RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #94 (Jayson Tatum)

Post #1 » by **Doctor MJ** » Wed Apr 17, 2024 4:07 pm

Our system is now as follows:

1. We have a pool of Nominees you are to choose from for your Induction (main) vote to decide who next gets on the List. Choose your top vote, and if you'd like to, a second vote which will be used for runoff purposes if needed.

2. Nomination vote now works the same way.

3. You must include reasoning for each of your votes, though you may re-use your old words in a new post.

4. Post as much as they want, but when you do your official Vote make it really clear to me at the top of that post that that post is your Vote. And if you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same Vote post.

5. Anyone may post thoughts, but please only make a Vote post if you're on the Voter list. If you'd like to be added to the project, please ask in the General Thread for the project. Note that you will not be added immediately to the project now. If you express an interest during the #2 thread, for example, the earliest you'll be added to the Voter list is for the #3.

5. I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over). For this specific Vote, if people ask before the Deadline, I'll extend it.

Here's the list of the Voter Pool as it stands right now (and if I forgot anyone I approved, do let me know):

Spoiler:

Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):

Bob Davies

Luka Doncic

Cliff Hagan

Jayson Tatum

Gus Williams

As requested, here's the current list so far along with the historical spreadsheet of previous projects:

Current List
Historical Spreadsheet

AEnigma · Post #2 » by **AEnigma** » Wed Apr 17, 2024 4:23 pm

VOTE: Gus Williams
Alternate: Bob Davies (willing to switch)
NOMINATE: Dominique Wilkins
AltNom: James Worthy

AEnigma wrote:Hold Gus in high regard for his excellent postseason elevation, his strong impact profile, and his general trend of success. On one of the old projects, Ronnymac mentioned that the 1976 Warriors had an outlier opponent turnover percentage coinciding with rookie Gus’s emergence as a McMillan-esque bench disrupter. Couple that with the Warriors losing narrowly once Gus was unable to play, and although that rookie season ends up not worth much in a CORP sense, I appreciate the signal of his ability to affect the game early on and at reduced minutes.

To me he was at his peak the fifth best (not most accomplished) guard before the playmaker boom of the late 1980s. Dynamic in transition, flexible as either a lead creator or a dedicated scorer, and defensively feisty without being irresponsible. Lack of longevity will be a non-starter for many, but I encourage those more forgiving of that to give him serious consideration.

Among other prominent nomination campaigns, I go Chet Walker > Marc Gasol > Chris Bosh ~= Terry Porter > Walt Bellamy > Jerry Lucas

OhayoKD · Post #3 » by **OhayoKD** » Wed Apr 17, 2024 4:45 pm

Vote

1. Luka Donicic

Best player left, strong impact profile over larger samples, paticularly with playoff elevation, best era. on the shortlist of most talented players ever

2. Tatum

Strong impact profile, lots of team success, and doing it in the most talented iteration of the league.

Nomination

1. Marc Gasol

He seems to have some legitimate prospects now, so I'll start a more concentrated push. First some data:

2010-18: +1.2 net rating / 47-win pace with,

-5.3 net rating / 31-win pace without

As a lead, Gasol led good teams, and even an arguable contender with the 2015 Grizzlies posting impact significantly better than multiple players who have been voted ahead of him peaking as the best paint-protector and, at least arguably, defender in the league.

As a supplementary piece, Gasol anchored one of the best playoff defenses en route to a title and a great 2-season defense that contended even without a certain Kawhi Leonard(#35). When he left, so did the concept of Toronto as a strong defense, and consequently, as a relevant team.

To put it simply, he was more proven as a lead than Bosh or Worthy, and as a supplementary figure he excelled post-prime with minimal opportunity.

I also think it's notable that Toronto never really showed the ability to withstand Gasol's absence in a playoff setting being way worse before and way worse after. The Lakers were able to win 2 conference final games and make the finals with worthy as a non-factor. Similarly, the Heat won a series against a decent opponent without Bosh and won in spite of him missing half the playoffs.

All considered, I think he's the best candidate left.

2. James Worthy

Would prefer to vote for gasol but may swap depending on who gets support.

Some arguments:

Spoiler:

Not really as proven as Gasol as a lead, but of "successful supporting stars" he is the most successful, achieved that success sometimes as the second most influential piece, and showed he could at least tread-water and mantain his production as his team's central piece.

Post #4 » by **penbeast0** » Wed Apr 17, 2024 5:47 pm

vote Jayson Tatum Main man for the last 5+ years on one of the most consistently competitive teams in the modern era.

alt Luka Doncic Very iffy this one and I may go back and change it. In here pretty much for stats alone as Dallas hasn't been that impressive in his tenure. And, the current era is one of stat inflation for stars so I take modern monster stat lines with a bit of a grain of salt. But, his are indeed monster stats and I am consciously trying to give more modern players a bit more leeway as I think I naturally lean to 20th century players from when I was younger.

Nomination: Mel Daniels: Best player on a multiple championship team and a 2 time ABA MVP. It was a weak league but probably stronger than the one Bob Davies excelled in.

Most similar modern player would be Alonzo Mourning with better rebounding but without the great shotblocking. Both became greats through sheer aggression and a willingness to fight you every inch of every possession.

Samurai · Post #5 » by **Samurai** » Wed Apr 17, 2024 6:18 pm

Vote for #94: Jayson Tatum. My biggest reservation is his lack of longevity relative to the other nominees. But his peak/prime has been so strong that I favor him over the other choices. All NBA First Team the past two seasons and on the third team in 20. Dynamic scorer. Not an elite defender but he isn't a poor one either. Just needs better longevity to move up the list for me.

Alternate vote: Cliff Hagan. Wanted to vote for Gus since I got to see him play quite a bit, particularly his first two seasons when he was with the Dubs. But he has even less longevity than Hagan despite playing 20 years later and (presumably) having better medical/training access than Hagan had. And as much as I liked Gus, he just doesn't have the impact peak that Tatum has to compensate. Never saw Hagan play live but he was a 6-time all star, led the league in OWS once, and was consistently in the top 20 in points, rebounds, and assists per game.

Nomination: Jerry Lucas. No I don't expect Luke to get much support as he didn't make the top 100 the last time either. But he's been a personal favorite of mine since I went to his summer camp so this is a personal bias vote for me. Outstanding shooter who shot for a very high percentage in his era, especially notable since he typically shot from farther out than most anyone else at that time. Twice led the league in TS% with eight total finishes in the top 20. A poor defender on the wing due to his lack of foot speed, he was a solid low post defender due to his strength and positioning, although at only 6-8 he could not stop taller elites like Wilt or Kareem. Seven finishes in the top 20 in DWS and eight times for OWS, he was named All NBA five times (3 first teams and 2 second teams). An elite rebounder, although he was a noted stat padder, he spent hours in the gym studying flight patterns and angles of shots to determine where a potential rebound is most likely to fall and used this uncanny positioning and strength to offset his lack of hops. Also a very good passer for a big in that era.

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.

trelos6 · Post #6 » by **trelos6** » Wed Apr 17, 2024 9:00 pm

Vote: Gus Williams

His job was a lead guard, and he was pretty good at it for 7 seasons. Wasn’t the most efficient scorer, but in the playoffs, he got his volume up to 25/26 pp75 on around league average rTS%. I have him over guys like Carmelo and Dominique due to his playmaking. Those guys were also 30 pp75 on league average or slightly worse, but were not the playmakers of Williams calibre.

Alt. Vote: Bob Davies

He wasn't in my short listed pool of 160 odd players I initially ranked, but after some support in the last 10-15 threads, I've done some deep dives and I'm happy to have him in the 90’s. I'd give him 4 years at an ALL NBA level, with another 3 at an ALL STAR level. This is enough longevity to get him over the pack.

Nomination: Terry Porter

For 3 post season runs, Porter was the 1B to Drexler. A very efficient scorer, who ran the team well.

Alt nomination: Neil Johnston

I get it, today he wouldn’t be in the league. But in his time, he was dominant. 5 weak MVP level seasons amongst his peers.

falcolombardi · Post #7 » by **falcolombardi** » Wed Apr 17, 2024 9:34 pm

Vote - luka doncic

Easily the best overall and playoffs player in this list of player, 5 years of low end to strong mvp level performance~ as a league top 5 player is long enough to be the bulk of a lot of (selected way, way earlier) players primes as stars on a pure longevity basis, and the added value of this kind of player to compete for titles is huge compared to a longer career all nba to all star level guy

His ease to score and playmaking at will doesnt get enough appreciation, but unlike someone like harden his game has been more resilient when put to test

Alt vote- Gus williams, best player on a fairly talented team that won 1 ring and went to 2 finals and with strong playoffs resilience is a surprisingly similar profile to isiah thomas who went in like 40 spots ago or whatever it was
His level of play seems to have been high enough to warrant more love than he usually gets

I am torn between tatum and him, i am more familiar with tatum but i am not too high on his peak

nomination- marc gasol
Dont have anyone i am particularly anxious to get in, but as a long time fan of marc play i wanted to get him in the convo
A dpoy big who can shot, pass and score is a fairly ideal sidekick star

Post #8 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Apr 18, 2024 12:37 am

Induction vote: Jayson Tatum

Alternate vote: Luka Doncic (I guess???)

Truthfully, I'm not crazy about ANY of the current candidates; none of them is in my own personal top 100. Bearing in mind I ascribe to something sort of similar(ish) to CORP concept in that meaningful longevity is very important to me. NONE of these guys has good longevity.

Probably the most decent longevity is Cliff Hagan, in that he played [at least part of] 13 seasons........though really his prime is only about 5 years. The rest are various degrees of declined or at least limited-minute action.
He also suffers vs most of the field wrt my reservations about the era he played in (I am NOT a strict era relativist within my criteria), vs everyone here except Davies.
Add to that: he's got arguably the worst amount of "dove-tailing" between his box-aggragates and his impact signals (as I went on about at length in prior threads); this includes raw WOWY (which generally shows teams posting better win% without him), WOWYR (which is not negative, but a very pedestrian +1.1 [career] to +1.3 [prime], iirc), and the lack of recognition from both the media AND his professional peers at the time (i.e. NO ONE at the time appears to have viewed him as a 1st-Teamer, fringe MVP candidate type of guy, even at his very best--->see lack of [high] All-NBA honours [voted by media], and lack high standing in any MVP vote [voted by players]).
Does have some hardware (as a starter putting up major numbers).

Not far behind Hagan in longevity is Gus Williams (11 years, though again probably only about a 5-year prime [though fwiw one year in middle of prime sat out due to contract dispute]; was a useful player for 10 of those years [and fwiw averaging [basically] 30 mpg or more in EIGHT of them]). He too has some hardware as a starter putting up major numbers. Gus did this in a substantially more competitive league environment, imo. And I will credit him with being a very consistent playoff performer.
His raw WOWY doesn't look so hot, though his WOWYR is actually REALLY solid.

Davies I'll freely admit is the guy whose placement [on my ATL] I am the LEAST confident in. That said, he comes in last among the five. His effective longevity is no better than Gus's [though yeah: WWII], and he played in what is [comfortably] the weakest era of everyone. He does have a title and an MVP [though the latter looks potentially dubious; it was also in '47 when the game still looks relatively infantile, small, and completely non-integrated].
I feel like [potentially incorrectly] his candidacy is a sort of pushback against the recognition that is often heaped upon Bob Cousy (Davies supposedly using things like a behind-the-back pass/dribble before Cousy, yet the Cuz gets the credit for it, for example). Cousy didn't change with the times, he didn't develop a jump-shot, he fell behind the rest of the league as it progressed, his MVP wasn't deserved, and so on. These are the criticisms we hear.
Do we know Davies would have changed with the times or kept up? At least in the playoffs [tiny samples, admittedly, though consistent in EACH of the last three seasons] he seems to have been rendered ineffective, beginning in his early 30s, and this still in the pre-shotclock era. He was a set-shooter as well. His peak rTS is higher than Cousy's, at a relatively elite +5.09%.......though that's in '49. After the merger the very next year, it drops to +2.04% (though still only 29-30 years old that season), and he would never again reach +3%. He didn't have quite the scoring primacy as Cousy either (peaking at 23.7 pts/100). His rebounding numbers are significantly below Cousy's, while his personal fouls per 100 are literally about DOUBLE Cousy's [averaged close to 6 per 100 each year from '52-'55]........not sure if that speaks to anything about his athleticism.
Some of Cousy's placement comes by way of luck; though this is frankly true of everyone to some degree.
Anyway, I'm rambling. I have come to the conclusion I've been underrating Davies (mostly by way of not [previously] considering his NBL career); but he's still comfortably outside my top 100. I simply have too many question marks and doubts regarding the era he played in.

Luka has the worst longevity of all, though [imo] the highest peak, too. His impact signals don't look quite as good as Tatum's, though the load he carries and what he's able to produce is just astounding. And this ties into arguments I've suggested for Dominique Wilkins: that he is simply CAPABLE of producing that [on reasonably decent efficiency]---whether or not it seems to be coupled with stellar impact---is a notable achievement.......because there are simply relatively few players in NBA history who could have done the same in ANY circumstance.
And I'll say this for era: I personally think the talent at/near the top in the NBA has been marvellous in recent years. Luka established himself as EASILY a top 10 player [and arguably top 5ish] by his second season, and has maintained that in what might be the best contiguous 5-year period in NBA history.
I'm not 100% sold with him as my alternate (could see subbing in Gus or maybe Hagan......I presently have them literally adjacent [three consecutive spots; so truly splitting hairs] out around the fringe top-125 region on my ATL.

Tatum [only one more season than Luka] is not in my top 100 either......but he's closer than the rest. He came into the league a more or less NBA-ready player; was solidly an All-Star by his third year, has been the apparent best player on a contender level team for a couple years at least. His impact signals are super-strong (ABOVE what his box-based aggragates suggest), which is perhaps not surprising given his versatile defensive acumen.

Nomination: Dominique Wilkins
Alt Nomination: Chris Bosh

Could flop these two, pending preferences of others. The only two from my top 80 still not on the ballot.
Bosh has got the hardware, proven as an over-taxed first option (nonetheless able to lead playoff-level team as clear [far and away] best player), as well as a short-list of all-time best "Alfred" on a title team.

As to Dominique, I know he had his playoff failings, but his WOWY profile (referenced in the #87 thread) is respectable for this stage of the list. He was often the ONLY notable scorer his team had, and obviously would then be the focal point of the opposing defense.
So I thus just cannot see how a guy who was even capable (through his talents and durability/longevity) of scoring >26k points in a very competitive era with mostly good shooting efficiency in his prime and a GOOD turnover economy (comparable to that of LeBron James and Ray Allen in mTOV%; BETTER THAN guys like Scottie Pippen, Latrell Sprewell, and Sidney Moncrief), and doing so while often at the helm of some of the best offenses in the league for a few years in the mid-late 80s....

....who was also a good offensive rebounder, and placed 53rd in MVP win shares [fwiw], and who looks competitive via PIPM wins added [see below].....

I'll further quote this argument for him:

Spoiler:

trex_8063 wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:Why Nique rather than his contemporary Alex English? Both great scorers and apparently great guys, Nique is clearly the better rebounder, English the better playmaker, English more versatile and without the playoff efficiency fail. Nique was flashier, had more accolades, and had the best nickname in NBA history but I don't think he was actually better. Willing to listen though.

Atlanta Hawks rORtg and league rank during Nique’s prime
‘86: +0.7 rORTG (11th/23)
‘87: +4.3 rORTG (4th/23)
‘88: +3.3 rORTG (5th/23)
‘89: +4.4 rORTG (4th/25)
‘90: +4.9 rORTG (4th/27)
‘91: +3.0 rORTG (8th/27)
‘92: -0.9 rORTG (16th/27)*
*Important to note Nique missed 40 games this^^^ year. They were +0.8 rORTG in the 42 games he played, -2.6 rORTG in the 40 he missed [+3.4 shift].
‘93: +1.3 rORTG (10th/27)
‘94 (Nique traded late season): +0.9 rORTG (12th/27)

And I want to point out who his primary supporting cast was, in descending order of playing time, for that 5-year stretch in which they were >+3.0 rORTG each and every year.....
'87: Kevin Willis, Doc Rivers, Randy Wittman, Cliff Levingston, Tree Rollins, Jon Koncak
'88: Doc Rivers, Randy Wittman, Cliff Levingston, Kevin Willis, Tree Rollins, Antoine Carr, Spud Webb, John Battle
'89: [late prime/early post-prime] Moses Malone, Reggie Theus, Doc Rivers, Cliff Levingston, John Battle, Jon Koncak, Antoine Carr, Spud Webb
'90: Moses Malone (post-prime), Kevin Willis, Spud Webb, Cliff Levingston, Doc Rivers, John Battle
'91: Doc Rivers, Kevin Willis, Spud Webb, Jon Koncak, Moses Malone (35 yrs old, very post-prime), John Battle

Dominique Wilkins with/without records in prime
‘86: 49-29 (.628) with, 1-3 (.250) without
‘87: 56-23 (.709) with, 1-2 (.333) without
‘88: 48-30 (.615) with, 2-2 (.500) without
‘89: 51-29 (.638) with, 1-1 (.500) without
‘90: 39-41 (.488) with, 2-0 without
‘91: 43-38 (.531) with, 0-1 without
‘92: 22-20 (.524) with, 16-24 (.400) without
‘93: 39-32 (.549) with, 4-7 (.364) without
‘94: 42-32 (.568) with, 4-5 (.444) without
TOTAL: 389-274 (.587)---on pace for 48.1 wins---with him; 31-45 (.408)---on pace for 33.5 wins---without him. Avg +14.7 wins added.

Prime English (‘81-’89)
PER 21.2, .139 WS/48, +2.7 BPM in 36.6 mpg
77.5 WS, cumulative VORP: 28.9

Prime Wilkins (‘86-’94)
PER 23.2, .173 WS/48, +4.5 BPM in 37.4 mpg
89.6 WS, cumulative VORP: 32.8

Career English
Per 100 poss (rs): 30.2 pts, 7.7 reb, 5.1 ast, 1.3 stl, 1.0 blk, 3.4 tov @ .550 TS%
19.9 PER, .127 WS/48, 111 ORtg/110 DRtg (+1) in 31.9 mpg
100.7 rs WS
Per 100 poss (playoffs): 31.1 pts, 7.0 reb, 5.5 ast, 0.9 stl, 0.6 blk, 2.7 tov @ .556 TS%
19.9 PER, .129 WS/48, 116 ORtg/115 DRtg (+1) in 35.7 mpg
6.5 playoff WS

Career Wilkins
Per 100 poss (rs): 34.7 pts, 9.3 reb, 3.5 ast, 1.8 stl, 0.8 blk, 3.5 tov @ .536 TS%
21.6 PER, .148 WS/48, 112 ORtg/108 DRtg (+4) in 35.5 mpg.
117.5 rs WS
Per 100 poss (playoffs): 33.8 pts, 8.9 reb, 3.4 ast, 1.7 stl, 0.8 blk, 3.6 tov @ .510 TS%
18.7 PER, .079 WS/48, 106 ORtg/112 DRtg (-6) in 38.8 mpg
3.6 playoff WS

So Nique looks better in the rs, English looks better in the playoffs (though neither made a huge playoff imprint in their careers, nor has a particularly sizeable playoff game sample size).

I'll also make note of the difference in pts/100 possessions (both rs and playoffs). You've said previously that English gives the "same scoring volume (but on better efficiency)"; but that's not actually true. English, in fact, only has ONE season where he EVER topped Nique's career avg in pts/100 possessions.

I think English’s reputation as a scorer is perhaps a little inflated by the pace and focus on offense that existed on Doug Moe’s Nuggets. During English’s tenure in Denver (third of ‘80 season, then ‘81-’90), the Nuggets had the league’s fastest pace every single year from ‘81 thru ‘89 (sometimes by >5 over the 2nd-fastest team!), and were 2nd in pace in ‘90. Consequently, if you adjust for his numbers for pace, things come back to Earth a little.

English’s best year as a scorer was probably either ‘86 (35.9 pts/100 possessions on +2.15% to league TS%) or ‘82 (30.2 pts/100 poss on TS% +5.75% to league).
Dominique’s best year as a scorer was ‘93 (39.4 pts/100 poss on TS% +3.4% to league)--->I would say Nique wins the battle of scoring peak.
Looking at longer samples, English closes the gap, but doesn't definitively take the lead.......

Prime English (‘81-’89):
32.6 pts/100 poss, +1.9% to league TS%
career: 30.2 pts/100 poss, +1.65% to league TS%
Prime Wilkins (‘86-’94): 36.9 pts/100 poss, +0.8% to league TS%
career: 34.7 pts/100 poss, +/- 0% to league TS%

Couple other measures (career rs stats, fwiw):
Pts/Missed FGA: English--- 2.468, Wilkins--- 2.29
Pts/Turnover: English---- 8.97, Wilkins--- 9.99

So Nique’s obv right there with him as a scorer, arguably marginally better [at least in the rs] imo.
wrt the playoffs, I can't help feeling like opposing defenses couldn't preferentially focus in on English in the same way they would target Nique.......because some of those Denver teams also had Kiki Vandeweghe, Dan Issel, Calvin Natt, then Michael Adams: other guys who could put the ball in the bucket. I'm not sure guys like Kevin Willis or Doc Rivers truly compare as far as guys you need to worry about going off on you, if you cheat toward shutting down Nique.

This is not to say Nique's playoff regression isn't a valid criticism; it absolutely is. But it, shall we say, carries less relevance out here at #90 (when considering all the Nique accomplished in the rs).

And maybe there's something to Nique's bigger fan/media/accolade presence. Those are the guys that drive the imaginations of new generations, and generally drive the increasing popularity of the game........and that's important to the league's evolution.

So those would be my arguments as to why Nique > English.

idk, the guy described belongs somewhere in the top 100, imo.

I'd REALLY like to see guys like LaMarcus Aldridge and Dan Issel gain some traction, too.

Looking at some of our candidates and other notable non-inducted players (and a few recent inductees) by PIPM career wins added (as I know it's a metric some have expressed significant confidence in or appreciation of).....

(Shawn Marion: 123.97)
Maurice Cheeks: 119.15
(Jack Sikma): 117.54
Terry Porter: 116.64
(Horace Grant: 114.81)
(Tony Parker: 113.50)
**Dan Issel: 67.54 (**9-year NBA career ONLY; pro-rated for all 15 seasons would come to 112.57 [though his ABA seasons are likely to be even MORE highly rated])
Chris Bosh: 111.58
LaMarcus Aldridge: 109.02
Dominique Wilkins: 105.11
(Al Horford): 88.24
Carmelo Anthony: 87.39
Chris Webber: 85.49
Chris Mullin: 84.82
Alex English: 82.41
(Sidney Moncrief: 78.53)
(Bill Walton: 52.38)

iggymcfrack · Post #9 » by **iggymcfrack** » Thu Apr 18, 2024 6:07 am

Vote: Jayson Tatum
Ranks #7 in 27 year RAPM and ranks #17 in age-adjusted RAPM. Has finished top 5 in POY each of the last 2 seasons, something Luka has never done once.

Owly · Post #10 » by **Owly** » Thu Apr 18, 2024 6:14 pm

trex_8063 wrote:Davies I'll freely admit is the guy whose placement [on my ATL] I am the LEAST confident in. That said, he comes in last among the five. His effective longevity is no better than Gus's [though yeah: WWII], and he played in what is [comfortably] the weakest era of everyone. He does have a title and an MVP [though the latter looks potentially dubious; it was also in '47 when the game still looks relatively infantile, small, and completely non-integrated].
I feel like [potentially incorrectly] his candidacy is a sort of pushback against the recognition that is often heaped upon Bob Cousy (Davies supposedly using things like a behind-the-back pass/dribble before Cousy, yet the Cuz gets the credit for it, for example). Cousy didn't change with the times, he didn't develop a jump-shot, he fell behind the rest of the league as it progressed, his MVP wasn't deserved, and so on. These are the criticisms we hear.
Do we know Davies would have changed with the times or kept up? At least in the playoffs [tiny samples, admittedly, though consistent in EACH of the last three seasons] he seems to have been rendered ineffective, beginning in his early 30s, and this still in the pre-shotclock era. He was a set-shooter as well. His peak rTS is higher than Cousy's, at a relatively elite +5.09%.......though that's in '49. After the merger the very next year, it drops to +2.04% (though still only 29-30 years old that season), and he would never again reach +3%. He didn't have quite the scoring primacy as Cousy either (peaking at 23.7 pts/100). His rebounding numbers are significantly below Cousy's, while his personal fouls per 100 are literally about DOUBLE Cousy's [averaged close to 6 per 100 each year from '52-'55]........not sure if that speaks to anything about his athleticism.
Some of Cousy's placement comes by way of luck; though this is frankly true of everyone to some degree.
Anyway, I'm rambling. I have come to the conclusion I've been underrating Davies (mostly by way of not [previously] considering his NBL career); but he's still comfortably outside my top 100. I simply have too many question marks and doubts regarding the era he played in.

As someone who ... generally ends up somewhat anti-Cousy due to a history of him being overrated and pro-Davies in part due to him being forgotten and someone who will use that anchor ... (though fwiw, I'm not sure anyone voting is thinking along those lines ... and I tend to think the more playoff centric than me crowd should be backing Wanzer ...)

For me "potentially dubious" ... is ... it's caveated, it's not wrong ... it's stronger than I'd go. So far (iirc) I haven't seen a source that gives it to Cervi that hasn't also given it to Davies (which would be more support for "co-" than for "Cervi, not Davies") ... the Hall which (in the NBA's encyclopedias profiles at least) seemed to cite both now only acknowledges Davies (at least in their online profiles, last time I checked).

"and completely non-integrated" is, I believe {edit/omission insert: not quite correct], in an earlier season and Davies' MVP campaign I believe William "Pop" Gates and Dolly King played in the NBL. It's marginal - I don't know if there's others but the NBL doesn't fit the description above, as I understand things.

I (personally) wouldn't phrase Cousy's criticism in the terms offered (well, I'd say the MVP wasn't deserved - and I'd say Cousy as innovator is overrated versus Davies, Haynes and perhaps others).

I wouldn't necessarily assume players are able to keep up across future developments but given Davies' RS effectiveness any assumption off a 338 minute sample (within a very incomplete boxscore era and significantly different rules [non-shooting foul was single ft but loss of possession, I think?]) ... you grant uncertainty from the start ... if you're willing to conclude much about a player off that sample I have stock in playoff DeJuan Blair and playoff Terry Furlow to sell.

I would say "after the merger" sounds like a talent concentration ... the BAA tapped the NBL's best teams in taking Rochester and the Lakers the year prior ... there were still good teams (Syracuse especially but Anderson ... Indianapolis if they count as NBL) but on average due to weaker teams ... it seems ... this wasn't a compressed ABA adding to a talent pool. He played how he played either way but I'm not sure the merger has anything to do with it.

I'm not saying to credit it any particular way but with significantly incomplete data I'm not sure if we can confidently compare his peak scoring to Cousy's, and otoh I think the very early game was quite foul prone. I'm not saying one can't do an "as far as known" peak or that he didn't foul more (I don't know rates dropped) ... just that I'd want to see more context on those numbers before going anywhere with them.

I don't know if I'd be broadly advocating for him or not (my guess is broadly not with - otoh, the likes of Bosh, Brand, Cheeks still not in). I've moved, some time ago now I think, to tend towards arguing for a separate pioneer list. A bit arbitrary in terms of cutoff and imperfect but maybe not less so than attempting meaningfully comparing Kawhi Leonard and George Mikan or Bob Davies and Baron Davis.

Post #11 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Apr 18, 2024 7:46 pm

Owly wrote:As someone who ... generally ends up somewhat anti-Cousy due to a history of him being overrated and pro-Davies in part due to him being forgotten and someone who will use that anchor ... (though fwiw, I'm not sure anyone voting is thinking along those lines ... and I tend to think the more playoff centric than me crowd should be backing Wanzer ...)

For me "potentially dubious" ... is ... it's caveated, it's not wrong ... it's stronger than I'd go. So far (iirc) I haven't seen a source that gives it to Cervi that hasn't also given it to Davies (which would be more support for "co-" than for "Cervi, not Davies") ... the Hall which (in the NBA's encyclopedias profiles at least) seemed to cite both now only acknowledges Davies (at least in their online profiles, last time I checked).

Al Cervi is certainly one to mention---->averaged the same number of ppg at 14.4 (efficiency is unknown), almost surely averaged fewer assists than Davies (an assumption, though probably a safe one), rebounds are unknown (though again: Davies was not a noteworthy or impressive rebounder from the G position), Cervi [iirc] had a reputation as a "scrappy" defender (Davies I'd not heard much about). And one final consideration: Davies missed 12 of 44 games [27.3% of the season], while Cervi didn't miss any.

George Mikan is also a relevant consideration--->he arrived a bit late to the NBL (and thus missed 19 of 44 games), but if Davies missing 12 games didn't matter vs Cervi (and others listed below), does Mikan missing another 7 games matter that much when he was [**likely] that much better?
**I assume he was much better noting he crushed Cervi/Davies in ppg (by +2.1, which was sort of a lot for that era; and then REALLY crushing them in playoff scoring), while undoubtedly being a much more dominant defensively and on the glass (I assume some here, too, based upon him dominating the game for the next 7 years, but I suspect you'd agree this is a relatively safe assumption).

Or how about Arnie Risen?--->Averaged 13.2 ppg, and again very likely more impactful on the boards and as a defender than Davies; all for a winning team. And we know more assuredly that this guy was legit based upon his later career, too. Also missed 0 games that year.

With the missed time as a factor, it just seems like Cervi or Risen may well have been equal-to-better(ish) candidates for the award. And if missed time isn't considered a big factor, then it probably should have been Mikan.

Perhaps "dubious" is a slightly strong word.......but only slightly.

Owly wrote:"and completely non-integrated" is, I believe {edit/omission insert: not quite correct], in an earlier season and Davies' MVP campaign I believe William "Pop" Gates and Dolly King played in the NBL. It's marginal - I don't know if there's others but the NBL doesn't fit the description above, as I understand things.

I stand corrected; wasn't aware of them. Though as you say: marginal.

Owly wrote:I (personally) wouldn't phrase Cousy's criticism in the terms offered (well, I'd say the MVP wasn't deserved - and I'd say Cousy as innovator is overrated versus Davies, Haynes and perhaps others).

I don't disagree with anything here. And I would say Cousy's MVP was more clearly undeserved than Davies'; though it also came in a league environment that was FAR better than the one in which Davies' [arguably dubious] MVP came (put another way: I don't think peak Davies would have been within sniffing distance of truly deserving the MVP in the league of '57 either).
But I do sometimes get the feeling that the push for Davies [specifically within this project] is to close that overrated/underrated gap between them (as innovators, and otherwise).

Owly wrote:I wouldn't necessarily assume players are able to keep up across future developments but given Davies' RS effectiveness any assumption off a 338 minute sample (within a very incomplete boxscore era and significantly different rules [non-shooting foul was single ft but loss of possession, I think?]) ... you grant uncertainty from the start ... if you're willing to conclude much about a player off that sample I have stock in playoff DeJuan Blair and playoff Terry Furlow to sell.

Nah. Not willing to hang my hat on that argument; merely presenting what is there. It might be a mirage.

Owly wrote:I would say "after the merger" sounds like a talent concentration ... the BAA tapped the NBL's best teams in taking Rochester and the Lakers the year prior ... there were still good teams (Syracuse especially but Anderson ... Indianapolis if they count as NBL) but on average due to weaker teams ... it seems ... this wasn't a compressed ABA adding to a talent pool. He played how he played either way but I'm not sure the merger has anything to do with it.

Hard to say. Though you say yourself they tapped the "best" teams, so it's somewhat dispensing the chaff. Or perhaps the game itself was moving on (and the degree to which Davies could keep up was limited). idk...

Owly wrote:I'm not saying to credit it any particular way but with significantly incomplete data I'm not sure if we can confidently compare his peak scoring to Cousy's, and otoh I think the very early game was quite foul prone. I'm not saying one can't do an "as far as known" peak or that he didn't foul more (I don't know rates dropped) ... just that I'd want to see more context on those numbers before going anywhere with them.

I guess I wasn't clear, but I meant that Davies is far more foul-prone in the seasons their careers overlap:

'51 [no minutes/pace info, though it appears Cousy probably played similar(ish) minutes, maybe]: Davies - 3.3 fpg, Cousy - 2.7

Per 100 Possessions
'52: Davies - 5.8, Cousy - 3.4
'53: Davies - 6.0, Cousy - 3.9
'54: Davies - 5.54, Cousy - 3.6
'55: Davies - 5.7, Cousy - 2.65

Owly wrote:I don't know if I'd be broadly advocating for him or not (my guess is broadly not with - otoh, the likes of Bosh, Brand, Cheeks still not in).

I would truly really like to see Bosh get in (and Cheeks to a lesser degree, though I'd favour Mo over ANY of the five candidates I have to choose from here........possibly Brand too [he'd at least be my alternate if he were on the ballot]).

eminence · Post #12 » by **eminence** » Thu Apr 18, 2024 8:01 pm

Owly wrote:"and completely non-integrated" is, I believe {edit/omission insert: not quite correct], in an earlier season and Davies' MVP campaign I believe William "Pop" Gates and Dolly King played in the NBL. It's marginal - I don't know if there's others but the NBL doesn't fit the description above, as I understand things.

I believe King was Davies' roommate in that '47 season.

eminence · Post #13 » by **eminence** » Thu Apr 18, 2024 8:06 pm

And an aside for this thread, but I don't feel the Cousy MVP was an overly poor one, though I don't feel he was the best player in the league.

f4p · Post #14 » by **f4p** » Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:27 pm

Vote: Luka Doncic

Has possibly the 3 best playoff series of anybody in the nomination group (if I scale down the 1958 Finals for era concerns), and probably of almost everybody in the last 20 spots. He's just another tier up from Tatum in the playoffs and there isn't enough of a longevity difference, especially since Tatum's first couple of years weren't anything to write home about. Concerns about his impact but I didn't think those Clippers series should have gone as long as they did (and Kawhi needed an amazing Game 7 to counter Luka's Game 7) and his punking of the Suns was the kind of thing that you hardly see outside of the all-time Top 10.

homecourtloss · Post #15 » by **homecourtloss** » Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:59 pm

Vote: Jason Tatum

Highly consistent two-way impact even as a young player which is rare, c.f., 27 year RAPM annd age adjusted RAPM. Obviously not much longevity, but the profile he's amassed in a short time is impressive.

Alt Vote: Luka Doncic

Again, needs longevity, but his playoffs rising and ability to create offense even with defenses geared to stop him has been incredibly impressive.

Nomination: Marc Gasol

Post #16 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Fri Apr 19, 2024 5:00 pm

Vote 1 - Gus Williams
Vote 2 - Cliff Hagan
Nomination 1 - Carmelo Anthony
Nomination 2 - Dominique Wilkins

Gus
I'd like it if he had a longer prime, but pretty impressed with his play from '78-'86, which included a great championship run in '79.

Playoffs - http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1979.html

Finals - https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1979-nba-finals-supersonics-vs-bullets.html

His production in the playoffs also increased relative to the reg season.

Melo
While accolades aren't everything, Carmelo was recognized for his stellar play throughout his prime:

- 6x All NBA (2x 2nd, 4x 3rd)
- Finished 3rd and 6th in MVP voting

He also ranks 10th all time in total career points.

Below are players already voted in in Melo’s VORP and Win Shares range. I left out older players who had some seasons before VORP was calculated since it's cumulative:

VORP
Dwight Howard 38.97
Rasheed Wallace 38.36
Kevin Johnson 37.27
Jack Sikma 37.02
Carmelo Anthony 36.71
Ben Wallace 36.15
Kevin McHale 34.29
Dikembe Mutombo 33.86
Sidney Moncrief 33.14
Tony Parker 30.13
Alonzo Mourning 27.45
Dennis Rodman 21

Win Shares
Paul Arizin 108.8
Carmelo Anthony 108.52
Manu Ginobili 106.4
Rasheed Wallace 105.09
Rudy Gobert 104.65
Kawhi Leonard 99.16
Allen Iverson 98.97
Tracy McGrady 97.27
Ben Wallace 93.51
Kevin Johnson 92.77
Sam Jones 92.29
Bob Cousy 91.11
Sidney Moncrief 90.32
Dennis Rodman 89.83
Alonzo Mourning 89.74
Dave Cowens 86.32
Isiah Thomas 80.69

Peak carmelo developed into a very good offensive player. The “iso melo” narrative was overstated in his best seasons. This coincided with having a decent PG rotation to keep the ball moving (a little different, but billups certainly got the best out of him in denver). He became one of the better off ball players in 12-13, actually shooting more efficiently and on higher volume than durant in catch and shoot situations. His transition to a good volume 3PT shooter also opened up his game, and he stepped into transition 3s about as well as anyone in the league.

He’s obviously known for his post up and face up game, but not acknowledged as much for being a great offensive rebounder for his position. He had a deceptively quick second jump and soft touch around the rim for put backs. He also possessed a unique rolling spin move to the hoop which created a lot of space on his drives. The one thing he was really average at is finishing at the rim, and i’d say that partially has to do with him not being able to take advantage of the way the game is called these days. He wasn’t a freak show athlete like lebron, and he didn't have those long strides like durant/harden where they know the angles and draw fouls easily.

I'd also point out that while melo's transition to a role player was a bit rocky, he didn't call it quits like iverson when asked to come off the bench. You could make the argument that he was scapegoated in houston (to be clear, no conspiracy theories here about him getting blackballed -- that was just dumb). There's some revisionist history there as he did what he was told. Then his first year in in portland he did exactly what you'd want from a role player in year 17: 38.5% from 3 on 3.9 attempts per game, posting a positive net rating and on/off along with being a great teammate.

As I noted earlier, melo's best years came when he had decent PG play around him. Knicks management largely failed him in this regard post 2013. In 12-13, a merely average PG rotation of felton, kidd and prigioni was quite beneficial to him. In 13-14 felton was out of shape and kidd retired. After that:

14-15: Shane Larkin, Langston Galloway, 37 yr old Prigioni, 33 yr old Calderon

15-16: Langston Galloway, rookie Jerian Grant, 34 yr old Calderon — this PG rotation was so poor that Carmelo ended up leading the team in APG and just about equaled Calderon in AST%

16-17: Rose, Jennings, rookie Ron Baker

Jennings was really the one penetrate and dish PG the knicks had in those 3 seasons. He even seemed to buy in to the fact that he couldn't shoot and really got everyone involved. Of course, he had rose starting in front of him, so his time on the floor with melo was limited. He was used more in bench lineups that actually thrived, relatively speaking.

In an era where dynamic PG play is paramount, knicks management abhorrently ignored the position. I don’t think you can find such ineptitude in a front office with playoff aspirations outside of the cousins-era kings.

Then we get to the clutch play. 82games.com looked at shot data from '04-'09 in the regular season + '04-'08 in the post season. Carmelo was 6th in the league in game winners, but #1 in the league by far in FG% on game winners at 48.1%:

http://82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm

By 2011, he already had enough game winners to choose from to create a top 10 for his career:

Watch on YouTube

For clutch data from 2000-2012, carmelo was 7th in the league in FG%, and 50% of his FGs were assisted, which is interesting to note for being criticized for holding the ball too long.

http://bit.ly/1wnySdJ

[I’d obviously prefer eFG% or TS% for these figures, but they weren’t available here]

Carmelo gets a decent amount of flack for his playoff resume, and I think it’s a little overstated, so I’d like to provide some context for each season. It also seems to get pushed aside that making the playoffs 10 seasons in a row is no big deal or something, especially when the majority of them came out west. Below is carmelo’s team SRS rank and the opponent’s SRS rank that he lost to in the playoffs in his prime.

CARMELO SRS RANK / OPPONENT SRS RANK
'04 - 11th / 2nd
'05 - 10th / 1st (eventual NBA champion spurs)
'06 - 15th / 9th
'07 - 9th / 1st (eventual NBA champion spurs)
'08 - 11th / 2nd
'09 - 8th / 3rd (eventual NBA champion lakers)
'10 - 8th / 3rd
'11 - 15th / 6th
'12 - 11th / 4th (eventual NBA champion heat)
'13 - 7th / 9th

Aside from 2013, the team he lost to has always been favored in SRS, with 4 of the 10 series losses coming to the eventual NBA champs. To me, this doesn’t reflect a player who’s come up short when he’s been expected to go farther in the playoffs. You can make the argument that if he was a better player, he may have been favored in more series, but that only goes so far.

Some details on his later playoff appearances:

'09 - This run to the WCF almost gets glossed over at times. Nuggets were 2 wins away from the finals, losing to the eventual NBA champion lakers, who were just flat out the better team. He had some great performances during that run.

'11 - Billups gets hurt in game 1 against boston (out for rest of series), then amare gets hurt in game 2 only playing 17 min. First 2 games are decided by 2 and 3 points respectively.

Tony douglas forced to play PG for the rest of the series, basically putting it out of reach.

'12 - Disastrous number of injuries. Tyson chandler finishes off a DPOY season, and of course gets the flu as soon as the playoffs start. Lin doesn’t come back for the playoffs, shumpert and douglas only play 1 game a piece, baron davis eventually goes down, and the knicks are only left with 33 yr old mike bibby to run the point, who already had 1 foot in retirement.

'13 - First time since carmelo came to the knicks that they really looked like a team who could make a run to the finals. PG play was always an issue prior to this season, and felton came up big in the 1st round against boston. Ball movement flowing with kidd and prigioni as well. Then in the 2nd round against indiana, chandler again doesn’t look himself, which would later be revealed that he had an “undisclosed illness” during the series. I think there’s a good chance they beat the pacers with a healthy chandler, and who knows what happens from there.

Here are the best players carmelo’s played with in his prime: andre miller (first few seasons of carmelo's career), kenyon martin (often injured), post 30s iverson, camby (often injured), JR smith, nene (often injured), billups, afflalo, amare (often injured), tyson chandler (often injured), kidd in his last season, in shape felton and porzingis' rookie/soph year.

Outside of iverson, that’s a collection of good players, but nothing that screams "consistent second option", or even "consistent first option" if you want to push carmelo down a notch. Porzingis and carmelo actually had great chemistry until rose came along, but their timelines unfortunately didn't match up. Fit is clearly important, too, and while iverson and carmelo never had "problems" with each other, it wasn't working. It’s not an accident that carmelo’s best seasons came with billups running the show in 2009 and a knicks team in 2013 which focused heavily on keeping the ball moving and quick decision making.

When he made it to OKC with westbrook and george it was just too little too late. Not denying the growing pains, but he was in year 15 and not the same player since his knee surgery. Took him time to adjust his game to a true role player like he did with the blazers and the lakers.

Post #17 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Fri Apr 19, 2024 5:00 pm

OldSchoolNoBull wrote: --

Sorry I haven't had a chance to respond to you re: melo. Life getting in the way. I will say a lot of the guys you've been supporting like worthy, issel, mullin, etc are guys who I'd be putting in the top 100 over some already inducted. I just feel strongly about melo so I'm going with him. Although I should've started championing for him earlier.

OldSchoolNoBull · Post #18 » by **OldSchoolNoBull** » Fri Apr 19, 2024 8:29 pm

trex_8063 wrote:Not far behind Hagan in longevity is Gus Williams (11 years, though again probably only about a 5-year prime [though fwiw one year in middle of prime sat out due to contract dispute]; was a useful player for 10 of those years [and fwiw averaging [basically] 30 mpg or more in EIGHT of them]). He too has some hardware as a starter putting up major numbers. Gus did this in a substantially more competitive league environment, imo. And I will credit him with being a very consistent playoff performer.
His raw WOWY doesn't look so hot, though his WOWYR is actually REALLY solid.

Tatum [only one more season than Luka] is not in my top 100 either......but he's closer than the rest. He came into the league a more or less NBA-ready player; was solidly an All-Star by his third year, has been the apparent best player on a contender level team for a couple years at least. His impact signals are super-strong (ABOVE what his box-based aggragates suggest), which is perhaps not surprising given his versatile defensive acumen.

So as this seems to be coming down to Tatum and Williams, and as there are still some voters who haven't voted yet, and as of the ones that have already voted for Tatum, you seem like the one that might be flip-able(given your lack of enthusiasm for the whole ballot), I just want to put forth the following head-to-head argument for you and anyone else who hasn't voted yet.

First, a look at their WOWY W/L:

Tatum(Celtics tenure not including this season, 17-18->22-23)
With: 282-157 .642
Without: 14-19 .424
21.8% winning percentage gap

Williams(Sonics tenure, 77-78->83-84)
With: 290-187 .608
Without: 41-56 .423
18.5% winning percentage gap

So, Tatum does have the edge, but both look outstanding in this regard, and I would also note that Williams is the only player on the ballot that comes anywhere close to Tatum in this regard(the next highest is Luka at about an 11.9% winning percentage gap). So while Tatum has the edge, keep the closeness in mind as I present some other advantages for Williams.

Longevity

Williams has a big longevity edge, of nearly 11K total minutes. How much this matters varies from voter to voter, but trex claims longevity matters a lot to him, so.

Williams: 25,645 total minutes
Tatum: 14,916 total minutes(through 22-23)

Playoff performance:
Williams has a ring and two Finals appearances to Tatum's one Finals appearance. Additionally, he has an advantage in career playoff box composites:

Williams: .150 WS/48, 4.7 BPM
Tatum: .136 WS/48, 4.3 BPM

It's also worth looking specifically at those Finals performances. I want to say that the part of trex's post I bolded - "He too has some hardware as a starter" - I feel undersells Williams' role on the 79 Sonics. He wasn't just a starter, he was arguably the #1 guy, at worst #1B, as was/is Tatum. That said:

1979 Finals vs 2022 Finals

Williams:
1978: 16.3/4.6r/3.6a/2.0s on 50.3% TS(Bullets held opponents to 50.5% TS in RS, -0.2%)
1979: 29.0/3.6r/3.6a/1.0s on 53.5% TS(Bullets held opponents to 51% TS in RS, +2.5%)
(FYI, Wiliams played 4.6mpg more in 79, so that accounts for some of the volume difference)

Tatum:
2022: 21.5/6.8/7a/1.2s on 48.1% TS(Warriors held opponents to 54.6% TS in RS, -6.5%)

Tatum shot horribly in that Finals, and while he did other things at a high level to make up for it, Williams did those things too(defense, playmaking) while shooting more efficiently. Also worth pointing out that Williams efficiency advantage comes despite him being a 6'2' guy in an era with no three point line going against a frontcourt of Unseld and Hayes while Tatum was a 6'8' guy with a good three-point shot going against a frontcourt that didn't have any real size advantage over him.

For these reasons, I'm going to vote Gus.

OldSchoolNoBull · Post #19 » by **OldSchoolNoBull** » Fri Apr 19, 2024 8:37 pm

Induction Vote #1: Gus Williams
Induction Vote #2: Cliff Hagan

Voting for Gus for the reasons in my above post.

Cliff was a #1-1B on a championship team and was one of the most efficient scorers of his era.

Nomination Vote #1: Dominique Wilkins
Nomination Vote #2: James Worthy

Going with Dominique because it's close between him and Marc Gasol this round and I just don't see Marc as a Top 100 guy. I haven't been supporting Dominique very strongly, between these two, I think he's the choice.

Post #20 » by **trex_8063** » Sat Apr 20, 2024 12:36 am

Just for a few counterpoints, as well as points of clarification.....

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:Not far behind Hagan in longevity is Gus Williams (11 years, though again probably only about a 5-year prime [though fwiw one year in middle of prime sat out due to contract dispute]; was a useful player for 10 of those years [and fwiw averaging [basically] 30 mpg or more in EIGHT of them]). He too has some hardware as a starter putting up major numbers. Gus did this in a substantially more competitive league environment, imo. And I will credit him with being a very consistent playoff performer.
His raw WOWY doesn't look so hot, though his WOWYR is actually REALLY solid.

Tatum [only one more season than Luka] is not in my top 100 either......but he's closer than the rest. He came into the league a more or less NBA-ready player; was solidly an All-Star by his third year, has been the apparent best player on a contender level team for a couple years at least. His impact signals are super-strong (ABOVE what his box-based aggragates suggest), which is perhaps not surprising given his versatile defensive acumen.

So as this seems to be coming down to Tatum and Williams, and as there are still some voters who haven't voted yet, and as of the ones that have already voted for Tatum, you seem like the one that might be flip-able(given your lack of enthusiasm for the whole ballot), I just want to put forth the following head-to-head argument for you and anyone else who hasn't voted yet.

First, a look at their WOWY W/L:

Tatum(Celtics tenure not including this season, 17-18->22-23)
With: 282-157 .642
Without: 14-19 .424
21.8% winning percentage gap

Williams(Sonics tenure, 77-78->83-84)
With: 290-187 .608
Without: 41-56 .423
18.5% winning percentage gap

So, Tatum does have the edge, but both look outstanding in this regard, and I would also note that Williams is the only player on the ballot that comes anywhere close to Tatum in this regard(the next highest is Luka at about an 11.9% winning percentage gap). So while Tatum has the edge, keep the closeness in mind as I present some other advantages for Williams.

I guess; technically.
Though one needs to use '81 [where Gus missed the whole year] to arrive at those figures for him.......and I can't say I'm 100% on-board with doing so. It wasn't just Gus they lost in '81: they also ditched Dennis Johnson, and [basically] lost starting PF Lonnie Shelton to injury for the whole year. So Gus is one of THREE starters they lost in '81; and a 4th starter (SF John Johnson) was also aging out of effectiveness by '81. And in '82, Gus was one of TWO starters coming back (along with Lonnie Shelton).

So it's pretty dicey to chalk up the big dip in '81 to Gus not being there, because there's a fair bit of mud in the water.

And if we remove '81 from consideration, the Sonics were 7-8 [.467] without him. It's still a very respectable +14.1% to the win% in Seattle; just not quite as impressive. And then it's soured a bit further if we use his full career including his non-prime seasons [as you did for Tatum], because in every single season where he missed time outside of Seattle, his team had a better record without him.
His career totals [NOT counting '81 in the without sample]: 482-343 [.584] with, 56-21 [.727] without (for a -14.3% effect).
To be fair, most of that^^^ without sample comes from his final season with a very good Atlanta Hawks team, and perhaps it's not fair to base so much off of that. But even excluding '87 it's: 18-10 [.643] without him (for a -5.9% effect).

So I don't think raw WOWY is as supportive as you think it is. That said (and I mentioned this in the quoted portion), his WOWYR is very solid.

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:Longevity

Williams has a big longevity edge, of nearly 11K total minutes. How much this matters varies from voter to voter, but trex claims longevity matters a lot to him, so.

Williams: 25,645 total minutes
Tatum: 14,916 total minutes(through 22-23)

To be clear, I've always said MEANINGFUL longevity is important within my criteria. Seasons/minutes played as basically a replacement-level player [or worse] do not move the needle AT ALL within my criteria; and seasons as a more or less an average player only barely move the needle.
So the 481 minutes in Gus's final season are completely irrelevant to my criteria, and the 4,214 minutes ['77 and '86] are nearly irrelevant.

And the ones that move the needle the most are the higher level [prime] seasons. But as mentioned: Gus's prime is rather short (like generously perhaps six seasons might be called his "extended prime": '78-'80, '82-'84). Looking at only that vs what might be called Tatum's extended prime (let's say '20-'23)......

Williams: 16,262 total minutes [63.4% of his career total]
Tatum: 10,018 total minutes [67.2% of his career total]

So Tatum has a slightly higher proportion of his minutes in the "big mover" years, and he doesn't have ANY seasons which are completely irrelevant to me. Additionally, it's worth pointing out that '20 and '21 [two PRIME seasons] were shortened by the pandemic. Pro-rating his minutes in those years to a full season would add 633 to his prime/career totals, fwiw.

So yes, a longevity edge to Gus exists; it's just not quite as large as you have implied.
And fwiw, this is mitigated to some degree by era discrepancy. I am not an era relativist. I believe the era of Tatum's achievement to be notably better than that of Gus's, and that is a factor in my criteria.

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:Playoff performance:
Williams has a ring and two Finals appearances to Tatum's one Finals appearance. Additionally, he has an advantage in career playoff box composites:

Williams: .150 WS/48, 4.7 BPM
Tatum: .136 WS/48, 4.3 BPM[

Might be worth pointing out that Gus's came in 32.5 mpg (vs 38.7 mpg for Tatum). So [for instance], WS per game in the playoffs favours Tatum.

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:It's also worth looking specifically at those Finals performances. I want to say that the part of trex's post I bolded - "He too has some hardware as a starter" - I feel undersells Williams' role on the 79 Sonics. He wasn't just a starter, he was arguably the #1 guy, at worst #1B, as was/is Tatum. That said:

1979 Finals vs 2022 Finals

Williams:
1978: 16.3/4.6r/3.6a/2.0s on 50.3% TS(Bullets held opponents to 50.5% TS in RS, -0.2%)
1979: 29.0/3.6r/3.6a/1.0s on 53.5% TS(Bullets held opponents to 51% TS in RS, +2.5%)
(FYI, Wiliams played 4.6mpg more in 79, so that accounts for some of the volume difference)

This point is a little peculiar, though I don't disagree with anything (more on that below). But it's peculiar because, for starters, by way of exclusion you've sort of misrepresented what I said/implied. Though it's hard to effectively misrepresent my words, however, because they're RIGHT THERE in the quoted portion [just not bolded] (again, more on that below).

You then point out that he wasn't "just a starter", he was arguably the best player or 1B at worst, then going on to cite his production in the Finals.
This is peculiar because it's REALLY close to the exact argument I gave in his favour (just more detailed).

For you see, I did NOT only say he "has some hardware as a starter". I said:

He too has some hardware as a starter putting up major numbers.

.....the numbers you went on to cite.

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:Tatum shot horribly in that Finals, and while he did other things at a high level to make up for it, Williams did those things too(defense, playmaking)

Re: defense
I think what Gus did really well on defense is sort of captured in the box aggragates, though: he got steals (PER loves steals, fwiw). That was the biggest value-adding thing he did defensively.

Tatum does a lot of things well defensively that DON'T show up in the box (which I think is a HUGE part of why of all the players who have played in the last 28 seasons, Tatum is sitting #7 in career RAPM (including the playoffs, btw), even though his box aggragates would suggest he's no where NEAR that strong a player.

His length makes him a fantastic shot-contester (even if not getting a block). His length and athleticism make him switchable on to nearly anyone (save maybe a powerful center), and he's generally good at forcing difficult shots. These attributes also help him come up with deflections (even if not getting the steal), or otherwise blow up plays from time to time.

All due respect to Gus Williams, I don't think he's close to being as impactful a defender as Tatum is.

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:while shooting more efficiently. Also worth pointing out that Williams efficiency advantage comes despite him being a 6'2' guy in an era with no three point line going against a frontcourt of Unseld and Hayes while Tatum was a 6'8' guy with a good three-point shot going against a frontcourt that didn't have any real size advantage over him.

fwiw, The "he did it while being shorter" arguments don't hold water with me. Nor would "he did it with less athleticism that the other guy" or whatever. They did what they did (tall, short, fast, slow, who cares). What they did is what matters to me.

I mean, should we be breaking out the Muggsy Bogues nominations? Because based on that type of reasoning, there are few players who did more with their height relative to the league. So why not him?

Anyway, there's some good talking points here, though not much that I haven't already considered. I could be swayed to take Gus over Luka next thread [if Tatum takes this one]; but I'm not sold on him above Tatum.