RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #72 (Paul George)

[HeartBreakKid]

This isn't a gotcha question, more of a curiosity

Presumably people have Lillard over Walton and all of Lillard's eligible years take place in Portland. Do you folks also consider Lillard to be a greater (GOAT?) blazer?

[Owly]

What is your measure/measures of choice here? At first glance career Reference composites see them as similar with Jones having an edge in PER and Sharman having a larger one in WS/48. And Sharman has a more substantial lead in OWS/48, whilst Jones ... who played all his career with Bill Russell ... makes up some ground in DWS/48.

Yeah, I usually don't bother with WS at this point. I simply meant raw slashline box score production. Jones scored more (significantly more at their peaks) on comparable efficiency (relative to the league) and had more memorable postseason moments than Sharman, who was quite good himself of course.

To me, at first glance, and being of the opinion that what would "rightly" be Russell's DWS were probably overshared with teammates, if forced to give a preference, I would lean towards Sharman as the better playoff production (no accounting for career length, notional competition etc which could change things).

I think we should account for the fact that Jones was a bench warmer in his first 3 years (probably not because of him being bad?), while Sharman played almost his whole postseason career during his prime. I always struggle to understand how people can compare career averages of two players with completely different career trajectories.

I think if not wrong, "offense-first" as a tag for Sharman is misleading. I don't pretend to have a great read on individual Celtics' D, and I'm not necessarily as low as some on Cousy or Heinsohn. Still, among that group (and granting I don't read as much about Ramsey, because there's less available, so I could have a blindspot there) Sharman seems the only one fairly consistently praised and noted for defense whilst Cousy sometimes gets some shots on that end (I think it's him of whom it had been said that his D was calling for Russell). Now I'm not going to put big stock into one (perhaps jokey) anecdote. As I say, substantial uncertainty here but I'd feel a little awkward putting them in the same bucket. This obviously doesn't necessarily alter your main point in this section.

I used "offense first" as a descriptive term, not to create a feeling that these guys were bad on defense. I don't think any of these players were really "bad" defenders. Cousy has a mixed reputation, but it's unlikely he was bad during late 1950s years based on what I saw/read. Heinsohn is another one with mixed reputation, but he looks solid on the tape. Ramsey was a very scrappy defender, often guarding bigger guys in footage I have seen. He also liked to draw charges (to put it in positive light), so I think he also had a value. Sharman has the reputation, although I haven't seen anything good or bad in his defense on limited footage we have (which is inconclusive).

I called them that way because their main value came from offense. That's not the case with mid-60s Celtics, who run guys like KC Jones, Sanders, young Havlicek etc.

On
1) Moments ... perhaps ... not my bag particularly. And that's probably something different to "production", to me at least.
On WS: Are they perfect no, absolutely not. I've articulated my significant concern on the defensive end. On offense different measures have their foibles which one might adjust for but are generally solid at least as a baseline. Am I going to trust them to aggregate production accounting for league norms better than what may be a mental aggregation (at least no working given) of slashlines ... yeah I would. (fwiw, given their career playoff TS%'s raw-terms closeness, I suspect Sharman has an advantage versus league norms).

2) On playoff career average imperfect. Absolutely which is why I tagged it myself. I used it because it's "solid". We can argue what constitutes each man's prime, who is getting an advantage, we can't argue what Reference gives as the figures for their careers.

As for whether being on the bench whilst "not because of him being bad", but as a younger player hurts Jones in a rate metric ... I'm not sure why that would be. In theory (1) a player at the start and end of their career wants fewer minutes and wants a higher proportion in the middle in what are likeliest to be prime years to inflate their stats [though granted Jones starts his career later than most] and (2) some have argued the Celtics helped groom their replacements. I haven't heard it specifically with Sharman-Jones but Sharman was a meticulous pro, an elite shooter and went on to be a great coach so I can't think of too many better players in history to learn behind.

As I say some of the other stuff can be argued. One could argue Sharman plays the bulk of his minutes in his 30s putting him at a disadvantage (in absolute terms this means more minutes with Russell which helps his WS, though versus Jones this just means he's at less of a disadvantage than he might otherwise be - one could maybe say Russell hurts Jones's OWS/48 more [IDK about this] but (IMO) overall Russell is contributing to more wins and I'd suggest taking less than his "rightful" share overall). One could say Jones sees an extended playoff format in his later years meaning more post-prime minutes, though one could counter that meant an extra shot at a weaker team (in '68 and indeed in '67 ... in '69 it's a tough team though in '69 if there were only 3 teams from each conference in the playoffs and all else remains the same ... as harsh as it would be Boston wouldn't make the playoffs ... so they're happy for that chance - though per the production point it is a year in which Jones is harming his averages). Jones plays to one year older by Reference age, Sharman perhaps stands out for longevity in that respect within era and positional norms (otoh)? There's room for a range of views and further investigation here.


I don't think 3 requires a response. You are aware of Sharman's defensive rep and why that bundling would make make me a little uncomfortable, I see the literal accuracy of Sharman and the group being more offensively valuable especially versus later teams.

[penbeast0]

Good points about Sharman. He did have a better defensive rep, more minutes, and reasonably equivalent offensive production to Sam Jones. On the other hand, he did it mainly in the 50s while Jones did it mainly in the 60s and I have the 60s as a considerably stronger league. One of the biggest jumps in NBA strength over a very short game was going from the end of the 50s to the beginning of the 60s and adding the likes of Wilt, Russell, Oscar, and Jerry West but also a significant playstyle difference. I compare players within their own era but I do take into account era strength which is why I have Sam Jones higher than Bill Sharman. I also think that Cousy's playmaking was more of a factor in getting easy assisted baskets than the KC Jones/Russell/Havlicek shared playmaking of the mid to late 60s Celtics.

As for Cousy's defense, the quote I remember best was Red Auerbach hoping NOT to get stuck with Cousy in the dispersion draft and specifically disparaging Cousy's defense. That was early in Cousy's career but it's from arguably the NBA's greatest talent evaluator.

[penbeast0]

McAdoo in New York. First, the trade from Buffalo for very little (John Gianelli and a 1st round pick if I remember correctly) was a bit odd when McAdoo had had such great seasons and was still only 25. There was a lot of speculation about why but nothing ever was established that I remember.

Second, while with Buffalo, the team matched expectations more or less, the team in New York was roundly criticized for selfish play and not matching expectations. There was a lot of hype about McAdoo and Spencer Haywood having a chance to be the greatest big man combination the NBA had ever seen but it fizzled (40-42). McAdoo still got his numbers but there was a definite feeling of the bloom being off the rose. Red Holtzman quit and Walt Frazier was moved after that year amid comments about how the new NBA players didn't play team ball and McAdoo's second season with the Knicks, while less toxic, was still barely over .500 with Willis Reed as coach. Team defense was poor both years (15th and 18th out of 22). So, while he was still getting 25/12 or so a game, he went from being seen as one of the league's superstars to being the epitome of the modern selfish NBA player. Probably unfair as New York media was harsh in the shadow of the Frazier/Reed championship years but that's why I don't have the NY seasons as strong HOF candidate seasons compared to the Buffalo seasons.

[Owly]

This isn't a gotcha question, more of a curiosity

Presumably people have Lillard over Walton and all of Lillard's eligible years take place in Portland. Do you folks also consider Lillard to be a greater (GOAT?) blazer?

I think it might be two different questions.

One could ask who had the greater value Blazers career as a variant on the question in the project and perhaps say Walton is at best 3rd (Drexler, Lillard).

But given spans with a franchise are uneven, there isn't really a standard way to fairly compare. I think, then, it tends to be more a question towards a fanbase (and certainly more likely to happen within a fanbase). And in that light, things that I wouldn't like for myself in this project and think muddy the waters there become more fair game. If Walton felt iconic and key to a moment in history and you say he's the GOAT Blazer because of that ... why would I fight you on that. If you're clear what you mean I think there can different answers to related but different questions.

[Owly]

McAdoo in New York. First, the trade from Buffalo for very little (John Gianelli and a 1st round pick if I remember correctly) was a bit odd when McAdoo had had such great seasons and was still only 25. There was a lot of speculation about why but nothing ever was established that I remember.

Suspect cash was the main reason for that transaction.

Otoh I suspect they functionally bought Haywood and think they tried to buy McGinnis and Erving. I think they were throwing money around hoping to land a star after the early 70s team fell off.

[Dr Positivity]

These two uncommonly swift young athletes play the guard positions for the Boston Celtics, and their speed of foot and sleight of hand usually leave their rivals panting and puzzled—in much the same state as the champion Celtics perennially leave the other NBA teams. What is thoroughly incongruous about this situation, however, is that Sam and K.C. have achieved their pre-eminence in the role of substitutes.

On the Celtics, it would be almost impossible for the Jones boys (they are not related) to be anything but substitutes. Bob Cousy, who has been an NBA All-Star for 10 years, and Bill Sharman, an All-Star for seven, are the first-string guards, and they are not men easily pushed aside. The facts of life, however, are that Cousy and Sharman are in their 30s, and their skills, while just as shiny, are no longer as durable. "Around the second quarter or so," Cousy says, "I actually plan on being taken out of the game, and I pace myself accordingly. That's when Sam and K.C. come in. They not only sustain a lead, they add to it. And on defense, they hound the opposition guards so much that my man's all softened up for me when I come back in."

On entering a game, K.C. and Sam usually press the man who brings the ball up. "We hound him all the way," K.C. says, "trying to make him lose it." For the most part, this tactic only works against a man who brings the ball up slowly. "It's easier to block his lanes," explains K.C. "The whole idea is to make him stop." At the very least, such a press makes the opposition waste valuable time. As many as eight or nine seconds may elapse before it gets the ball across half-court (a team is allowed 24 seconds in which to shoot) and, as a result, it may be forced to hurry its shot. "We keep our hands up, too," says Sam, "not out, sideways, but up. It keeps them from passing over us." If a man takes advantage of the close guarding to slip past them, the Jones boys get help. Nine times out of 10, the towering Russell is there to slap the ball away from anyone trying a layup.

https://vault.si.com/vault/1961/03/20/jones-jones-at-court

This article was about the young KC and Sam combo but I think they were being grouped together as the elite defensive substitutes at the time. With that said I'm not sure if his defense declined during his peak scoring years.

Sam Jones clutch play is well documented but I wanted to highlight how in 64 I see the Celtics TS% all suffering from overwhelming defense first play, whether it's due to KC as starting PG or a mentality that it's how they had to win. So Jones performance is especially impressive to me, he is at 23ppg at .55 TS% in the playoffs which is an elite efficiency at that time (would've been 6th in the NBA in regular season). Meanwhile no other Celtic in the playoffs is above .44 TS%, or 17ppg. He also leads team in playoff TS% in 63 and 66 (24ppg and 25ppg respectively, with .543 and .521%), along with major volume scoring years on still pretty good efficiency of 29ppg on .505 in 65 (2nd in TS% to Russell in playoffs), and 27ppg on .508 TS% (behind a few guys like Howell and Siegfried in TS but still decent for that volume) in 67. Most years the most efficient SG in the league in regular season is around .51-.53 range.

[Clyde Frazier]

This isn't a gotcha question, more of a curiosity

Presumably people have Lillard over Walton and all of Lillard's eligible years take place in Portland. Do you folks also consider Lillard to be a greater (GOAT?) blazer?

I think you can parse this out pretty easily if you have walton over lillard as a blazer but lillard higher in this project: the best player on a championship team for a franchise means more to the franchise/fanbase than total career value. And obviously walton's total career value is astronomically low compared to his peak.

[trex_8063]

This isn't a gotcha question, more of a curiosity

Presumably people have Lillard over Walton and all of Lillard's eligible years take place in Portland. Do you folks also consider Lillard to be a greater (GOAT?) blazer?

If you're asking who I think had the higher peak while wearing a Blazer uniform, that's Walton. But as many elaborate upon repeatedly: this isn't a peaks project. Like most people, my considerations for this project are a bit different (which is why we have entirely separate peaks projects).

If you're asking who had a more valuable career in a Blazer uniform, for me that's Lillard, yes.

I know much of the fanbase may disagree, given Walton is the figurehead of a singular important piece of their franchise's history; but that's not how I rank players.


I'm not sure if I'd call Lillard the GOAT Blazer; I've not considered ONLY Drexler's Portland years vs Lillard. My gut says it would be close.

[HeartBreakKid]

My vote is for Rasheed Wallace - Brilliant defender with impact stats to support it. Kind of the prime utility player. He sets screens, stretches the floor with jumpers, can drive, can iso late in the post, keeps the ball moving. For a defensive oriented player he pretty much gives you anything you want, he is an "ideal" second guy to me, even more so than someone like Scottie Pippen.

My alternate vote is for Bobby Jones - Might be the best defender here. Great energy, doesnt really have a weakness more like a lack of strengths. Seems like he has been more consistent than George/Hagan/Lillard.

The others



Hagan - I've changed my mind on Hagan. There isn't enough of a sample size to justify his playoff dominance I think.


George - Have him in my top 100 but more impressed with his defense as a two way player. My gut feeling is that he's not at the level of Unsed/Jones on defense, and there is diminishing returns with his offense. I think just looking at their stats he does come out looking better than all the nominees.

Damian Lillard - Not really impressed by him. I think the defensive oriented players are all better post season players than Lillard. I'd put Hagan over him as well



My nomination is for Bill Walton

My alternate nomination is for Elton Brand - I doubt this will get any traction or he'll make the top 100, but he's pretty damn good. I went back and watched a few of his games and his shot making was much better than I remember. He is seen as a peak guy but like T-Mac he has like 8 seasons of being good. I think he was overlooked by the media and it hurt him a lot in the long run.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Good points about Sharman. He did have a better defensive rep, more minutes, and reasonably equivalent offensive production to Sam Jones. On the other hand, he did it mainly in the 50s while Jones did it mainly in the 60s and I have the 60s as a considerably stronger league. One of the biggest jumps in NBA strength over a very short game was going from the end of the 50s to the beginning of the 60s and adding the likes of Wilt, Russell, Oscar, and Jerry West but also a significant playstyle difference. I compare players within their own era but I do take into account era strength which is why I have Sam Jones higher than Bill Sharman. I also think that Cousy's playmaking was more of a factor in getting easy assisted baskets than the KC Jones/Russell/Havlicek shared playmaking of the mid to late 60s Celtics.

As for Cousy's defense, the quote I remember best was Red Auerbach hoping NOT to get stuck with Cousy in the dispersion draft and specifically disparaging Cousy's defense. That was early in Cousy's career but it's from arguably the NBA's greatest talent evaluator.

As an era-relativist, I get irked when the only(or predominant) argument someone can come up with for one player over another is "tougher era".

I also take issue with "reasonably equivalent offensive production" when Sharman was significantly more efficient relative to his competition.

Ultimately though, my real gripe isn't that you might take Jones over Sharman(though I disagree with it), it's the fact that Sharman didn't make the Top 100 at all last time(or the time before that) while Jones made it both times. I just want to make sure Sharman is in the conversation because I don't see any argument for him not to make the list if Jones is in.

[OhayoKD]

Good points about Sharman. He did have a better defensive rep, more minutes, and reasonably equivalent offensive production to Sam Jones. On the other hand, he did it mainly in the 50s while Jones did it mainly in the 60s and I have the 60s as a considerably stronger league. One of the biggest jumps in NBA strength over a very short game was going from the end of the 50s to the beginning of the 60s and adding the likes of Wilt, Russell, Oscar, and Jerry West but also a significant playstyle difference. I compare players within their own era but I do take into account era strength which is why I have Sam Jones higher than Bill Sharman. I also think that Cousy's playmaking was more of a factor in getting easy assisted baskets than the KC Jones/Russell/Havlicek shared playmaking of the mid to late 60s Celtics.

As for Cousy's defense, the quote I remember best was Red Auerbach hoping NOT to get stuck with Cousy in the dispersion draft and specifically disparaging Cousy's defense. That was early in Cousy's career but it's from arguably the NBA's greatest talent evaluator.

As an era-relativist, I get irked when the only(or predominant) argument someone can come up with for one player over another is "tougher era".

I also take issue with "reasonably equivalent offensive production" when Sharman was significantly more efficient relative to his competition.

Ultimately though, my real gripe isn't that you might take Jones over Sharman(though I disagree with it), it's the fact that Sharman didn't make the Top 100 at all last time(or the time before that) while Jones made it both times. I just want to make sure Sharman is in the conversation because I don't see any argument for him not to make the list if Jones is in.

Or we can exclude both

Sam Jones does look better by WOWY, mostly by default:

In ’61, Sharman missed 18 games and the Celtics were (again) better without him.

This trend would hold throughout most of Russell’s career. In ’66, Sam Jones missed eight games and Boston’s performance didn’t budge. Jones missed 11 more contests in ’69 and the team was about 2 points worse without him. All told, as the roster cycled around Russell, his impact seemed to remain

I would have pause considering either for the top 100 simply because they were on championship teams. I also know some voters here have put stock into moonbeam's version of psuedo-rapm where Russell is the gold standard regularized and torches the field to a degree no one else across history does with his raw inputs(doubles 2nd place Wilt iirc over a certain stretch). Lots of emphasis on points and ts add on average offenses seems odd. Sam Jones defense has been praised but he is a guard and the defenses don't actually seem to care too much about whether he's there or not. 1969 is probably not fair since it's 6th man Sam Jones, but 1966 Sam Jones put up one of his highest point totals and fg percentages so if that version is not making a signficant impact, why is he being voted in here, let alone Sherman?

Honestly would be wierd to be putting more of Russell's teammates on this list than last time when we have a bunch of new evidence/argumentation suggesting Russell is more valuable individually than people were crediting him as the last go around and we have a bunch of new players to consider. Do these players actually warrant being considered over 100 other nba players?

Am pretty open to Cousy since he was post-prime with his own unimpressive signal and I assume he did something to earn the MVP but...

[Alternate nom: Bob Cousy[/b]
Could also support Allen Iverson if he drew support, though I doubt he will. Not a fan; hate how I often end up being his defender. Dame's offensive imprint is crazy, he needs serious consideration here.
Cousy's a legend, prototype [to a degree], key piece of multiple contenders, has an impact profile that's better than many assume, particularly considering the ORtg/DRtg's on bbref may be skewed by assumed turnover rates which may not apply to the Celtics of circa-1960 [because they were jacking up shots so early in the shotclock]......which means their offense was possibly better [and defense worse] than indicated.

Could you elaborate on that profile? All I recall was Ben's writeup saying the Celtics got better without him over multiple >10 game samples in Cousy's post-prime and a bunch of breakdowns her arguing he was kind of done by 60.

Will first emphasize that your above comments appear to specifically delineate Cousy's post-prime. And I'll also acknowledge that the league/game progressed faster than Cousy did as a player.

That said, the limited/noisy impact metric from the very same source (Ben Taylor) reflects decently upon Cousy: his prime WOWYR is +4.4, career +3.9.

As always, when using these sorts of numbers I think it can be worthwhile to check what the sample here is. I don't know what exact years are factored into prime, but up until 1957, Cousy doesn't really miss time with the exception of 52 and 51 where the Celtics see a +1.3 SRS improvement when Cousy joins. I don't highlight that to criticize rookie Cousy, but rather to highlight a potential discrepancy:

With how WOWYR works(this is true in general when you take stretched singals vs concentrated ones but WOWYR's "adjustments" compound this considerably), that +3.9(and perhaps to a degree the +4.4) is disproportionately operating off that 1951 and 1952 wothout sample and transposing it as part of the off for all the other years(where cousy barely misses time) as well. Also note, unlike Moonbeam's version, the much larger sampled +1.3 mark is not factored in at all.

In other words, that score, mantained over a very small per-season sample, is likely significantly inflated by 9 games coming with a much weaker cast from Cousy's first two years.

I am also somewhat concerned with the lack of success in this pre-russell prime period where the team does not make a single final in a very weak league winnig a grand total of 4 series. The term "offensive dynasty" is thrown around for the Cousy years, but success on one side of the court is really not the point.

The Celtics having goat-level defenses is cool, but it matters to the degree it helped produce the most successful team ever, not because the goat defense isinofitself of extreme importance. Good on them for having the best offenses pre-Russell, but does it really matter if they weren't the all that close to being the best team?

[OhayoKD]

Vote

1. Paul George

Saw his teams overperform their perceived against this projects's #1 multiple times(granted injuries helped) on multiple eventual champions(both of whom would beat all-time opponents in the subsequent series), had an mvpish regular season peak and for all choking accusations, admirably led the clippers in kawhi's absence in the 2021 playoffs.

Nomination

1. Walton
2. Gobert
(may change depending on who gets support)


Also think it's time to throw Rodman into the mix:

-> Co-anchored Multiple all-time defenses on a strong (b2b) champion
-> On Larger Impact samples, looks pretty Valuable to Chicago including second three-peat signal similar to KD on the 2017 Warriors and Oscar on the 72 Bucks
-> An all-time rebounder whose arrival turned Chicago into a historic extra-possession generator:

Offensive rebounding was pretty much the 96-98 bulls 2nd or 3rd offensive star. Mainly led by rodman

1996 (sansterre data)

Shooting Advantage: +3.3%, Possession Advantage: +5.8 shooting possessions per game (reg season)

Shooting Advantage: +0.0%, Possession Advantage: +9.8 shooting possessions per game (playoffs)

1997 (sansterre data)

Shooting Advantage: +3.7%, Possession Advantage: +3.7 shooting possessions per game (reg season)

Shooting Advantage: +0.0%, Possession Advantage: +7.3 shooting possessions per game (playoffs)

His late prime On/off is not as kind but a strong WOWY profile, ATG rebounding and elite non-big paint-protection and man d, and 5 championships split between two different systems/coaches/set of key teammates all points to him warranting some consideration here. (Will nominate when he starts to get support)

[AEnigma]

VOTE: Paul George
Alternate: Rasheed Wallace
NOMINATE: Rudy Gobert
AltNom: Allen Iverson
Linking the thread with George arguments, and quoting my Iverson reasoning.

Much like with Isiah, I am surprisingly one of the first to back Iverson. Iverson had a pretty nice 10-to-12-year prime before his rapid decline. His cultural legacy outpaced his real impact, but his ability to shoulder massive minutes and scoring loads did have a notable lift on his team. The 76ers went from a -9.5 SRS team to a -5.5 team (factoring his missed games) upon his arrival. From 1997-2007, they won at a 33-win pace without him and a 42-win pace with him. That is not overwhelming improvement, but it is a lot of value provided over eleven years. His effect in Denver was more tepid — unsurprising given the scoring overlap with Carmelo — but I think he deserves credit for helping them reach what to that point was a new high mark in wins and SRS, and as I believe I have detailed elsewhere, the difference between the 2008 team and the 2009 team tends to be overstated (although Billups was indeed better for that team).

Gobert receives my primary nomination based on collective support, but I will informally second Rodman as a sensible top 75 inclusion. In addition to being a top three presence on two distinct dynasties (of a sort), I think his 1992 season qualifies as a top 100 peak.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Induction Vote #1: Bobby Jones

Induction Vote #2: Cliff Hagan

Going with Bobby Jones over George here.

1. He's a much more efficient scorer despite the lesser volume, and he made 10 Defensive-First teams to George's 2.

2. Jones just had much more team success, and his box composites indicate he he had as much to do with it, if not a little more, than George...I've looked at said composites for the seasons where their teams went the furthest(meaning Conference Finals(or ABA Equivalent) or Finals), and their career averages.

Jones
75 - .181 WS/48, 5.7 BPM RS / .098 WS/48, 1.1 BPM PO
76 - .172 WS/48, 5.3 BPM RS / .149 WS/48, 5.4 BPM PO
80 - .180 WS/48, 3.3 BPM RS / .190 WS/48, 5.1 BPM PO
81 - .217 WS/48, 4.7 BPM RS / .173 WS/48, 4.6 BPM PO
82 - .181 WS/48, 4.1 BPM RS / .160 WS/48, 3.7 BPM PO
83 - .175 WS/48, 4.0 BPM RS / .164 WS/48, 6.3 BPM PO
85 - .142 WS/48, 2.9 BPM RS / .120 WS/48, 2.1 BPM PO
--
Career - .175 WS/48, 4.3 BPM RS / .149 WS/48, 3.7 BPM PO

George
13 - .145 WS/48, 3.8 BPM RS / .118 WS/48, 3.7 BPM PO
14 - .178 WS/48, 4.9 BPM RS / .169 WS/48, 5.9 BPM PO
21 - .139 WS/48, 4.2 BPM RS / .116 WS/48, 2.5 BPM PO
--
Career - .145 WS/48, 3.9 BPM RS / .123 WS/48, 3.5 BPM PO

For career, he has clear advantages in WS/48, and smaller advantages in BPM, in both RS and PO.

Looking at playoffs in particular, in 5/7 of the deep playoff runs highlighted for Jones, he tops George's WS/48 in 2 out of his 3 deepest playoff runs. Ditto for BPM.

Also worth noting that even Jones' underwhelming playoff box composites from his rookie year(1975) still top the two worst playoff runs(not including his rookie playoffs when he played much fewer minutes) for George's career, 2018(.045 WS/48, 0.3 BPM) and 2020(.063 WS/48, 0.4 BPM).

Take from all this what you will, but it made an impression on me.

3. Jones was more durable. Jones played 941 of a possible 988 games in his career - 95.2%. George, up to the most recent game, has played 841 of 1114 possible games - 75.5%.

The votes seem to be in George's favor ATM, so I don't hold out much hope Jones will win, but I feel very comfortable taking him here and very uncomfortable with the notion that Paul George is the 72nd greatest player of all time.

Induction Vote #1: Adrian Dantley

Induction Vote #2: Allen Iverson(but could go with a number of people here, not really sure).

As always, Dantley's TS Add is ridiculous and I don't know much longer we're going to keep ignoring it.

Trying to get him in over Gobert. Gobert has won three playoff series in his career, and in two out of those three playoff runs where he won a series, he posted negative on/off. Now, Dantley didn't exactly win a ton in the playoffs either, but he did win eight playoff series, and posted fairly strong box composites in a 15-game ECF run and a 23-game Finals run.

[homecourtloss]

VOTE: Paul George
Alt: Rasheed Wallace

PG13 is a high value defensive + offense player who can play multiple positions and pretty much seamlessly fit into any scheme on either side of the ball,

You can say much if the same about Rasheed Wallace as well.

It’s no coincidence that both players rank so highly in career RAPM datasets.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Bobby Jones
Vote 2 - Damian Lillard
Nomination 1 - Adrian Dantley
Nomination 2 - Allen Iverson

Jones had average longevity but decent durability. Low volume high efficiency scorer who was a great all around player and versatile defensively. Contributed to several deep playoff runs capped off by the title in 83 on one of the best teams ever.

[eminence]

As always, when using these sorts of numbers I think it can be worthwhile to check what the sample here is. I don't know what exact years are factored into prime, but up until 1957, Cousy doesn't really miss time with the exception of 52 and 51 where the Celtics see a +1.3 SRS improvement when Cousy joins. I don't highlight that to criticize rookie Cousy, but rather to highlight a potential discrepancy:

With how WOWYR works(this is true in general when you take stretched singals vs concentrated ones but WOWYR's "adjustments" compound this considerably), that +3.9(and perhaps to a degree the +4.4) is disproportionately operating off that 1951 and 1952 wothout sample and transposing it as part of the off for all the other years(where cousy barely misses time) as well. Also note, unlike Moonbeam's version, the much larger sampled +1.3 mark is not factored in at all.

In other words, that score, mantained over a very small per-season sample, is likely significantly inflated by 9 games coming with a much weaker cast from Cousy's first two years.

I am also somewhat concerned with the lack of success in this pre-russell prime period where the team does not make a single final in a very weak league winnig a grand total of 4 series. The term "offensive dynasty" is thrown around for the Cousy years, but success on one side of the court is really not the point.

The Celtics having goat-level defenses is cool, but it matters to the degree it helped produce the most successful team ever, not because the goat defense isinofitself of extreme importance. Good on them for having the best offenses pre-Russell, but does it really matter if they weren't the all that close to being the best team?

On Cousy.

I think his early career WOWY signal is unfortunately impossible to pin down.

He/Macauley arrive in Boston at the same time, the league contracts from 17 to 10.5 teams, both the without and with samples have large gaps between their ratings/win% (in opposing directions). It all combines to make the '50 vs '51 Celtics comparison very difficult, though I think it's clear the two combine with Red to turn the franchise around (they were absolute garbage their first four seasons and turned into a consistent .500+/playoff squad).

He then misses a grand total of 1 RS game prior to '57.

Agreed that 'offensive dynasty' oversells the Celtics of the period (hey, sometimes we're all sellers). They were a decent to good team, built around a strong offense. Related - I believe they only won 3 series over that period (you may have counted the '54 round robin as two wins).

0-2 vs Knicks '51
1-2 vs Knicks '52
2-0 vs Nats '53
1-3 vs Knicks '53
2-2 '54 Round Robin (2-0 vs Knicks, 0-2 vs Nats)
0-2 vs Nats '54
2-1 vs Knicks '55
1-3 vs Nats '55
1-2 vs Nats '56

For comparison the other Eastern conference squads from '51-'56 (not counting tiebreakers).
Knicks 6 series wins
Nats 8 (counting the '54 round robin as 2 wins)
Warriors 2 (their '56 title)

A worse but healthier version of the Lob City Clippers.

[Doctor MJ]

My vote:

Induction 1: Bobby Jones
Induction 2: Rasheed Wallace

Continuing to support Bobby Jones and I see him as distinct from the other Nominees. Of the 3 2-way guys (Sheed & George) I believe Jones was the most impactful per minute and had a great attitude compared to the other two.

Between Sheed & George, I just think Sheed accomplished more in his career than George has to this point.

ftr, I'm not looking to utterly abandon Hagan as a candidate, but I have to admit that I struggle to rebut what others have pointed out about his WOWY. And while that's not the most damning thing in the world when comparing him to guys who just played different roles entirely, I think Dame's got a pretty good case over him too.

Nomination 1: Jayson Tatum
Nomination 2: Rudy Gobert

So I guess I'm championing Tatum now. Honestly I feel ambivalent about him like most people do but by this time in his career he's honestly accomplished a full-career's worth of things for the tiers below the very best. And of course, if you're knocking Tatum on the grounds of longevity, I hope you weren't someone who voted for Embiid way back when he was voted in as Tatum's surpassed Embiid on those grounds.

Between the two top candidates Gobert & Dantley, I do have slightly more faith in Gobert's ability to fit and help a great team.

[Doctor MJ]

Tallies:

Induction 1:

George - 5 (falco, LA Bird, Ohayo, AEnigma, hcl)
Sheed - 2 (trelos, HBK)
Bobby - 5 (beast, Samurai, OSNB, Clyde, Doc)
Lillard - 1(trex)

No majority, going to Vote 2 between George & Bobby:

George - 2 (trelos, trex)
Bobby - 1 (HBK

Paul George 7, Bobby Jones 6
Paul George is Inducted at #72.



Nomination 1:

Gobert - 3 (LA Bird, trelos, AEnigma)
Dantley - 3 (beast, OSNB, Clyde)
Cousy - 1 (trex)
Sam - 1 (Samurai)
Walton - 2 (HBK, Ohayo)
Tatum - 1 (Doc)
none - 2 (falco, hcl)

No majority, going to Vote 2 between Gobert & Dantley:

Gobert - 2 (Ohayo, Doc)
Dantley - 1 (Samurai)
neither - 2 (trex, HBK)

Rudy Gobert 5, Adrian Dantley 4
Rudy Gobert is added to Nominee list.