RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #97 (Bob McAdoo)

[Doctor MJ]

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:

AEnigma
Ambrose
ceilng raiser
ceoofkobefans
Clyde Frazier
Colbinii
cupcakesnake
Doctor MJ
Dooley
DQuinn1575
Dr Positivity
DraymondGold
Dutchball97
f4p
falcolombardi
Fundamentals21
Gibson22
HeartBreakKid
homecourtloss
iggymcfrack
LA Bird
JimmyFromNz
Joao Saraiva
lessthanjake
Lou Fan
Moonbeam
Narigo
OhayoKD
OldSchoolNoBull
penbeast0
Rishkar
rk2023
Samurai
ShaqAttac
Taj FTW
Tim Lehrbach
trelos6
trex_8063
ty 4191
WintaSoldier1
ZeppelinPage

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

Bob Davies


Luka Doncic


Cliff Hagan


Bob McAdoo


James Worthy



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

Current List
Historical Spreadsheet

[penbeast0]

vote Luka Doncic Short peak but very impressive stat line. Like Bob McAdoo but without the later career issues.

Alt vote Bob Davies: Arguable best player in league even though that league was very limited.


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.

Alt vote: Bob Dandridge -- 3rd option on the ATG Bucks championship team, 2nd option on the Wizard championship team (offensively; Wes Unseld still probably more valuable), one of the best defensive wings of the 70s, and while probably not belonging on this list, we are already at 97 so just a shout out to one of my favorite players growing up.

Beaty, Hawkins, etc. more realistic choices.

[AEnigma]

VOTE: Luka Doncic
Alternate: Bob Davies
NOMINATE: Chet Walker

Voting for Luka because I feel he and Tatum should be close together here, even though I was pretty tepid on the merits of any player (potentially save for gatekeeper Walton) being inducted on this list without 15,000 regular season minutes played. He, Worthy, and Davies all have such radically different cases that I think any project ordering is internally justifiable among the three, but the latter two have no strong ties to any other induction the way Luka does to Tatum.

Chet I think has a moderately similar in-era profile to Worthy. Worse player in my eyes, but key part of an all-time team, and (distinct from Worthy’s case) led two conference finals teams and was potentially a basket away from making the Finals over the eventual champion. After Bob Davies’ induction, we will have covered all title winners in the “primary” league. The next closest teams without representation are the 2002 Kings (Vlade or Webber), the 1976/79 Suns (Paul Westphal, who maybe take’s Gus’s place here with a title)… and the 1975 Bulls (asterisk on Thurmond here given that he was a deeper bench piece for the playoffs). Doing that in addition to the 1967 title makes it easy to argue for Chet as the most successful star yet to be represented.

I like the Bob Dandridge shout and have previously said I think he and Chet had similarly valuable peaks/primes/careers, but for the sake of the project I prefer Chet acting as a representative for an often unheralded team. Which also applies to Beaty to a degree: since 1957, the only multi-time NBA conference finalists yet to be represented are the 1974/75 Bulls, the 1976/79 Suns, and the 1966/67/69/70 Hawks (last year was without Beaty).

[falcolombardi]

Vote-luka doncic

Probably the best level of play of anyone here by a margin in absolute but also even relative terms ( i dont think mcadoo even had any remotr argument to be on kareem/walton or even julius level the way doncic aeguably has a black horse argument for top player today in a much more talented era)

Is in his fifth superstar season which doesnt sound like much but is almost as long as many of these guys primes that i got significatively lower

Impressive resiliency in the playoffs too

Alt vote: mcadoo
I am not too familiarized with either him or worthy but bob did his thingh as a first option and gained serious consideration as a league top player in admittedlly underwhelming playoffs teams
Worthy was a nice second option in title teams to magic

Both of those feats are great but i wil givve benefit of the doubt to mcadoo

Nomination

Marc gasol, kinda like a better defending al horford in my view, dpoy player who can shot, pass amd even score on his own is a hell of a player to have on a roster as raptors learned in 2019

[Samurai]

Vote for #97: Bob McAdoo. Slightly better longevity than Hagan and more than twice as many RS games as Doncic. I think Doncic is the better player than either McAdoo or Hagan but since we can't count the 23-24 season per the rules, its just too much of a longevity gap at this time. MVP in 75 and finished second in 74 and 76, having the misfortune of playing during Kareem's peak. Elite scorer, leading the league in points/game for three consecutive seasons. And while scoring was clearly Mac's5 calling card, he wasn't just a one-trick pony. He was a solid (though not elite) rebounder, finishing in the top ten 5 times. And in 76, he finished sixth in the league in assists/game among centers.

Alternate vote: Cliff Hagan. I think Doncic is the best player here but since the rules don't allow us to include this season, he's only played in 330 RS games. As great as he is now, that's just too much missing longevity to make up for. Next year when we can include the 24 season, I would definitely vote for him over Hagan. 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: Connie Hawkins. I had been pushing Bellamy for my alternate nomination as he has far better longevity than the Hawk, but since Hawkins had at least been mentioned the past few rounds I am switching my alternate to him. Yes, part of it is the fan in me since I enjoyed watching the Hawk far more than watching Bellamy. He was an MVP (ABA) and named to the First Team three times (once in the ABA and twice in the NBA). He was a decent passer and a solid, if underrated, defender who likely would have had a better defensive rep if blocks and steals had been recorded during his prime. Probably one of the players most negatively impacted by the era he played in as I'm sure medical advancements are much better today than they were when the Hawk was playing.

[Doctor MJ]

I just have a skepticism about Zelmo's ABA peak that I can't seem to shake. You compared Zelmo and Chet, so I wanted to compare Chet to just Zelmo's seven years on the Hawks before going to the ABA, using some box composite stuff:

Walker: .168 WS/48, 117.0 average TS Add
Zelmo: .157 WS/48, 96.6 average TS Add

Zelmo's full career numbers are .171 WS/48 and 123.0 average TS Add. That's how much those ABA years boosted him, especially those first two ABA years.

It's also Zelmo's atypical career arc amongst guys who played in both leagues, in that his ABA years came after his NBA years, and in most other instances it's the other way around. So not only is he getting a bump in the ABA, he's getting it after the age of 30, after sitting a year out, no less.

I would also point out that if you compare Zelmo's NBA peak year(I have it as 67-68) to his ABA peak year(70-71), and then do the same for Hawk(69-70 and 67-68), it looks to me like there's less space between the two for Hawk than for Zelmo. I'm looking at PER 36 numbers here for normalization(no PER 100 for these guys for the most part) and shooting percentages. They look reasonably close except for FG%. Zelmo got a much bigger shooting boost in the ABA.

Hawk
67-68(ABA): 21.5/10.8/3.7, 51.9% FG, 76.4% FT
69-70(NBA): 21.7/9.2/4.2, 49.0% FG, 77.9% FT

67-68(NBA): 20.3/11.3/2.0, 48.8% FG, 79.4% FT
70-71(ABA): 21.5/14.7/1.8, 55.5% FG, 79.1% FT

So I don't know...it's a tough call. I feel like Zelmo saw an inordinate amount of inflation to his performance in the ABA, but Hawk has the longevity issue.

Walker also appears to have a statistical edge over Zelmo looking only at their NBA careers, as well as a longevity edge. But there I may be making a homer pick because he was a Bull, even if before my time.

FWIW, I probably would take all three over some of the guys that have gotten in in the later stages of the project.

So, I do think Chet deserves our respect and is a reasonable choice here. Some things to consider though:

If you look at Chet's WS/48 over the years you'll see something that's no less unusual than Zelmo. Notice Chet's extreme spike in '71-72.

It's an efficiency spike, and while I can't say exactly why it occurred, I would hazard a guess that it's not unrelated to Norm Van Lier arriving that season and maybe the upgrade at PG may have been beneficial to Chet.

If we simply look at the stats of these two guys through '68-69, when Zelmo left the NBA:

Walker .137 WS/48
Zelmo .157 WS/48

So Zelmo has the clear edge by this metric until he leaves, and if you're judging by WS/48 to give Chet the nod, then you're doing so based on what Chet did in the '70s.

Fair point, but what's wrong with saying Chet's best years came in the 70s?

But of course, Walker's skyrocketing WS/48 is a purely regular season phenomenon. If we just break things down by team he was on:

76ers: RS .137 PS .133
Bulls: RS .204 PS .135

So then, if we were to say that Walker surpasses Zelmo based on his Chicago years, then we're focused on years where he and his team tended to fade from prominence when it mattered, while Zelmo was busy leading a team to a title.

It's a fair criticism to say that Chet was an inconsistent playoff performer, and I have acknowledged that, but again, Zelmo's argument seems to rest more on his ABA years than on his NBA years. I meant to include this in my original post, but if you compare Zelmo's playoff WS/48 only in his NBA years to Chet's full career, they're exactly the same - .133 WS/48 - while Zelmo's playoff WS/48 including the ABA years is .161.

It really comes down to how much you value what he did in the ABA.

As for Chet and his Bulls teams tending to fade when it mattered, I would remind you that they were in a western conference where they were running into the Wilt/West Lakers and Kareem/Oscar Bucks four out of six years(the former 3x and the latter 1x). It does not seem entirely fair to ding them for that, considering, with all due respect, Zelmo's playoff competition in the ABA probably wasn't quite as stiff as that.

So the reason I bring this stuff up isn't to say that Chet couldn't peak later, but that it's weird to me to argue for Chet based on his '70s work while not taking Zelmo's 70s work seriously, when a) both guys are about the same age, b) Zelmo has the edge in the '60s and c) Zelmo's 70s work was far more prominent.

Now, all of this explainable from a pro-NBA anti-ABA perspective, and you're clearly skeptical of the ABA and for understandable reasons. But we are talking about an era where the NBA was weakened by expansion and drain to the ABA, and while Zelmo was outperforming guys like Barry & Cunningham, Chet and his team were really an afterthought in the NBA.

Another thing I feel like bringing up even if it isn't a direct argument:

If you compare Billy Cunningham to Zelmo Beaty, you basically just see Zelmo kill Billy by WS/48 the whole time. NBA, ABA, RS, PS. It all goes to Zelmo. Now that's just one metric, and even if it weren't, Cunningham's already in - as he has been literally every iteration of this project while Zelmo's neve made it - so to some degree it is what it is.

But I do think it's worth noting that in Philly together, Walker didn't have the big WS/48 edge over Cunningham. So this isn't a "Yeah but that's how it is in general with Cunningham" thing, this is a "Zelmo ahead of Cunningham in general, Walker ahead of Cunningham because of the Chicago years."

It sure looks like he had an advantage to me:

RS Walker vs Cunningham:
66 - .143 vs .112
67 - .181 vs .151
68 - .150 vs .148
69 - .170 vs .129

PO Walker vs Cunningham:
66 - .085 vs -0.153
67 - .201 vs .056
68 - .086 vs .323
69 - .132 vs .013

He has the advantage seven out of eight times, and a number of those times(not all, obviously) it looks fairly significant.

But I'll end this by saying again that I could see Zelmo as Top 100. I'm not saying he's not. It's just that there are so few spaces left and a number of players that have been inducted that wouldn't be in my Top 100. In the end, I don't think either Walker or Zelmo will be getting in, sadly.

Point taken here. Walker's being held down by his early years before Cunningham was in the league.

[Owly]

So, I do think Chet deserves our respect and is a reasonable choice here. Some things to consider though:

If you look at Chet's WS/48 over the years you'll see something that's no less unusual than Zelmo. Notice Chet's extreme spike in '71-72.

It's an efficiency spike, and while I can't say exactly why it occurred, I would hazard a guess that it's not unrelated to Norm Van Lier arriving that season and maybe the upgrade at PG may have been beneficial to Chet.

If we simply look at the stats of these two guys through '68-69, when Zelmo left the NBA:

Walker .137 WS/48
Zelmo .157 WS/48

So Zelmo has the clear edge by this metric until he leaves, and if you're judging by WS/48 to give Chet the nod, then you're doing so based on what Chet did in the '70s.

Fair point, but what's wrong with saying Chet's best years came in the 70s?

But of course, Walker's skyrocketing WS/48 is a purely regular season phenomenon. If we just break things down by team he was on:

76ers: RS .137 PS .133
Bulls: RS .204 PS .135

So then, if we were to say that Walker surpasses Zelmo based on his Chicago years, then we're focused on years where he and his team tended to fade from prominence when it mattered, while Zelmo was busy leading a team to a title.

It's a fair criticism to say that Chet was an inconsistent playoff performer, and I have acknowledged that, but again, Zelmo's argument seems to rest more on his ABA years than on his NBA years. I meant to include this in my original post, but if you compare Zelmo's playoff WS/48 only in his NBA years to Chet's full career, they're exactly the same - .133 WS/48 - while Zelmo's playoff WS/48 including the ABA years is .161.

It really comes down to how much you value what he did in the ABA.

As for Chet and his Bulls teams tending to fade when it mattered, I would remind you that they were in a western conference where they were running into the Wilt/West Lakers and Kareem/Oscar Bucks four out of six years(the former 3x and the latter 1x). It does not seem entirely fair to ding them for that, considering, with all due respect, Zelmo's playoff competition in the ABA probably wasn't quite as stiff as that.

So the reason I bring this stuff up isn't to say that Chet couldn't peak later, but that it's weird to me to argue for Chet based on his '70s work while not taking Zelmo's 70s work seriously, when a) both guys are about the same age, b) Zelmo has the edge in the '60s and c) Zelmo's 70s work was far more prominent.

Now, all of this explainable from a pro-NBA anti-ABA perspective, and you're clearly skeptical of the ABA and for understandable reasons. But we are talking about an era where the NBA was weakened by expansion and drain to the ABA, and while Zelmo was outperforming guys like Barry & Cunningham, Chet and his team were really an afterthought in the NBA.

Another thing I feel like bringing up even if it isn't a direct argument:

If you compare Billy Cunningham to Zelmo Beaty, you basically just see Zelmo kill Billy by WS/48 the whole time. NBA, ABA, RS, PS. It all goes to Zelmo. Now that's just one metric, and even if it weren't, Cunningham's already in - as he has been literally every iteration of this project while Zelmo's neve made it - so to some degree it is what it is.

But I do think it's worth noting that in Philly together, Walker didn't have the big WS/48 edge over Cunningham. So this isn't a "Yeah but that's how it is in general with Cunningham" thing, this is a "Zelmo ahead of Cunningham in general, Walker ahead of Cunningham because of the Chicago years."

It sure looks like he had an advantage to me:

RS Walker vs Cunningham:
66 - .143 vs .112
67 - .181 vs .151
68 - .150 vs .148
69 - .170 vs .129

PO Walker vs Cunningham:
66 - .085 vs -0.153
67 - .201 vs .056
68 - .086 vs .323
69 - .132 vs .013

He has the advantage seven out of eight times, and a number of those times(not all, obviously) it looks fairly significant.

But I'll end this by saying again that I could see Zelmo as Top 100. I'm not saying he's not. It's just that there are so few spaces left and a number of players that have been inducted that wouldn't be in my Top 100. In the end, I don't think either Walker or Zelmo will be getting in, sadly.

Point taken here. Walker's being held down by his early years before Cunningham was in the league.

On the 70s thing ... my take ...

There's some dilution of the [edit: NBA, originally said ABA) ... Walker improves some other guys spike up late ... Wilkens, Green otoh ...
...
personally I wouldn't have thought it was that close to the NBA-(early)ABA gap, especially that outlined for bigs in previous threads.

Fwiw, I'd trend bearish on Barry and Cunningham versus norms here.

For "Walker's teams an afterthought" ... his teams weren't as good as the dominant Bucks and Lakers teams ... if that's the bar fine but how many teams are? The team's SRS (and similar) peak will be inflated by expansion but ... afterthought seems harsh. They didn't advance too deep but ...
1) small samples
2) very much the tougher conference
3) stupid seeding - e.g. 1972 you finished 3rd in the West (and overall)... naturally you get 1st in the West (69 win, 11.65 SRS) Lakers.
4) They had some injuries. Boerwinkle in '72, Sloan in '74. At a lower level in '72 Love's ankle bothered him and Walker himself had a pulled hamstring.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

So, I do think Chet deserves our respect and is a reasonable choice here. Some things to consider though:

If you look at Chet's WS/48 over the years you'll see something that's no less unusual than Zelmo. Notice Chet's extreme spike in '71-72.

It's an efficiency spike, and while I can't say exactly why it occurred, I would hazard a guess that it's not unrelated to Norm Van Lier arriving that season and maybe the upgrade at PG may have been beneficial to Chet.

If we simply look at the stats of these two guys through '68-69, when Zelmo left the NBA:

Walker .137 WS/48
Zelmo .157 WS/48

So Zelmo has the clear edge by this metric until he leaves, and if you're judging by WS/48 to give Chet the nod, then you're doing so based on what Chet did in the '70s.

Fair point, but what's wrong with saying Chet's best years came in the 70s?

But of course, Walker's skyrocketing WS/48 is a purely regular season phenomenon. If we just break things down by team he was on:

76ers: RS .137 PS .133
Bulls: RS .204 PS .135

So then, if we were to say that Walker surpasses Zelmo based on his Chicago years, then we're focused on years where he and his team tended to fade from prominence when it mattered, while Zelmo was busy leading a team to a title.

It's a fair criticism to say that Chet was an inconsistent playoff performer, and I have acknowledged that, but again, Zelmo's argument seems to rest more on his ABA years than on his NBA years. I meant to include this in my original post, but if you compare Zelmo's playoff WS/48 only in his NBA years to Chet's full career, they're exactly the same - .133 WS/48 - while Zelmo's playoff WS/48 including the ABA years is .161.

It really comes down to how much you value what he did in the ABA.

As for Chet and his Bulls teams tending to fade when it mattered, I would remind you that they were in a western conference where they were running into the Wilt/West Lakers and Kareem/Oscar Bucks four out of six years(the former 3x and the latter 1x). It does not seem entirely fair to ding them for that, considering, with all due respect, Zelmo's playoff competition in the ABA probably wasn't quite as stiff as that.

So the reason I bring this stuff up isn't to say that Chet couldn't peak later, but that it's weird to me to argue for Chet based on his '70s work while not taking Zelmo's 70s work seriously, when a) both guys are about the same age, b) Zelmo has the edge in the '60s and c) Zelmo's 70s work was far more prominent.

Now, all of this explainable from a pro-NBA anti-ABA perspective, and you're clearly skeptical of the ABA and for understandable reasons. But we are talking about an era where the NBA was weakened by expansion and drain to the ABA, and while Zelmo was outperforming guys like Barry & Cunningham, Chet and his team were really an afterthought in the NBA.

To be clear, I don't have an anti-ABA perspective in general - I was the one pushing Dan Issel, I'm fine with Connie, I was supportive of Dr. J and Gervin, and I have even said I'm not entirely against Zelmo making the Top 100 in a perfect world where there aren't spots being taken by guys that I wouldn't have supported. I just think that with Zelmo, the gap between his NBA performance and his ABA performance is eyebrow-raising, especially since it came after the age of 30.

As for the Bulls - the expansion point is fair, but like I said before, and like Owly just said, they simply had the misfortune of getting stuck with the Lakers and Bucks over and over. They were still one of the best teams of the era. Here are their SRS ranks from 1971 to 1975:

71: 2/17
72: 3/17
73: 5/17
74: 4/17
75: 3/18

Point taken here. Walker's being held down by his early years before Cunningham was in the league.

Yeah, and I don't know what changed other than maybe Walker was given more primacy by his mid-20s, or he just developed as a player.

[Doctor MJ]

It's an efficiency spike, and while I can't say exactly why it occurred, I would hazard a guess that it's not unrelated to Norm Van Lier arriving that season and maybe the upgrade at PG may have been beneficial to Chet.



Fair point, but what's wrong with saying Chet's best years came in the 70s?



It's a fair criticism to say that Chet was an inconsistent playoff performer, and I have acknowledged that, but again, Zelmo's argument seems to rest more on his ABA years than on his NBA years. I meant to include this in my original post, but if you compare Zelmo's playoff WS/48 only in his NBA years to Chet's full career, they're exactly the same - .133 WS/48 - while Zelmo's playoff WS/48 including the ABA years is .161.

It really comes down to how much you value what he did in the ABA.

As for Chet and his Bulls teams tending to fade when it mattered, I would remind you that they were in a western conference where they were running into the Wilt/West Lakers and Kareem/Oscar Bucks four out of six years(the former 3x and the latter 1x). It does not seem entirely fair to ding them for that, considering, with all due respect, Zelmo's playoff competition in the ABA probably wasn't quite as stiff as that.

So the reason I bring this stuff up isn't to say that Chet couldn't peak later, but that it's weird to me to argue for Chet based on his '70s work while not taking Zelmo's 70s work seriously, when a) both guys are about the same age, b) Zelmo has the edge in the '60s and c) Zelmo's 70s work was far more prominent.

Now, all of this explainable from a pro-NBA anti-ABA perspective, and you're clearly skeptical of the ABA and for understandable reasons. But we are talking about an era where the NBA was weakened by expansion and drain to the ABA, and while Zelmo was outperforming guys like Barry & Cunningham, Chet and his team were really an afterthought in the NBA.

It sure looks like he had an advantage to me:

RS Walker vs Cunningham:
66 - .143 vs .112
67 - .181 vs .151
68 - .150 vs .148
69 - .170 vs .129

PO Walker vs Cunningham:
66 - .085 vs -0.153
67 - .201 vs .056
68 - .086 vs .323
69 - .132 vs .013

He has the advantage seven out of eight times, and a number of those times(not all, obviously) it looks fairly significant.

But I'll end this by saying again that I could see Zelmo as Top 100. I'm not saying he's not. It's just that there are so few spaces left and a number of players that have been inducted that wouldn't be in my Top 100. In the end, I don't think either Walker or Zelmo will be getting in, sadly.

Point taken here. Walker's being held down by his early years before Cunningham was in the league.

On the 70s thing ... my take ...

There's some dilution of the [edit: NBA, originally said ABA) ... Walker improves some other guys spike up late ... Wilkens, Green otoh ...
...
personally I wouldn't have thought it was that close to the NBA-(early)ABA gap, especially that outlined for bigs in previous threads.

Fwiw, I'd trend bearish on Barry and Cunningham versus norms here.

For "Walker's teams an afterthought" ... his teams weren't as good as the dominant Bucks and Lakers teams ... if that's the bar fine but how many teams are? The team's SRS (and similar) peak will be inflated by expansion but ... afterthought seems harsh. They didn't advance too deep but ...
1) small samples
2) very much the tougher conference
3) stupid seeding - e.g. 1972 you finished 3rd in the West (and overall)... naturally you get 1st in the West (69 win, 11.65 SRS) Lakers.
4) They had some injuries. Boerwinkle in '72, Sloan in '74. At a lower level in '72 Love's ankle bothered him and Walker himself had a pulled hamstring.

Some good points here and I think I was being unfair at least to a degree.

I realize I'm shaped by them losing that first series against a Laker team sans West that they were better than in the regular season. Granted the Lakes had HCA on the basis of them winning their division, but the Lakers weren't really the Lakers without West.

But the rest of the run isn't something that screams out "underperformance" really. Losing to the Lakers & Bucks from '72-74 is to be expected, and while there was no juggernaut after that, coming close to beating the eventual champs in '75 isn't nothing.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

So, this marks the 35th consecutive ballot for Cliff Hagan(gotta be some kind of record). In light of this milestone and of the fact that there's only a few more chances left, I just wanted to take one more look at him and at this saga.

He achieved nomination(in a tie with Elvin Hayes) in thread #62(in which Pau Gasol was inducted). He gained a faction of support pretty quickly and was consistently in contention, culminating when he and Big Ben Wallace tied with 4 votes a piece in thread #68, triggering a runoff which Big Ben won.

Trex had been presenting WOWY W/L records of small(less than five games in most cases) sample size as a rebuttal to the Hagan support starting in thread #66, and by thread #69, that support collapsed all at once, and Hagan has been sort of hanging around ever since.

I did not then, and I do not now, find those W/L records especially compelling in light of their (lack of) size, and remain surprised that that argument was taken as gospel from then on.

Hagan was a #1B/#2 on a championship team. He's not the only such player not to be inducted yet, but it's a fairly small handful of players that fit that description that haven't been inducted, and I think Hagan has a better era-relative argument than all of them. The others I'm thinking of are:

Jamaal Wilkes(75 Warriors, though not sure everyone would agree he was #2)
Maurice Lucas(77 Blazers)
Dennis Johnson(79 Sonics, if you do not consider Gus and Sikma #1 and #2)
Bill Laimbeer(89 and 90 Pistons)
Somebody from the 94 Rockets(genuinely unsure who, Horry, Thorpe, Kenny, Mad Max?)
Jason Terry(11 Mavs)
Kyrie Irving(16 Cavs)
Jrue Holiday(21 Bucks)
Jamal Murray(23 Nuggets)

Now, here's the sample that IMO matters for Hagan - these are his RS league ranks in PPG, TS Add, RPG, APG from 57-58 through 1961-62, his five-year peak:

1958 - #7 PPG, #5 TS Add, #20 RPG, #20 APG
1959 - #5 PPG, #4 TS Add, #9 RPG, #12 APG
1960 - #5 PPG, #2 TS Add, #10 RPG, #12 APG
1961 - #11 PPG, #9 TS Add, #17 RPG, #9 APG
1962 - #8 PPG, #9 TS Add, #19 RPG, #8 APG

League size matters, of course, when taking those numbers into context, but the upshot is that for five years, he was roughly in the Top 10% or better in scoring volume and efficiency, and roughly in the Top 20% in rebounding and assists. That's over a 378 game RS sample.

This seems like a notable era-relative peak to me, and of the other championship #2s above, I'd say only Kyrie might have an argument over him(and Hagan was much more durable than Kyrie, playing 96.8% of his RS games in the NBA, vs Kyrie's 70.8%(through 22-23)).

The gaudy playoff numbers in 58 and 59 are the icing on the cake, but his performance in helping the Hawks win that championship on top of the regular season excellence above make a compelling era-relative case for him, imo.

[trelos6]

Vote: McAdoo

His weak MVP level peak is what gets him here.

Alt Vote: Davies

Pioneer guard with some decent longevity for the time.

Nom: Chris Bosh

9 or so all star level years. Health cut short what may have been a really good post prime.

[eminence]

There's a handful of early championship #2s missing from that list: Pollard/Mikkelsen, Wanzer/Risen, Seymour, Johnston, Greer/Walker.

ABA champs too, but we overall haven't been too high on the ABA.

[f4p]

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.

[Doctor MJ]

It's an efficiency spike, and while I can't say exactly why it occurred, I would hazard a guess that it's not unrelated to Norm Van Lier arriving that season and maybe the upgrade at PG may have been beneficial to Chet.



Fair point, but what's wrong with saying Chet's best years came in the 70s?



It's a fair criticism to say that Chet was an inconsistent playoff performer, and I have acknowledged that, but again, Zelmo's argument seems to rest more on his ABA years than on his NBA years. I meant to include this in my original post, but if you compare Zelmo's playoff WS/48 only in his NBA years to Chet's full career, they're exactly the same - .133 WS/48 - while Zelmo's playoff WS/48 including the ABA years is .161.

It really comes down to how much you value what he did in the ABA.

As for Chet and his Bulls teams tending to fade when it mattered, I would remind you that they were in a western conference where they were running into the Wilt/West Lakers and Kareem/Oscar Bucks four out of six years(the former 3x and the latter 1x). It does not seem entirely fair to ding them for that, considering, with all due respect, Zelmo's playoff competition in the ABA probably wasn't quite as stiff as that.

So the reason I bring this stuff up isn't to say that Chet couldn't peak later, but that it's weird to me to argue for Chet based on his '70s work while not taking Zelmo's 70s work seriously, when a) both guys are about the same age, b) Zelmo has the edge in the '60s and c) Zelmo's 70s work was far more prominent.

Now, all of this explainable from a pro-NBA anti-ABA perspective, and you're clearly skeptical of the ABA and for understandable reasons. But we are talking about an era where the NBA was weakened by expansion and drain to the ABA, and while Zelmo was outperforming guys like Barry & Cunningham, Chet and his team were really an afterthought in the NBA.

To be clear, I don't have an anti-ABA perspective in general - I was the one pushing Dan Issel, I'm fine with Connie, I was supportive of Dr. J and Gervin, and I have even said I'm not entirely against Zelmo making the Top 100 in a perfect world where there aren't spots being taken by guys that I wouldn't have supported. I just think that with Zelmo, the gap between his NBA performance and his ABA performance is eyebrow-raising, especially since it came after the age of 30.

As for the Bulls - the expansion point is fair, but like I said before, and like Owly just said, they simply had the misfortune of getting stuck with the Lakers and Bucks over and over. They were still one of the best teams of the era. Here are their SRS ranks from 1971 to 1975:

71: 2/17
72: 3/17
73: 5/17
74: 4/17
75: 3/18

I feel like the fact of Zelmo having numbers increase when he changes leagues is having a very large affect on your judgement of him, and that this is causing him to be less impressive to you than other guys who apples-to-apples don't seem to me to be more impressive.

We've talked already about Chet, but when it comes to Issel, his most impressive single year comes with him getting beat by Zelmo's team and Zelmo getting Playoff MVP. Even if you disagree with Zelmo getting the better of Issel, I don't think there's any room to be unimpressed by Zelmo but impressed by Issel.

Re: Zelmo's leap came after the age of 30. Both Zelmo & Chet make their big statistical leap at age 31.

For the record I don't think there's likely any fundamental reason why Chet couldn't have been given more primacy sooner...but I chafe at the idea of ascribing unfairness to Chet but easy-competition to Zelmo when they were contemporaries showing a similar arc, with Zelmo having arguments for superiority in the part where they are in the same league, and being far more noteworthy in the years they were in different leagues.

Re: one of the best teams in the league. Yeah, while I'd push back a bit here based on the playoffs, you do state facts based on metrics.

[Doctor MJ]

So, this marks the 35th consecutive ballot for Cliff Hagan(gotta be some kind of record). In light of this milestone and of the fact that there's only a few more chances left, I just wanted to take one more look at him and at this saga.

He achieved nomination(in a tie with Elvin Hayes) in thread #62(in which Pau Gasol was inducted). He gained a faction of support pretty quickly and was consistently in contention, culminating when he and Big Ben Wallace tied with 4 votes a piece in thread #68, triggering a runoff which Big Ben won.

Trex had been presenting WOWY W/L records of small(less than five games in most cases) sample size as a rebuttal to the Hagan support starting in thread #66, and by thread #69, that support collapsed all at once, and Hagan has been sort of hanging around ever since.

I did not then, and I do not now, find those W/L records especially compelling in light of their (lack of) size, and remain surprised that that argument was taken as gospel from then on.

Hagan was a #1B/#2 on a championship team. He's not the only such player not to be inducted yet, but it's a fairly small handful of players that fit that description that haven't been inducted, and I think Hagan has a better era-relative argument than all of them. The others I'm thinking of are:

Jamaal Wilkes(75 Warriors, though not sure everyone would agree he was #2)
Maurice Lucas(77 Blazers)
Dennis Johnson(79 Sonics, if you do not consider Gus and Sikma #1 and #2)
Bill Laimbeer(89 and 90 Pistons)
Somebody from the 94 Rockets(genuinely unsure who, Horry, Thorpe, Kenny, Mad Max?)
Jason Terry(11 Mavs)
Kyrie Irving(16 Cavs)
Jrue Holiday(21 Bucks)
Jamal Murray(23 Nuggets)

Now, here's the sample that IMO matters for Hagan - these are his RS league ranks in PPG, TS Add, RPG, APG from 57-58 through 1961-62, his five-year peak:

1958 - #7 PPG, #5 TS Add, #20 RPG, #20 APG
1959 - #5 PPG, #4 TS Add, #9 RPG, #12 APG
1960 - #5 PPG, #2 TS Add, #10 RPG, #12 APG
1961 - #11 PPG, #9 TS Add, #17 RPG, #9 APG
1962 - #8 PPG, #9 TS Add, #19 RPG, #8 APG

League size matters, of course, when taking those numbers into context, but the upshot is that for five years, he was roughly in the Top 10% or better in scoring volume and efficiency, and roughly in the Top 20% in rebounding and assists. That's over a 378 game RS sample.

This seems like a notable era-relative peak to me, and of the other championship #2s above, I'd say only Kyrie might have an argument over him(and Hagan was much more durable than Kyrie, playing 96.8% of his RS games in the NBA, vs Kyrie's 70.8%(through 22-23)).

The gaudy playoff numbers in 58 and 59 are the icing on the cake, but his performance in helping the Hawks win that championship on top of the regular season excellence above make a compelling era-relative case for him, imo.

I appreciate the post. I won't deny it's a bit embarrassing to me to see Hagan continue to slide, but people shouldn't vote to keep me from embarrassment.

Speaking with some distance, it's fascinating how effective trex's argument was given that it's such a coarse metric that no one would put that much stock in in general, but when you're talking about guys from the deeper past it doesn't take much to make people have too many doubts to champion a guy.

To be clear: I'm not saying people are wrong here, nor do I see what happened to Hagan as a reason to change our process. It's awkward that a guy gets nominated and then his candidacy loses steam, but no nomination step would just mean he'd get voted in way earlier than people have been shown to believe he deserves.

I do hope he gets in. The support of Davies - which I was not expecting - makes my championing of Hagan take a backseat, but were it up to me, both would get in of course.

[Doctor MJ]

There's a handful of early championship #2s missing from that list: Pollard/Mikkelsen, Wanzer/Risen, Seymour, Johnston, Greer/Walker.

ABA champs too, but we overall haven't been too high on the ABA.

Oh Dolph Schayes got in a long time ago, it's just the actual MVP of that champion - Seymour - who is being left out.

[eminence]

There's a handful of early championship #2s missing from that list: Pollard/Mikkelsen, Wanzer/Risen, Seymour, Johnston, Greer/Walker.

ABA champs too, but we overall haven't been too high on the ABA.

Oh Dolph Schayes got in a long time ago, it's just the actual MVP of that champion - Seymour - who is being left out.

I'll switch it to Rocha if ya don't watch it Mister.

Unrelated: As a non-Hagan voter I didn't really buy the WOWY argument, he basically missed no time in prime. It's a longevity issue for me. 5 star years, and not that convinced by the 5th (Hawks kinda stunk in '62), just isn't enough for me.

[trex_8063]

.

So, this marks the 35th consecutive ballot for Cliff Hagan(gotta be some kind of record). In light of this milestone and of the fact that there's only a few more chances left, I just wanted to take one more look at him and at this saga.

He achieved nomination(in a tie with Elvin Hayes) in thread #62(in which Pau Gasol was inducted). He gained a faction of support pretty quickly and was consistently in contention, culminating when he and Big Ben Wallace tied with 4 votes a piece in thread #68, triggering a runoff which Big Ben won.

Trex had been presenting WOWY W/L records of small(less than five games in most cases) sample size as a rebuttal to the Hagan support starting in thread #66, and by thread #69, that support collapsed all at once, and Hagan has been sort of hanging around ever since.

I did not then, and I do not now, find those W/L records especially compelling in light of their (lack of) size, and remain surprised that that argument was taken as gospel from then on.

I added to that Taylor's WOWYR (which factors in before/after he left, as well as some other weightings which [frequently enough] results in WOWYR often looking very different from raw WOWY. Hagan still looks exceedingly pedestrian in WOWYR (+1.3 for prime, +1.1 for career).
I noted also perception of him at the time (both media and fellow players): he only twice made an All-NBA Team [media voted], both of them 2nd Team; he never ranked higher than 9th in the league in MVP Award shares [player voted], only four NBA seasons + 1 ABA season did he receive any votes at all.
^^^Across the board he was not---at the time---perceived as highly as we [well....you] are trying to portray him here.

We also have at least one account [from a coach] who somewhat emphatically denigrated his defense (which is potential factor accounting for the lack of obvious impact and respect from his peers).

Just putting that all out there (in addition to the non-flattering WOWY).

Hagan was a #1B/#2 on a championship team.

I would object to the notion that he was a "1B"; or at least I would point out that seemingly no one at the time felt he was a "1B": Pettit was All-NBA 1st Team and took 0.243 MVP shares [4th]; Hagan was All-NBA 2nd Team and took 0.005 MVP shares [11th].
Everyone at the time had a fairly clear idea of who the best player on that team was.

He's not the only such player not to be inducted yet, but it's a fairly small handful of players that fit that description that haven't been inducted, and I think Hagan has a better era-relative argument than all of them. The others I'm thinking of are:

Jamaal Wilkes(75 Warriors, though not sure everyone would agree he was #2)
Maurice Lucas(77 Blazers)
Dennis Johnson(79 Sonics, if you do not consider Gus and Sikma #1 and #2)
Bill Laimbeer(89 and 90 Pistons)
Somebody from the 94 Rockets(genuinely unsure who, Horry, Thorpe, Kenny, Mad Max?)
Jason Terry(11 Mavs)
Kyrie Irving(16 Cavs)
Jrue Holiday(21 Bucks)
Jamal Murray(23 Nuggets)

Now, here's the sample that IMO matters for Hagan - these are his RS league ranks in PPG, TS Add, RPG, APG from 57-58 through 1961-62, his five-year peak:

1958 - #7 PPG, #5 TS Add, #20 RPG, #20 APG
1959 - #5 PPG, #4 TS Add, #9 RPG, #12 APG
1960 - #5 PPG, #2 TS Add, #10 RPG, #12 APG
1961 - #11 PPG, #9 TS Add, #17 RPG, #9 APG
1962 - #8 PPG, #9 TS Add, #19 RPG, #8 APG

I would point out that Neil Johnston was as much a "#1B/#2" on a title-winning team as Hagan [and only two years earlier, fwiw], and here are his league ranks in ppg, TS Add, rpg, and apg in his best 5-year span ['53-'57]:

1953 - #1 PPG, #1 TS Add, #2 RPG, t#27 APG
1954 - #1 PPG, #1 TS Add, #6 RPG, t#21 APG
1955 - #1 PPG, #1 TS Add, #1 RPG, t#23 APG
1956 - #3 PPG, #1 TS Add, #4 RPG, t#16 APG
1957 - #3 PPG, #1 TS Add, #6 RPG, t#15 APG

He appears to utterly trounce Hagan in the very measures you're citing, and has the same legacy chip.
His WOWY also looks better (there is no WOWYR). MVP shares are a bit of an unknown (not awarded until '57), though not looking promising (as far as player perception); although, in '58 [where he's barely in his prime anymore], he's right behind Hagan at 12th with 0.003 MVP shares (and that's Hagan's arguable peak year......it's not even one of Johnston's top 5).
And with the media, Johnston was All-NBA each of the above years [4x 1st Team].

Why are we [you] not championing him? Because Hagan had a little better [statistical] playoff run during the one title year? Does that off-set all of the above?


EDIT: Personally, I rank Johnston, as well as Bill Laimbeer ahead of Hagan all-time. Am also considering Jrue Holiday, who I think I've been sleeping on a for awhile.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

.

So, this marks the 35th consecutive ballot for Cliff Hagan(gotta be some kind of record). In light of this milestone and of the fact that there's only a few more chances left, I just wanted to take one more look at him and at this saga.

He achieved nomination(in a tie with Elvin Hayes) in thread #62(in which Pau Gasol was inducted). He gained a faction of support pretty quickly and was consistently in contention, culminating when he and Big Ben Wallace tied with 4 votes a piece in thread #68, triggering a runoff which Big Ben won.

Trex had been presenting WOWY W/L records of small(less than five games in most cases) sample size as a rebuttal to the Hagan support starting in thread #66, and by thread #69, that support collapsed all at once, and Hagan has been sort of hanging around ever since.

I did not then, and I do not now, find those W/L records especially compelling in light of their (lack of) size, and remain surprised that that argument was taken as gospel from then on.

I added to that Taylor's WOWYR (which factors in before/after he left, as well as some other weightings which [frequently enough] results in WOWYR often looking very different from raw WOWY. Hagan still looks exceedingly pedestrian in WOWYR (+1.3 for prime, +1.1 for career).
I noted also perception of him at the time (both media and fellow players): he only twice made an All-NBA Team [media voted], both of them 2nd Team; he never ranked higher than 9th in the league in MVP Award shares [player voted], only four NBA seasons + 1 ABA season did he receive any votes at all.
^^^Across the board he was not---at the time---perceived as highly as we [well....you] are trying to portray him here.

We also have at least one account [from a coach] who somewhat emphatically denigrated his defense (which is potential factor accounting for the lack of obvious impact and respect from his peers).

Just putting that all out there (in addition to the non-flattering WOWY).

WRT the perception of him at the time not being so hot...you're mentioning lack of all-NBA teams and lack of MVP consideration, yet you recently supported Shawn Marion(only 2x 3rd team, highest MVP finish #10) and Horace Grant(never made any all-NBA teams[though he did have 4x Defensive Second team], never any MVP consideration), who don't meet that criteria. You also, at the end of this post, mention possibly supporting Laimbeer or Holiday, neither of whom ever made an All-NBA team.

I would also point out the following:

1. Hagan had a short prime, so his window for making such teams was not big.
2. It is not uncommon for certain players to get locked out of those first teams if there are greater players at their position. Schayes was ahead of Hagan, and then once Baylor arrived, it was curtains for Hagan making either of the All-NBA teams.
3. The Third Team didn't exist until 1988, so he couldn't have made that.

Hagan was a #1B/#2 on a championship team.

I would object to the notion that he was a "1B"; or at least I would point out that seemingly no one at the time felt he was a "1B": Pettit was All-NBA 1st Team and took 0.243 MVP shares [4th]; Hagan was All-NBA 2nd Team and took 0.005 MVP shares [11th].
Everyone at the time had a fairly clear idea of who the best player on that team was.

I don't disagree with that, that's why I said #1B/#2 and not just #1B. I have no issue here, but it doesn't change my position on Hagan.

He's not the only such player not to be inducted yet, but it's a fairly small handful of players that fit that description that haven't been inducted, and I think Hagan has a better era-relative argument than all of them. The others I'm thinking of are:

Jamaal Wilkes(75 Warriors, though not sure everyone would agree he was #2)
Maurice Lucas(77 Blazers)
Dennis Johnson(79 Sonics, if you do not consider Gus and Sikma #1 and #2)
Bill Laimbeer(89 and 90 Pistons)
Somebody from the 94 Rockets(genuinely unsure who, Horry, Thorpe, Kenny, Mad Max?)
Jason Terry(11 Mavs)
Kyrie Irving(16 Cavs)
Jrue Holiday(21 Bucks)
Jamal Murray(23 Nuggets)

Now, here's the sample that IMO matters for Hagan - these are his RS league ranks in PPG, TS Add, RPG, APG from 57-58 through 1961-62, his five-year peak:

1958 - #7 PPG, #5 TS Add, #20 RPG, #20 APG
1959 - #5 PPG, #4 TS Add, #9 RPG, #12 APG
1960 - #5 PPG, #2 TS Add, #10 RPG, #12 APG
1961 - #11 PPG, #9 TS Add, #17 RPG, #9 APG
1962 - #8 PPG, #9 TS Add, #19 RPG, #8 APG

I would point out that Neil Johnston was as much a "#1B/#2" on a title-winning team as Hagan [and only two years earlier, fwiw], and here are his league ranks in ppg, TS Add, rpg, and apg in his best 5-year span ['53-'57]:

1953 - #1 PPG, #1 TS Add, #2 RPG, t#27 APG
1954 - #1 PPG, #1 TS Add, #6 RPG, t#21 APG
1955 - #1 PPG, #1 TS Add, #1 RPG, t#23 APG
1956 - #3 PPG, #1 TS Add, #4 RPG, t#16 APG
1957 - #3 PPG, #1 TS Add, #6 RPG, t#15 APG

He appears to utterly trounce Hagan in the very measures you're citing, and has the same legacy chip.
His WOWY also looks better (there is no WOWYR). MVP shares are a bit of an unknown (not awarded until '57), though not looking promising (as far as player perception); although, in '58 [where he's barely in his prime anymore], he's right behind Hagan at 12th with 0.003 MVP shares (and that's Hagan's arguable peak year......it's not even one of Johnston's top 5).
And with the media, Johnston was All-NBA each of the above years [4x 1st Team].

Why are we [you] not championing him? Because Hagan had a little better [statistical] playoff run during the one title year? Does that off-set all of the above?


EDIT: Personally, I rank Johnston, as well as Bill Laimbeer ahead of Hagan all-time. Am also considering Jrue Holiday, who I think I've been sleeping on a for awhile.

First, "utterly trounce" seems a bit dramatic, but point taken.

I would in turn point out, as Doc has in the past, that Johnston looks like a playoff faller(as does Jrue in certain ways), whereas Hagan looks like a riser in his short prime. It is subjective whether this matters to each voter, but it's worth considering.

Also, I don't get the multiple uses of [you]. It's not just me, or even just me and Doc. Samurai and Clyde have shown some support in recent rounds too.

But I acknowledge it seems unlikely that Hagan will get in, as I think it will take more than four votes and I don't think he has those votes here.

[OhayoKD]

.

I did not then, and I do not now, find those W/L records especially compelling in light of their (lack of) size, and remain surprised that that argument was taken as gospel from then on.

I added to that Taylor's WOWYR (which factors in before/after he left, as well as some other weightings which [frequently enough] results in WOWYR often looking very different from raw WOWY. Hagan still looks exceedingly pedestrian in WOWYR (+1.3 for prime, +1.1 for career).

Ben's WOWY and WOWYR do not factor in games "before/after" a player leaves. Per his own WOWYR write-up, that is distinct from "WOWY" and is instead dubbed an "indirect" signal