RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #31 (Bob Pettit)

[falcolombardi]

Is it unreasonable to think that Jason Kidd was better than Scottie Pippen? I feel like they were pretty comparable defenders and rebounders at their peak (where you would expect Pippen's height to give him the edge), with Kidd being a better passer and Pippen a better scorer. I think Pippen benefited greatly from Jordan collapsing defenses, so I'm not sure how much of the efficiency gap comes from their skillset vs. situation.

I am quite high on pippen, and while i would disagree with it i can see the argument

Kidd career as a relevant player is a bit longer which helps, he is one of those guys whose correlation with winning more are clearly outspacing his boxscore

More specifically his "correlation" with great defense is worth looking into, he played in some really great defensive teams which was greatly evidenced when he left or joined teams to be in big parts thanks to him

Funnily enough is offense where i cannot see him being actually on pippen level, as i think pippen ability to be a driving treat at his height in the open and half court was a huge differemce maker

[falcolombardi]

Frazier never had an AST% over 30 in a season where he played at least 30 minutes total. Kidd had an AST% over 30 in each of his first 17 seasons.

So, I think it's important to point out that AST% is more about roles and systems than it is about passing ability. Kidd was an outstanding passer of course, but during his prime he also played in schemes that were predicted on him dominating the team's decision making.

Frazier by contrast was playing in Holzman's read & react scheme where no one player dominated the ball or decision making to the same extent. His assist numbers thus don't represent a failure to do what Kidd did in any meaningful way.

Which was more impressive? A point that can be debated, but we shouldn't confuse Kidd for a guy who was regularly leading elite offenses like this.

When i watched frazier i came away thinking he was a bonafide star offensive guard who happened to be great at defense too.

Whereas his defense while excellent didnt come to me as anythingh all that "trascendent" or anythingh. (Kinda think he beneffited a ton from ball handling rules of the time ) his offense looks like the best of any guard pre merger other than west/oscar

Kidd on the contrary seems to just have much stronger impact signals in defense than offense. If you showed kidd career team defensive ratings and how they change when he joins/leaves teams you would think he was a defensive center

Some of that is noise due to also playing in defensive minded teams but i wouldnt be surprised if he had stronger defense impact than frazier due to his combo of height (and hence ability to guard bigger positions) rebounding in a era where it was a bigger part of the game than today and defensive leadership

Frazier on the other hand doesnt seem to me to do anythingh jrue hollyday couldnt do as well or better.

Would likely still pick frazier as his offensive game was so good it could have been used even more and would translate better to modern game than prime kidd with his weak jumpshot and scoring in my view

[trex_8063]

Citing the Sonics also underwhelms when two of the instances were specifically cited as postseasons where Stockton was generally okay even while the offence was not.

So my arguments [in favour of John Stockton] would be strengthened if he'd played worse in those series's??

I'm just not sure what to make of this particular statement.


Their playoff offense actually [usually] excelled relative to defenses faced. You suggest we must be cautious about giving Stockton much of the credit specifically because his individual numbers fell off too much.

I counter that we should expect to see drop in individual numbers [even with excellent rORTG] when facing the veritable gauntlet of good/elite defenses that they did year after year, and perhaps particularly Stockton's in some years because one of those good/elite defenses they faced repeatedly had an elite containment man-defender at PG.

You counter that, no, he actually played OK in those series's, so.......he still doesn't get credit.
Or is perhaps rather that he gets no credit for elite playoff offense if his individual numbers are off, but simultaneously must absorb the blame when it's poor even if his individual numbers are fine?


It just seems like you're dead-set against giving him any sort of "a win" in this conversation.

[penbeast0]

When i watched frazier i came away thinking he was a bonafide star offensive guard who happened to be great at defense too.

Whereas his defense while excellent didnt come to me as anythingh all that "trascendent" or anythingh. (Kinda think he beneffited a ton from ball handling rules of the time ) his offense looks like the best of any guard pre merger other than west/oscar

Kidd on the contrary seems to just have much stronger impact signals in defense than offense. If you showed kidd career team defensive ratings and how they change when he joins/leaves teams you would think he was a defensive center

Some of that is noise due to also playing in defensive minded teams but i wouldnt be surprised if he had stronger defense impact than frazier due to his combo of height (and hence ability to guard bigger positions) rebounding in a era where it was a bigger part of the game than today and defensive leadership

Frazier on the other hand doesnt seem to me to do anythingh jrue hollyday couldnt do as well or better.

Would likely still pick frazier as his offensive game was so good it could have been used even more and would translate better to modern game than prime kidd with his weak jumpshot and scoring in my view

The counter to this was posted on this board by another poster when we were discussing GOAT cases for point guards. Frazier has amazing success shutting down great opposing guards in the playoffs. If someone can find the post, great, but they basically posted his numbers v. the other great guards of his day and he was driving down their efficiency significantly. And he was also good at team defense.

For Kidd, I also have him as the GOAT defensive guard (Frazier second) with his defensive rebounding and team impact being the keys to his case. He didn't lead great team offenses but he had more of an impact that any other PG with his kind of longevity.

[AEnigma]

Citing the Sonics also underwhelms when two of the instances were specifically cited as postseasons where Stockton was generally okay even while the offence was not.

So my arguments [in favour of John Stockton] would be strengthened if he'd played worse in those series's??

I'm just not sure what to make of this particular statement.

Their playoff offense actually [usually] excelled relative to defenses faced. You suggest we must be cautious about giving Stockton much of the credit specifically because his individual numbers fell off too much.

I counter that we should expect to see drop in individual numbers [even with excellent rORTG] when facing the veritable gauntlet of good/elite defenses that they did year after year, and perhaps particularly Stockton's in some years because one of those good/elite defenses they faced repeatedly had an elite containment man-defender at PG.

You counter that, no, he actually played OK in those series's, so.......he still doesn't get credit.
Or is perhaps rather that he gets no credit for elite playoff offense if his individual numbers are off, but simultaneously must absorb the blame when it's poor even if his individual numbers are fine?

It just seems like you're dead-set against giving him any sort of "a win" in this conversation.

Or you are dead set against trying to parse my argument so you can give Stockton an unearned “win”. To my eye, Malone struggling hurt the Jazz more than Stockton struggling. To my eye, Malone elevating correlates better with the Jazz’s offensive elevation than Stockton elevating. To my eye, Stockton could be successfully replaced with several all-NBA/star guards, but Malone could not be successfully replaced in turn by power forwards of that general tier. Playing series against Gary Payton has nothing in particular to do with that and reads as grasping at straws to defend a player who struggled against plenty of weaker backcourts than that.

[falcolombardi]

When i watched frazier i came away thinking he was a bonafide star offensive guard who happened to be great at defense too.

Whereas his defense while excellent didnt come to me as anythingh all that "trascendent" or anythingh. (Kinda think he beneffited a ton from ball handling rules of the time ) his offense looks like the best of any guard pre merger other than west/oscar

Kidd on the contrary seems to just have much stronger impact signals in defense than offense. If you showed kidd career team defensive ratings and how they change when he joins/leaves teams you would think he was a defensive center

Some of that is noise due to also playing in defensive minded teams but i wouldnt be surprised if he had stronger defense impact than frazier due to his combo of height (and hence ability to guard bigger positions) rebounding in a era where it was a bigger part of the game than today and defensive leadership

Frazier on the other hand doesnt seem to me to do anythingh jrue hollyday couldnt do as well or better.

Would likely still pick frazier as his offensive game was so good it could have been used even more and would translate better to modern game than prime kidd with his weak jumpshot and scoring in my view

The counter to this was posted on this board by another poster when we were discussing GOAT cases for point guards. Frazier has amazing success shutting down great opposing guards in the playoffs. If someone can find the post, great, but they basically posted his numbers v. the other great guards of his day and he was driving down their efficiency significantly. And he was also good at team defense.

For Kidd, I also have him as the GOAT defensive guard (Frazier second) with his defensive rebounding and team impact being the keys to his case. He didn't lead great team offenses but he had more of an impact that any other PG with his kind of longevity.

I would actually love to see that data. But my main point here is not as much that frazier didnt have a huge effect on rival guards

More so that i think great defensive guards beneffited a ton from that era being so tough for ballhandlers relative to now ruleset wise (as well as having weaker ballhandling overall )

I think fraziet D was great, i just dont think he was doing stuff a current strong guard today couldnt also do. I watched frazier lock down west and was as impressed as i am with jrue locking down booker/lillard..but jrue does it in a much tougher context due to spacing and ball handling

[tsherkin]

More so that i think great defensive guards beneffited a ton from that era being so tough for ballhandlers relative to now ruleset wise (as well as having weaker ballhandling overall )

It bears mention that Frazier and Earl Monroe were early examples of guys whose handles were starting to loosen up the NBA rules. It wasn't as unchecked as the Iverson-and-later NBA where they have just started outright breaking the rules without penalty on almost every possession, but it was already starting to change by their time.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1: Bob Pettit



Alright so I've dug a bit more deeply into Pettit's data with the concerns I've seen people bring up - which I think are good to be brought up.

1. Pettit's data goes down in the playoffs. Some of it yes, but I think it's important to focus on prime when looking at averages. Pettit played 9 years in the playoffs, The 1st, 8th & 9th are disappointing statistically to varying degrees. He's got a middle 6 years year chunk where I think he looks quite solid. One can understandably scoff at me praising a mere 6 post-seasons, but aside from the fact that he did play more regular seasons than post-seasons, longevity is a different matter than prime.

2. As far as I can tell his RWOWY numbers that look good but not outlier are based on very little "without". So I think what's happening here is that because the team didn't get great right when he showed up, but did take a leap at another point with various new arrivals, he gets knocked form the start, and then limited as time goes by because the club go some nice new talent as Pettit aged out.

3. The two main guys with this - Cliff Hagan at the start and Zelmo Beaty at the end - were outstanding players who I think deserve strong consideration as Top 100 contenders, but I don't have any serious debate about which of these guys did the most for the Hawks.

4. With regards to the use of Pettit's big games to counteract his averages data, this resonates with me too, though I understand why some would be frustrated by this. I think part of the thing is that I don't see the Hawks as being a team that tended to disappoint in the playoffs. A guy can't make up for a bunch of upset losses in which he played bad by showing up big sometimes...but on the whole I don't really see Pettit as a guy who needs to "make up for" anything. He was the fulcrum of a very successful contending team for a long time, and sometimes he scaled to clearly dizzying heights.

5. It also matters specifically with regards to Hagan. If I felt like Hagan was the clear cut best player during the peak of their playoff success, that would absolutely hurt how I saw Pettit, but Pettit's performance in the finals just make me feel comfortable saying that.

Induction Vote 2: Walt Frazier

Clyde glides right in and knocks Pippen off my ballot.

Once again you can see me being a bit less concerned with longevity than many. I think what Frazier did in his prime is just considerably more of a two-way standout thing than you see if you look at his accolades and box score volume. An efficient volume scorer who is a star passer in a read & react system, and is more celebrated for his defense than his offense, while being the rock on which the closest thing to a dynasty in that era relied upon. It's a big deal to me.

Nomination Vote 1: John Havlicek



So, I haven't been able to get Hondo off my mind. I think I'm guilty of letting my simplifying year-by-year ranking process influence me too much. The main point of comparison here is Scottie Pippen, who ended up scoring considerably higher than Havlicek in that study. Of course maybe the scoring itself is particularly wrong there, but realistically even if it isn't, I can't really say that I think it's clear that Pippen was better than Havlicek prime-per-prime. Pippen's got an argument, and Havlicek does too.

And then there is the longevity to consider. As I've said above, I believe I weigh longevity less than most here, but in particular comparisons it becomes hard to dismiss. Havlicek's career can be characterized as having his prime begin in a Pippen-like role, and then at around the time Pippen's injuries started really taking their roll, Havlicek up'ed his scoring primacy and arguably led a team to two championship.

Honestly, as I think about Havlicek more, he may jump some guys in the Nomination pool that I previously supported over him.

Nomination Vote 2: Manu Ginobili

Yup, there I go. Manu's my next man.

Now as I've said, I'm less fixed on where exactly Ginobili is than I am feeling compelled to spread the gospel on the guy. I'm not purposefully doing that early - but it's possible I'll end up raising someone else above him before all is said and done here.

I quote my posts from the '04-05 thread before, and it's not just a coincidence they come from there. As I was going back through the years evaluating POY, I ended up siding with Ginobili at #1. This actually shocked me, and it's incredibly funny talking about it here, given that I was first compelled to post at RealGM during that same season to argue for Steve Nash's MVP worthiness and that Nash has since become my all-time favorite player. I like Ginobili, but Nash is the one who I truly fear having bias for. Perhaps I overcompensate, but in the past my '04-05 POY considerations were really about Nash vs Duncan.

To understand how I got there logically:

1. I think that Ginobili impacts with the best of 'em per minute and is typically held back in total impact by his limited minutes.

2. When a player's lack of minutes seems clearly to have held the team back meaningfully - like keeping team from chip - it's easy to justify knocking him harshly for the lack.

3. But when the team wins the title, and does so on the back of how he plays when he does play, I need to seriously ask myself where the minute threshold is that would have been "enough" to be the most valuable player.

4. And so, in my analysis, I would say that Ginobili would be my pick for both the WC MVP & Finals MVP.

5. This is happening in a season where there Ginobili leads the league in +/- by a significant margin:

Ginobili +844
Duncan +765
Nash +728

6. Speaking today, I now believe with confidence pace & space is a just plain superior way to play to win, and Ginobili was the guy driving the pace (+5.5 Pace On/Off in the playoffs) and the space (made more 3's than any other Spur), which I think was likely critical to their success against the Suns in particular.

Without elaborating on Ginobili vs Duncan & Ginobili vs Nash specifically at this time, I'll just say:

I see compelling arguments for Ginobili against each of them, and I struggle to use minutes to negate them.

Okay then zooming out, I see Ginobili as a guy who at his best was really capable of being the top basketball player in the league. He's held back some due to his limited minutes...but he also shows a remarkable tendency to level up his impact in the playoffs, and in particular deep in the playoffs.

And when the Spurs won titles in the 2000s, it always coincided with Ginobili seeming to go particularly nuts with his impact. All 4 of those chips, Ginobili had the best team +/- - and for perspective with the data we have, we don't have any other player more than twice. (Though we do have Michael Jordan twice, during his final two chips, which bodes exceptionally well for what we may find when we get access to earlier data.)

I'm honestly not sure if there's any other player remotely like Ginobili on this front - demonstrating this level of deep playoff impact dominance, while not being something like a GOAT candidate.

Okay, imma stop there. I hope my plea doesn't end up making folks recoil. I'm less concerned with convincing people right now that they should Nominate Ginobili, and more hopeful they'll just chew on their assessment of the guy. I think we have some significant things to learn about basketball, and basketball analysis, by understanding the the time of the Argentine.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Vote: Bob Pettit

The best era-relative case on the ballot when taking statistical consistency, longevity, and team success into consideration.

Secondary Vote: Walt Frazier

I struggled with this one. I think Reggie/Scottie/Stockton/Frazier are all pretty close.

Stockton: His individual impact metrics are the best of the group by a fair bit(though obviously those metrics don't exist for Frazier), but he was also probably the worst playoff performer of the the four(that's not to say he was bad, but the others were great playoff performers).

Frazier: It's difficult to make a statistical case for Frazier over Stockton...Frazier was a a very efficient scorer, Stockton was even more efficient. They're probably both Top 10 all time defensive point guards. Stockton's playmaking is significantly better. Stockton's longevity is significantly better. The argument for Frazier pretty much rests on him being the superior playoff performer, that he won two titles, at least one of which as his team's #1, and are you going to weight that strongly enough to give him the edge? That's the question I've been struggling with.

Reggie: He is the best scorer of the four, when volume and efficiency are considered, had some absolutely iconic playoff moments, was the #1 on a team that went to five ECFs and one Finals and, frankly, is imo one of the most underappreciated star players of the last 30 years. I guess what holds him back is that his offense was fairly dependent on the system - he couldn't create for himself or for others that way the other three could.

Pippen: I am a lifelong Chicago Bulls fan. I watched and celebrated all those championships in the 90s. Given this context, I am probably a bigger genuine Pippen fan than anyone in this project. That said, I feel that some - not all, but some - of the Pippen supporters in the last few threads are at least partially ulteriorly motivated. It's hard to have any conversation about the 90s Bulls without the shadow of the GOAT debate hanging over it. Simply put, the more you pump up Scottie, the more you can chip away at the legacy of that certain teammate of his. When I see people talking about 1994 and the three playoff series the Bulls lost before Scottie was drafted in their arguments for Scottie, and these arguments closely mirror the same arguments made time and again in the aforementioned GOAT debate, I can't help but take note.

I love the guy. He was arguably the GOAT perimeter defender; he was one of a handful of players to really mainstream the concept of a point forward, and he did an admirable job being one of the primary runners of the offense on six title teams; he was an elite runner in the open court and a very good scorer in the open court - watching he and Michael run a fastbreak was something to behold; he was a very good rebounder for his position. For all of that, he was never a great scorer in the halfcourt, his efficiency wasn't bad but it wasn't anything to write home about, and he exhibited some leadership issues.

Ultimately, he didn't accomplish the things as a #1 option that Frazier did. For how much I love Scottie, and for everything he accomplished, he's one of the most iconic #2s ever. His name is synonymous with it. His name is used as noun. "He needs a Pippen"; "He finally got his Pippen"; "x is Pippen to y's Jordan"

I love Scottie more than I love Frazier. But, again, Frazier accomplished more than Pippen, and anyone here, as a #1 in the playoffs, and that's why I am voting for him. But it's hard. I could change my mind easily.

Nomination: Kawhi Leonard

This is a close two man race between Kawhi and Hondo. It was 7-6 in favor of Kawhi before my vote, so I am cognizant of the fact that my vote could matter here.

I can see the argument for Hondo - more longevity, more rings, more total career value.

But prime Kawhi is just too transcendent for me, even with the injury/longevity issues.

First, there is the issue of scoring efficiency.

(All playoff rTSs are in relation to the regular season league average over the duration of the player's career)

Havlicek:
Career Regular Season: -0.7 rTS
Career Playoff: 0.0 rTS
Highest Regular Season: +2.2 rTS, 1969-70
Lowest Regular Season -3.8 rTS, 1964-65
Highest Playoffs: +3.6 rTS, 1972
Lowest Playoffs: -7.4 rTS, 1965 and 1977

Kawhi:
Career Regular Season: +4.9 rTS
Career Playoffs: +6.8 rTS
Highest Regular Season: +7.5 rTS, 2015-16
Lowest Regular Season: +2.4 rTS, 2019-20(2017-18 is lower, but he only played 9 games)
Highest Playoffs: +12 rTS, 2016-17
Lowest Playoffs: +2.8 rTS, 2019-20

And then you look at Kawhi's WS/48 and BPM in the playoffs..

Even in 2013 and 2014, when he was just a part of an ensemble w/Duncan, Manu, and Parker, he posted .194 WS/48 / 5.1 BPM and .191 WS/48 and 4.7 BPM in the playoffs.

In 2016, Duncan's final year, Kawhi posted .271 WS/48 and 11.5 BPM in 10 playoff games.

In 2017, his first year without Duncan, he posted a ridiculous .314 WS/48 and 14.2 BPM in 12 playoff games.

For his 2019 championship run in Toronto, he posted .249 WS/48 and and 10.1 BPM in 24 playoff games.

In the 2020 bubble playoffs, despite the Clippers' embarrassing defeat, he posted .228 WS/48 and 9.4 BPM in 13 playoff games.

In 2021, he posted .277 WS/48 and 10.7 BPM in the 11 playoff games he played prior to his injury.

In his two playoff games this past Spring, he posted .227 WS/48 and 13.8 BPM - a very small sample size, but given all the others above, doesn't seem like an outlier.

These numbers look like one of the greatest playoff performers ever.

For his career, Kawhi is .219 WS/48 in the RS and .225 WS/48 in the playoffs; Hondo is .136 and .135. I won't look at career BPM because for Hondo it's only available for his last five years, so it wouldn't be fair. (Though if you're interested, Kawhi's are 6.8 RS and 8.2 PO).

I will point out that Havlicek posted .208 WS/48 and 5.8 BPM over 18 games for the 1974 championship run, which is really good, but still not as good as Kawhi.

I have a ton of respect for Havlicek, and I think this is the appropriate tier for him, but there are honestly some players that have been inducted already that I'd take Kawhi over.

Secondary Nomination: John Havlicek

Seems like the right choice here given the two-man race. Of the names that have been discussed as potential nominees in this thread, Kidd and Baylor are probably closest for me, but Havlicek's winning pedigree and longevity are hard to pass on.

[ZeppelinPage]

Vote: Bob Pettit
Alternate Vote: Scottie Pippen

Nomination: John Havlicek

Pettit's all-around abilities make this close and I'm going back and forth between him and Pippen. Pettit's ability to score and rebound are immensely valuable to me and the way he stepped up in the playoffs gives him the nod. Pippen is certainly close with how he can change a team entirely with his versatility to score and pass while being one of the greatest defenders ever.

I put an emphasis on playoff performance and Havlicek is an 8x champion that consistently played better in the playoffs on heavier volume. He was a well-rounded player and he rarely ever missed games throughout his career. I think there are some other players being talked about here that one could certainly make an argument for but the level to which Havlicek one before and after Russell does show his value. I'm surprised to see mention of Havlicek as a "chucker" because I think that undersells what he was doing. The Celtics rarely had many players that could handle a high volume of shots so he was having to shoot because few others on the team would. Havlicek shooting takes pressure off his teammates and allows a defensively focused team to do what they do best. I could easily go another big here with how much I value what they bring, but Frazier does have the ability to score, pass, brings playoff resiliency, along with some of the best perimeter defense of his time.

[ShaqAttac]

My temptative vote is reggie miller followed by pippen, with arguments to make fot stockton longevity or pettit era relative peak as my alt over scottie

Got a full 32 hour shift tpday so prolly wont make the in depth post until tomorrow or wednesday tho

whats reggies arg

Offensive excellence in the postseason (individually and team results wise) for a fairly decent time

Indiana was not a roster devoid of talent by any means (mark jackson, rik smits amd detlef schremp were all fairly nice players fpr the time albeit they didnt overlap for all of reggie career) but he was the driving force of their offense regardless of who came and went

In fact reggie playoffs numbers both individually and team offense ratings would make you think of a higher rep player and is only reggie lack of accolades and recognition as the first tier stsr he was in his own time that prevents him from being seen in the tier of someone like barkley offensively imo

Pippen has impressibe results of his own as a lead star, and is a fair pick above reggie too, albeit i like miller longevity a little bit more and he shouldered being a team best player for longer with all tjat entails

My vote reggie

My alt pippen

My nom kawhi for highedt non bill walton prime left

Will expand my post if i get the time

is walton the best peak?

[ShaqAttac]

Transplanted from last thread, as players are still on the table here.....

-> unlike Stockton, led good offenses without the best offensive players of the 90's

Did he?

In the ~1.8 seasons he led the Bulls without Jordan, their offense was entirely average (-0.2 rORTG in '94, and barely +1 prior to Jordan's return in '95).

werent they good with pippen

[f4p]

Vote
1. Bob Pettit

Best era relative case left, by enough of a margin to account for the weaker era. 2 MVP's, 1 title, 2 scoring titles. 4 regular season PER titles, 2 postseason PER titles. Dominant championship game performance (if ewing goes 8/20 instead of 6/20 in game 6 in 1994, he might be a champion). Still pretty good all the way until year 11.


Nomination:
1. Kawhi Leonard - there will never be a "right" place to put Kawhi, with his injuries basically making him impossible to pin down. but a guy who would be well above many of the current inductees feels like he should go above guys who are starting to show up with no titles or as #2's on their teams.

[falcolombardi]

whats reggies arg

Offensive excellence in the postseason (individually and team results wise) for a fairly decent time

Indiana was not a roster devoid of talent by any means (mark jackson, rik smits amd detlef schremp were all fairly nice players fpr the time albeit they didnt overlap for all of reggie career) but he was the driving force of their offense regardless of who came and went

In fact reggie playoffs numbers both individually and team offense ratings would make you think of a higher rep player and is only reggie lack of accolades and recognition as the first tier stsr he was in his own time that prevents him from being seen in the tier of someone like barkley offensively imo

Pippen has impressibe results of his own as a lead star, and is a fair pick above reggie too, albeit i like miller longevity a little bit more and he shouldered being a team best player for longer with all tjat entails

My vote reggie

My alt pippen

My nom kawhi for highedt non bill walton prime left

Will expand my post if i get the time

is walton the best peak?

Is the best peak not yet voted in due to godawful longevity

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1:

Stockton - 2 (trex, iggy)
Pettit - 11 (Samurai, HBK, ltj, Clyde, Dutchball, Rishkar, ShaA, Doc, OSNB, ZPage, f4p)
Pippen - 2 (AEnigma, trelos)
Miller - 1 (rk)

Pettit has majority, 11 out of 16.

Bob Pettit is Inducted at #31.



Nomination Vote 1:

Baylor - 1 (trex)
Havlicek - 4 (Samurai, AEnigma, Doc, ZPage)
Kawhi - 8 (HBK, trelos, ltj, iggy, Dutchball, rk, OSNB, f4p)
Barry - 1 (Clyde)
Kidd - 1 (Rishkar)
Butler - 1 (ShaqA)

No majority, going to 2nd votes between Kawhi & Havlicek:

Havlicek - 2 (Clyde, Rishkar)
Kawhi - 0 (none)
neither - 2 (trex, ShaqA)

Kawhi 8, Havlicek 6.

Kawhi Leonard is added to Nominee list.