… and you can see that depth effect with the Cavaliers going 7-10 without Thurmond or Austin Carr, then going 42-23 the rest of the way with those two providing the combined minute equivalents of one starter.

Age 29 Chet leaves the 76ers and they drop a point, and he joins the Bulls and they maybe go up a point. You really need to believe Chet retired at his peak to not have that weigh on what you see looking at the 1976 Bulls.

I mean, if you look at Walker's career trajectory, his numbers DO get bigger later on, possibly/probably due to him having greater primacy as a scorer in Chicago than he had in Philly.

Six of his eight highest raw PPG came in his last six years in Chicago.
Three of his four highest TS Adds came in his last four years.
The 168.5 TS Add he posted in his final season is the fourth highest of his 13 year career.
The 174.8 TS Add he posted in his penultimate season is the third highest of his 13 year career.
And because these things are correlated, his .205 WS/48 in his final season was the third highest of his career.
The 2.9 DWS he posted in his final season was tied for the fifth highest of his career.

I don't know that I can say he peaked in his last year, but by the numbers he was still playing some of his best basketball at the end. This is not a guy who fell off. He was remarkably consistent.

Yes, but that means there is also not much reason to believe his end of career indicators would be more properly representative of his value than the mid-prime indicators.

Because those are not characteristically superstar values. “Usually doing better with than without” is a bare minimum standard. You were just giving Artest grief for being +1 over 15 playoff games, but a +2.5 full season value two years removed from an arguable peak season is a good signal?

I didn't give Artest grief about it, I noted it one time and you took strong issue with it. And maybe you were right seeing as that +1 appears to be a low outlier in his playoff career.

Anyway, Mullin had sustained a couple of injuries between said "arguably peak season" and 93-94. I don't know that I'd assume his on/off in 89, 90, 91, or 92 would be the same as that 94 number. Particularly since he posted higher on/offs with the Pacers later on(+7.5 in 98, +5.6 in 99).

We just don't have a whole lot of individual impact data for Mullin. I'm not saying that the little we have is some hugely strong argument, I just don't think it hurts him at all the way you're saying.

I never brought up on/off, you did. I do not care about his hypothetical on/off to any strong degree — depending on the staggering approach when he played with Richmond, it could even be negative without me being especially concerned — but +2.5 is not something to praise on that front.

You can take that approach with almost anyone. If Horace Grant were a volume scoter he would have gone in before Kevin McHale. Yeah, Issel being a weak frontcourt defender is what limits him; why would that stop now?

It doesn't stop being true, but most of the players left have glaring weaknesses you can point to. Why should Issel's defensive deficiencies be more disqualifying than Dominique's inefficiency, Hill's lack of playoff accomplishment, Luka/Tatum's lack of longevity, etc etc.?

Wilkins — I am not looking for aesthetic complaints, I am looking at who was better at the sport and contributed more to their teams.

Hill — I am not giving Issel bonus credit because he had good runs as a support piece to Artis Gilmore, David Thompson, and Bobby Jones, with a more limiting playstyle than alternatives like Bosh or Grant.

Tatum/Luka — I do not think anyone arguing for those two is arguing the aggregated value of what those two provided to their teams through 2023 tops the aggregate team contribution of every other option with triple the career minutes played.

And again, Walker was constantly at or near the top of the league as a scorer throughout his Bulls tenure.

No, he never had a top ten finish playing his entire career in a league with 9-18 teams.

Depends, top ten in what? Are you talking about PPG? Because, as I've stated before, Walker had a plethora of Top 10 league finishes(and even a few Top 5 finishes) in TS Add and WS/48:

…

In those six seasons, his TS Add was Top 5 in the league twice and Top 10 in the league five times.

69-70 - 143.2(next on team - Bob Love, 82.8), #9 in league
70-71 - 135.7(next on team - Bob Love, 60.3), #11 in league
71-72 - 231.1(next on team - Jim King, 3.7), #3 in league
72-73 - 128.6(next on team - Clifford Ray, 28.1), #7 in league
73-74 - 174.8(next on team - Clifford Ray, 42.8), #5 in league
74-75 - 168.5(next on team - Matt Guokas, 40.4), #7 in league

Okay, cool, but there is a reason we factor volume. I brought up Kiki already, but he is not the only one. Chet’s career TS ADD is a bit below Cedric Maxwell’s, and Maxwell has a Finals MVP leading the team in regular season win shares. Bailey Howell is higher than both of them, with two titles! And unlike with Kiki, you cannot say either were soft defenders, with Maxwell in particular being good enough to provide useful minutes assigned to Moses Malone.

In any sense, I suspect you do not think a guy like Calvin Murphy was a more capable scorer than Allen Iverson, so why do we keep acting as if this is the means by which scoring is assessed?

For five out of six seasons, Walker was #1 on the team in WS/48(the one season he wasn't, he was .004 below #1). In those six seasons, his WS/48 was Top 3 in the league three times, Top 5 4 times, and Top 10 5 times.

69-70 - .172(#10)
70-71 - .178(#11)
71-72 - .268(#2)
72-73 - .213(#3)
73-74 - .191(#5)
74-75 - .205(#3)

Howell was top 3 three times, top 5 four times, and top 10 nine times. He has a higher career WS/48 than Chet as well. Secret superstar?

Because that is not a real comparison. Andre Iguodala was on the 2012 Olympic team that was nearly as dominant as the Dream Team. Carmelo was on that one, plus the Redeem Team, plus some more. Your talk of shooting and scoring can apply to a similar degree for players like Kiki Vandeweghe, Dale Ellis, Mullin’s teammate Mitch Richmond, and so on. Yeah, he was a good player. Anyone who was not would not be discussed.

A few things. First, you ignored the first part where I said those five consecutive 25+ppg in 4+ rTS seasons stand out to me. No one else we're talking about has done that.

Because it is obviously arbitrary. Bob McAdoo led the league in scoring and finished top two in MVP voting three years in a row; no one else on the board has done that! I will refrain from doing something else along the lines of the Mark Jackson bit, but the same point holds: none of this is in itself a comparatively advantaged accomplishment.

Neil Johnston led the league in win shares five years in a row and won a title. Where is he on your list?

Second, Mullin played a bigger role on the Dream Team than Iggy did.

Iggy/2012: 12.8pp36, 8.3rp36, 4.1ap36 on 70% FG while playing 12.0mpg
Mullin/1992: 21.4pp36, 2.7rp36, 6.0ap36 on 61.9% FG while playing 21.6mpg

Fine, if we want key minutes, then I can look at 1996 where I see Grant Hill at 21.7 minutes a game and Mitch Richmond at 19 minutes a game. Deron Williams was top five in minutes for the Redeem team and did so with substantial role overlap, and then was top four in minutes for the even better 2012 team.

Third, regarding the other guys you mentioned. Since we're talking about them in the context of scoring/shooting, Richmond and Ellis aren't close to Mullin in career average TS Add - Richmond is 65.5, Ellis 61.9.

Kiki, on the other hand, is actually about three points higher than Mullin in career average TS Add. So why hasn't he ever gotten close to the Top 100 and Mullin has made it four times? I'm guessing because of defense?

quote]I wouldn't call Mullin a high-level defender or anything, but Kiki looks like a turnstile, a genuine liability. I don't think DWS is the most optimal measure of individual defense, but it's kind of the best individual stat we've got for these pre-databall guys.

So, if we first look at career total OWS, the two are very close - 69.2 for Mullin and 66.8 for Kiki. But when we look at career total DWS, it's 23.8 for Mullin and an anemic 8.8 for Kiki.

For reference, most of the really good defenders that haven't gotten in yet are in the 30s and 40s for career total DWS. Mullin is not on that level defensively, but it looks like he's at least passable, which is more than you can say for Kiki.

And then Mitch Richmond was a more respected defender than Mullin, but if you are just going to bring this back to win shares, then you should not be pushing for Mullin at all. This is what I mean when I talk about inconsistency and vibes-based analysis. Mullin was not a successful player and did not rack up win shares… but he did have an elite five-year scoring prime, so send him in.

It reads like a copout reason. A guy gets recognised as an MVP and is the key common thread across two title teams, but you know, other box score data could look better for a teammate, so we should overlook it. Again, you can use whatever approach you want, but that is functional exclusion of the most decorated guard on the board.

I don't think it's a copout at all, and it's not like I just made it up - I've been saying this for weeks. And you can't possibly think I'm excluding him because of era when I've been the biggest champion of Sharman in the project and when I was a supporter of Mikan and Arizin and all the other 50s guys that have made it. And when I was voting for Hagan before the bottom fell out of his support.

You mention that Davies was on two title teams. We literally don't have playoff stats or any assist numbers or any measure of scoring efficiency for the first of those teams. This is what I'm talking about.

Right, we just know that Davies won an MVP immediately after that first title where he had been a narrow second on the team in postseason scoring. Because it is conceivably possible that the box score could indicate Davies played terribly and was carried to a title, we simply should not bother assessing those years. I wonder why you do not keep that energy for other types of missing information. Without on/off, how can we say Issel was actually a positive rather than a glorified Demar Derozan?

Sure, but that is an adjusted standard with little connection to any comparative approach. “Oh well he feels like more of an outlier scorer, his accomplishments are not that light, and he seems generally good enough.” He does not really fit outside of how you are personally assessing him as a higher tier talent.

I feel like we're starting to talk in circles about Mullin. I also feel like part of the disconnect is that you don't seem to value hyperefficient volume scoring as much as I do. If that's the case, I don't know what else to say.

Correct, I do not, but I also do not think you are remotely consistent in how you are evaluating it. Which is okay, because you can back whomever you want, but it makes for unconvincing arguments when presented as if the approach leading you there had any neutrality to it.

What changed is that I did not have a strong sense of what it means to go 100 deep adding some options past what you would choose. Wilkins and English and Worthy were not even doubts the way those two conceivably were, and now it looks shaky for at least one of them and possibly all three.

FWIW I think Worthy has a much stronger case than the other two.

He was certainly more successful by virtue of playing next to Magic, but he had the shortest prime, the shortest career, and by far the least individual responsibility to drive a team. I think he was the best fit for those Lakers teams and the better player than those two in his prime, but not by enough for me to feel confident in building around him as a team centrepiece for a decade. Chet versus him is a good debate though.

[OhayoKD]

Vote

1. Bill Walton

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:

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)

Walton WOWY (MOV)
1975: -5.0
1976: +3.7
1980: +4.9
1983: +5.9
1984: +4.7
1985: +2.7

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.

Celtics RS SRS / PO Relative Rating
1984: +6.4 / +6.9
1985: +6.5 / +5.8
1986: +9.1 / +13.1
1987: +6.6 / +3.5
1988: +6.2 / +4.7

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. Al Hoford
 
Nomination

1. Horace Grant
2. Jayson Tatum

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).

1. 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:

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.


2. 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.


3. 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.

4. 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.



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 and Bob Cousy

Spoiler:

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...

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?

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.

[trex_8063]

Been super busy lately so I'll just copy paste from before. Might add a nomination vote later.

Vote: Bill Walton

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.

I don't know that a CORP argument helps Walton as much as you think.

I mean, I've done some first-pass CORP "studies" myself (and I actually made low-tier MVP and All-NBA seasons worth MORE [relative to average(ish) seasons] than Taylor does), and Walton STILL just doesn't come away as a stand-out relative to everyone else we've discussed recently. He's even toward the bottom.....even when I curve it for seasons played (to avoid the "average player for 50 years" issue).

You're not the only one to use a CORP-type argument to make a case for a poor longevity guy; but in doing so, you [and others] tend to fixate on the one or two really good years, saying "my gosh! Look how much more valuable these MVP or 'All-Time' tier seasons are than a mere 'All-Star' season"........while [seemingly] failing to actually complete the math for their whole career (and more importantly: comparing it to the CORP value of the other players).

Let's look at some of the things you've said:
If '77 is valued as a +7 year (which even you allowed might be arguable, though I'm not going to argue you on that point), it's worth ~TEN seasons of an "average starter".***

***This is the first point I want to contend in what you've said: the chart clearly dictates that a +7 season is not worth 10 "average starter" seasons.......it suggests it's worth ~10 of a minimum threshold/low-level/borderline starter (a "top 150 player"): like literally the worst/lowest-tier starting players in the league........someone like [perhaps??] 2nd-year [pre-prime] Horace Grant. 10 years like that.

You know what's worth [by the same chart] about ELEVEN such seasons [that is: marginally MORE THAN Walton's '77 campaign]?.........Five lower-tier/borderline All-Star ("top 25") seasons.
Something like Horace Grant '91-'95: worth marginally MORE [in CORP terms] than '77 Walton (might even be worth ~12 seasons of that low-tier starter [because his '92 and '94 campaigns were so good]).
Something like Al Horford '15-'19: worth probably ~11-12 "top 150 player" seasons as well.
Something like Jack Sikma '79-'83: probably worth at least 11 "top 150" player seasons.


Walton is already playing from behind before we include consideration of the rest of their respective careers (which arguably/probably leans toward the other guys [not Walton]). I mean, outside of his '77 campaign [which we'll say is worth 10 of those "top 150" seasons], how many more "top 150" seasons is the whole rest of his career worth?

12? 15? 17?

I think 17 would be an over-generous estimation [perhaps grossly so]; probably even 15 is over-generous, given his one and ONLY other fully healthy season saw him playing just 19.3 mpg in the rs and even fewer [18.2] in the playoffs; and while in '78 he was still MVP level, he missed 24 rs games [wouldn't even be eligible this year], and more or less missed the entire playoffs.
Yes, he had some other decent years, though never again approaching [even remotely?] the level of '77 or '78 rs, and ALWAYS with one or both of limited minutes or massive missed games.

But for the sake of argument, let's say all non-'77 years are worth 17 of those low-tier starter ("top 150") seasons.

How much is THE REST of Al Horford's career [outside of the '15-'19 window I cited above] worth?
Hell, a quick glance I'd off-the-cuff estimate he's got ANOTHER sample worth about 10-11 "top 150" seasons ['09-'14], probably another 2 roughly "top 40-60" seasons, and a few other that are at least low-tier starter ["top 150"].

So that's like the equivalent value as approximately 19(ish) "top 150" seasons......that's in addition to the 11-12 I already singled out above.
It's simply more than Walton. I get similar relationships [within a CORP framework] when I look at someone like Jack Sikma.

Sorry, but I'm just not on-board with him, and doubt I ever will be unless the list of candidates is SUPREMELY not to my liking.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Induction Vote #1: Bill Sharman

Induction Vote #2: Bill Walton

Doing my part to try to get Sharman in.

Will give my second vote to Walton - highest peak here.

Nomination Vote #1: Billy Cunningham

Nomination Vote #2: Chet Walker

Of the guys who have nomination votes right now, Cunningham is the one I'd put through first - volume scoring on marginally-above-average efficiency, good defender, great rebounder, played well in both leagues, helped the 67 Sixers win the title and won an MVP in the ABA.

Giving my #2 vote to his teammate in Philly, Walker. See my in-depth arguments for Walker here: viewtopic.php?p=112016882#p112016882

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I feel like our debate here is yielding diminishing returns, so I'm just going to reply to a few things.

Wilkins — I am not looking for aesthetic complaints, I am looking at who was better at the sport and contributed more to their teams.

I find it interesting that you characterize inefficiency as an aesthetic complaint. I don't think it's aesthetic at all. That actually makes it sound like you don't think inefficiency actually matters.

Hill — I am not giving Issel bonus credit because he had good runs as a support piece to Artis Gilmore, David Thompson, and Bobby Jones, with a more limiting playstyle than alternatives like Bosh or Grant.

Being a tertiary piece on contending teams hasn't been a barrier before. Horace Grant is getting nomination votes right now. Jeff Hornacek made the last list.

Okay, cool, but there is a reason we factor volume. I brought up Kiki already, but he is not the only one. Chet’s career TS ADD is a bit below Cedric Maxwell’s, and Maxwell has a Finals MVP leading the team in regular season win shares. Bailey Howell is higher than both of them, with two titles! And unlike with Kiki, you cannot say either were soft defenders, with Maxwell in particular being good enough to provide useful minutes assigned to Moses Malone.

In any sense, I suspect you do not think a guy like Calvin Murphy was a more capable scorer than Allen Iverson, so why do we keep acting as if this is the means by which scoring is assessed?

Neil Johnston led the league in win shares five years in a row and won a title. Where is he on your list?

I would only point out that Maxwell did not maintain the volume that Walker did for as long...Walker is at 18.2 for his career while Maxwell is at 12.5(and their mpg were mostly similar, it wasn't a result of playing less). I also am not sure Maxwell had as much primacy in his career as Walker did in Chicago, particularly once Bird was in Boston, and later McHale.

With regards to Howell, I will very honestly say I don't know enough about him to have an educated opinion.

Re Neil Johnston - he has made the list twice before. The notion of him being a candidate is not without precedent. There are only so many spots to fill though, and Walker played five more seasons than Johnston, while also being a bit more resilient in the postseason.

Right, we just know that Davies won an MVP immediately after that first title where he had been a narrow second on the team in postseason scoring. Because it is conceivably possible that the box score could indicate Davies played terribly and was carried to a title, we simply should not bother assessing those years. I wonder why you do not keep that energy for other types of missing information. Without on/off, how can we say Issel was actually a positive rather than a glorified Demar Derozan?

Look, as someone who has championed era-relativity and giving the oldest guys their due from the very beginning of the project, I'd love to support Davies. I'm waiting to be convinced. I just feel like we are asked to make a number of assumptions about his NBL years. But I'm willing to keep listening to arguments in his favor.

Re on/off - It would be great if we had it for everyone, but I feel like you can still have a reasonable picture of a player's career without it(we've been evaluating pre-databall players without it all project long). But for Davies, looking at his first championship season and his MVP season, I don't know what his efficiency was, I don't know how many assists he recorded, I don't even know how many minutes he played. I feel like these are fundamental pieces of information that are missing. Yes, we can look those numbers in his NBA years and assume they would've been similar or even better in his NBL years, but it's just that, an assumption. That creates a degree of uncertainty that gives me pause when there's only so many spots left. But I will continue listening to arguments. I won't count him out yet.

Re the Issel/DeRozan thing - I'd just say that Issel was much more efficient on very similar volume, and that he had much more team playoff success, even if only as a tertiary option.

Honest question, because you've brought up Davies' MVP multiple times - are you supporting or will you support McAdoo, given his MVP?

Correct, I do not, but I also do not think you are remotely consistent in how you are evaluating it. Which is okay, because you can back whomever you want, but it makes for unconvincing arguments when presented as if the approach leading you there had any neutrality to it.

If I am coming across as inconsistent, it is not a result of a lack of effort. Particularly at this stage of the project, I think it is very easy to look at any player anyone might be supporting and say, 'well what about this guy who has a similar profile'.

He was certainly more successful by virtue of playing next to Magic, but he had the shortest prime, the shortest career, and by far the least individual responsibility to drive a team. I think he was the best fit for those Lakers teams and the better player than those two in his prime, but not by enough for me to feel confident in building around him as a team centrepiece for a decade. Chet versus him is a good debate though.

My thought here is that you just equated Chet to Worthy, which seems like a compliment to me.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Bill Sharman
Vote 2 - Jack Sikma
Nomination 1 - Billy Cunningham
Nomination 2 - Horace Grant

I'm impressed Sharman's longevity as well as efficiency relative to his era. Scoring as efficiently as he did may have been even more difficult given the celtics' gameplan of getting up as many shots as possible. Solid and consistent contributor to multiple celtics championship teams. One of the more accomplished guards of his era with 7 all NBA selections and 5th and 7th place MVP finishes.

[LA Bird]

You're not the only one to use a CORP-type argument to make a case for a poor longevity guy; but in doing so, you [and others] tend to fixate on the one or two really good years, saying "my gosh! Look how much more valuable these MVP or 'All-Time' tier seasons are than a mere 'All-Star' season"........while [seemingly] failing to actually complete the math for their whole career (and more importantly: comparing it to the CORP value of the other players).

Well, that's because you cut out the second half of my post where I talk about the value of Walton's other seasons...

Walton is already playing from behind before we include consideration of the rest of their respective careers (which arguably/probably leans toward the other guys [not Walton]). I mean, outside of his '77 campaign [which we'll say is worth 10 of those "top 150" seasons], how many more "top 150" seasons is the whole rest of his career worth?

12? 15? 17?

I think 17 would be an over-generous estimation [perhaps grossly so]; probably even 15 is over-generous, given his one and ONLY other fully healthy season saw him playing just 19.3 mpg in the rs and even fewer [18.2] in the playoffs; and while in '78 he was still MVP level, he missed 24 rs games [wouldn't even be eligible this year], and more or less missed the entire playoffs.
Yes, he had some other decent years, though never again approaching [even remotely?] the level of '77 or '78 rs, and ALWAYS with one or both of limited minutes or massive missed games.

Everything here was already preemptively covered in my original post. The focus on minutes instead of the actual contribution in those minutes. The complete dismissal of ~60 game seasons which is never done for other players. The emphasis on the drop off from peak form while ignoring how good a declined Walton still was. I don't think there is much to discuss if you are just going to re-use the same arguments I already addressed...

Sorry, but I'm just not on-board with him, and doubt I ever will be unless the list of candidates is SUPREMELY not to my liking.

That's cool. As I said at the start, I don't expect many people to change their opinion on Walton. And the current group of candidates all seem pretty reasonable to me anyway.