RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #74 (Rasheed Wallace)

[eminence]

Well, how much you shoot and pass is not 1:1 to one's usage though I don't think anyone would dispute Iverson handled the rock a bunch. The question is if Iverson was only generating value with the ball when he was assisting and scoring. I would say no, so at this level, it's a bonus for me rather than a negative. Moreover, him handling the ball and taking so many shots floats the possibility he was drawing significantly more attention than average on those final passes which may well offset this accuracy concern of yours.

Ultimately though, I think the results speak for themselves: As mentioned, Iverson has a strong WOWY profile(at least alot stronger than the offense-slanted competition here) with plenty of replication and sizable samples. Additionally, contrary to what one may expect, he also looks rather good in RAPM
https://www.thespax.com/nba/quantifying-the-nbas-greatest-five-year-peaks-since-1997/

Over the last 30 years, Iverson has

-> 10 5-year stretches in the top 75
-> 3 in the top 50
-> 2 in the top 40
-> 1 in the top 30

For comparison here:

-> We have sizable samples for the winning part of cousy and sherman's tenure: The Celtics are worse in the games they play
-> We have a sizable sample for the winning part(and prime) of Sam Jones career: The Celtics are no better in the games they play

Noise? Maybe. But it presents a question that isn't really even on the periphery with Iverson and a whole host of players who haven't been nominated yet. I don't really see why we'd put 3 players with these questions in the top 100.

Would you mind sharing your Cousy/Sherman/Sam samples?

At first glance, from '57-'63 the Celts were 359-137 with Cousy, and 20-14 without him. RS only, didn't check others.

Without Cousy records by year
'57: 3-5
'58: 5-2
'59: 4-3
'60: no missed games
'61: 1-2
'62: 4-1
'63: 3-1

They're ben's samples not mine(though I imagine they could be corraborated by statmuse):

For instance, when his teammates missed time, Boston rarely missed a beat. In 1958, Bob Cousy sat for seven games and the Celtics played far better without him. In ’59 and ’60, Sharman, Cousy and Tom Heinsohn missed a few games each, and the machine kept on ticking. In ’61, Sharman missed 18 games and the Celtics were (again) better without him. In ’62, Cousy missed five and, yes, the Celtics were better without him (portending his retirement years).6

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.

There's also this:

Boston platooned different players around Russell while he anchored the greatest defensive dynasty in NBA history. At its height (1960-1966), Russell played 43 to 45 minutes per game while only Sam Jones topped 35 per game (once, in 1965). During the 1963 season, no other Celtic played over 31 minutes per contest.

The only teammate I've seen a significant drop-off cited for was Hondo who we voted in a while back

That is an uninspiring level of analysis for brushing them out of your top 100 consideration.

It's a one-liner description from someone else on each player without actually showing the data. The broad point that none of them measure up to Russell is of course true, but Russell's in the top 5 and we're in the 70s, more likely the 80s if they're just being talked about for nomination.

Looking at Cousy here (as he's the one I clearly feel deserves consideration over the others for reasons outlined previously)

Splitting into two WOWY samples, '57-'59 and '61-'63 as I feel there's a pretty clear minutes/role decline there (~36mpg vs ~29 mpg) and there's a convenient middle season with no games missed. RS only, didn't miss any PO games.

'57-'59
133-61 with Cousy (~56 win pace)
12-10 without Cousy (~45 win pace)

'61-'63
167-60 with Cousy (~60 win pace)
8-4 without Cousy (~55 win pace)

Small/limited sample, yada yada. I could see describing the 60's run as not missing a beat, but the '58 sample seems notably cherry picked to gas up Russell. Box-score also suggests a notably down year for Cousy that season relative to surrounding seasons.

To my eye, late 50's Cousy is demonstrating clearly positive impact, that I'd ballpark in the range of Allstar level.

[penbeast0]

OK, if we are going to have a Cousy discussion, I would call his career from 58 on post-prime in any case. He had less of a role, played less minutes, and the team was a consistent fail on offense. He did remain one of, if not the (pre-Oscar) assist generators in the league all the way up to his retirement.

But the strength of his case is really not about the Russell years though he did get the MVP in 57. It's about the pre-Russell years where his teams were consistent offensive leaders for the league with Cousy creating for himself, Macauley, and Sharman with great success. As the premier guard of the 50-57 period, he has a strong case as does Sharman as the best 2 guard of that era.

[eminence]

OK, if we are going to have a Cousy discussion, I would call his career from 58 on post-prime in any case. He had less of a role, played less minutes, and the team was a consistent fail on offense. He did remain one of, if not the (pre-Oscar) assist generators in the league all the way up to his retirement.

But the strength of his case is really not about the Russell years though he did get the MVP in 57. It's about the pre-Russell years where his teams were consistent offensive leaders for the league with Cousy creating for himself, Macauley, and Sharman with great success. As the premier guard of the 50-57 period, he has a strong case as does Sharman as the best 2 guard of that era.

I’d go late prime for the early Russell years, but agree his case is built on the Macauley years.

I use the Russell years as a reference as it offers us our only look at a Cousy WOWY #. And it looks pretty solid, especially considering we’re thinking of those years as later prime.

Currently I expect Cousy will be my first nomination starting next round.

[trex_8063]

Not to mention Cousy has a MUCH more relevant career outside of these overlapping years.

Is this pushback because Cousy has been historically overrated by casual fans?

Did he though?

And if so what is meant by ... relevance.

And maybe you're understanding '46 to be out of the scope of the project and mean "for the purposes of this project" ...

It has been my understanding that we include all North American professional basketball played from the '47 [1946-47] season onward.
Yet for what follows I'll even include '46 for Davies......

Cousy has his MVP ... and Davies has his.

Davies, as you noted, got his with Mikan not playing a full season (though only 7 games fewer than Davies himself); Cousy got his with rookie Bill Russell not playing the full season. Though there were multiple other notable [white] players [in their primes] whom Cousy was selected ahead of: Bob Pettit, Dolph Schayes, Neil Johnston, Paul Arizin, Bill Sharman.
To be explicitly clear, I think Cousy's MVP over these guys is dubious. Though knowing his defensive reputation, I might suggest that Davies over Mikan was also dubious (and that even vs players like teammate Al Cervi, or perhaps Arnie Risen or Bobby McDermott, his pick as MVP is debatable).
Nonetheless, we're talking about an MVP in a league/time-period where---aside from 1st-year Mikan---guys like Cervi, Risen, McDermott (and Davies) were the best players in the NBL; and in the BAA guys like Bob Feerick and Joe Fulks were perhaps far and away the best players.
The environment in which Cousy obtained his MVP [right or wrong] was one in which the game had progressed a considerable amount, and in a league that had SEVERAL players better than anything Davies faced [aside from Mikan].

Cousy has titles ... but has circa -1.3 Win Shares for those title runs on the end he's primarily touted as helping (-0.8 OWS if including '58 to get a continuous spell - 0.0 OWS if going for the no Davies era and including '56). PER is more positive but it's solid more than great and that's before defense which is at least ... uncertain ... for him. Davies has his title.

I mean, you note Cousy has ~1.3 playoff WS per year in the years OUTSIDE of their overlapping seasons; but Davies only had 0.8 WS in the year of their title run [likely his single-season best]. Cousy has 6.3 playoff win shares in the years OUTSIDE of the overlapping seasons; Davies might [generously] have something close to half that.

The negative OWS may merit a little grain of salt, for reasons previously discussed regarding likely turnover rates of these Celtic teams, and the likely over-estimating of DRtg/under-estimating ORtg that results. And "bad" [fast] offense for the sake of more possessions was a mandate of Red Auerbach; in effort to keep the pace frantic, there were lots of [bad] shots going up early in the shotclock. These were quite often by the guy(s) handling the ball.

If, by citing that, you mean to suggest Cousy [among others] should have a huge chunk of their shares going to Russell; perhaps that the Celtics were winning in spite of his inept play, and they'd have been better off with any one of Hot Rod Hundley, Slick Leonard, Carl Braun, Jack George, George Dempsey, or similar. If that is the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And I'm not sure guard in his 30s in the 50s versus guard in his 20s is a fair comp.

Just going to point out that in playing devil's advocate/counterpoint above you did the very same thing: using Cousy's 30+ years [vs Davies 20s years] against him.

The only difference is: Davies [as he moved from his early 30s to his mid 30s] struggled to remain relevant in a less developed game/league; where players of a quality like Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Bob Pettit had yet to exist (and noting that the game probably progressed futher between 1953 and 1963 than it did from 1963 to 1983).


Otherwise, I'm noting that [in non-overlapping years], Davies played five additional seasons vs EIGHT for Cousy. Cousy was not irrelevant in any of them. Though we can argue the merits of each season, I'll note here that he was selected an All-Star in all eight of those (was on average an 18.9 PER and .143 WS/48 in 33.3 mpg in the rs; 16.4 PER, .111 WS/48 in 37.1 mpg collectively in the playoffs during those eight seasons). He was also top-10 in the MVP vote ALL EIGHT years (top 5 in four of them).

Davies won one additional title [three additional Finals appearances], vs SIX titles [on seven appearances] for Cousy.

Each have an MVP during those non-overlapping years, perhaps dubious selection for each of them (though Cousy's came in a clearly better league).

Davies has four additional All-NBL/BAA selections (3x 1st Team, 1x 2nd), vs EIGHT additional All-NBA finishes for Cousy (6x 1st Team, 2x 2nd)--->again going to note (and as it pertains to the short-form stats of Cousy cited above): more competitive league.

^^^^And again: this is even including '46 for Davies (which, I'm given to understand that that year actually does NOT count for the purposes of this project).


As far as quibbling about the semantics of "relevant", I'd rather we just don't, since it's going to be different for different people. Suffice to say that as far as MY sensibilities are concerned, yes, I think Cousy's career in non-overlapping years is significantly more relevant:

*markedly LONGER period of being a good player (box-based per-minute metrics for these five extra seasons of Davies [if we had them for those years] might look similar to '56-'60 Cousy, except on [probably] fewer minutes; then Cousy has the three additional [All-Star(ish)] seasons).

*did so in a [much?] better league environment,

*FAR more team sucess, even if he wasn't the best player (or even the 2nd best many years) of that period

*more (FAR more??) media and player recognition [via accolades]; and again: in a better league.

Those are the significant bullet-points [to me].

[LA Bird]

Additionally, contrary to what one may expect, he also looks rather good in RAPM
https://www.thespax.com/nba/quantifying-the-nbas-greatest-five-year-peaks-since-1997/

Over the last 30 years, Iverson has

-> 10 5-year stretches in the top 75
-> 3 in the top 50
-> 2 in the top 40
-> 1 in the top 30

Not sure if you understood the table correctly but those are the period ranks and there are 21 total 5 year periods. In other words, there are 630 top 30 stretches and Iverson only has 1 (rank: 29). For comparison,
- Lowry has 8 (rank: 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 10, 17)
- Kirilenko has 9 (6, 11, 11, 13, 16, 23, 25, 27, 30)
- Baron Davis has 10 (4, 6, 9, 9, 9, 12, 14, 15, 19, 24)
Iverson does not look good in RAPM compared to players who probably won't get nomination votes for a long time.

[penbeast0]

I was thinking about the 14 year RAPM study which I can no longer access but thanks, that helps.

[Doctor MJ]

My vote:

Induction 1: Rasheed Wallace
Induction 2: Cliff Hagan

Of the major candidates, Sheed's the one I have most confidence in a) adding on-court value across situation, and b) holding up against the toughest playoff competition.

Shout out Hagan who I think has a serious case as the most proven playoff scorer of the bunch.

Nomination 1: Jayson Tatum
Nomination 2: Sam Jones

Championing Tatum again as a guy who has accomplished more than people think.

Siding with Sam among the major candidates.

[Doctor MJ]

Tally:

Induction 1:

Dantley - 1 (beast)
Sheed - 5 (AEnigma, trelos, hcl, OSNB, Doc)
Lillard - 2 (trex, Samurai)
Gobert - 1 (Ohayo)

Rasheed Wallace with the majority.
Rasheed Wallace is Inducted at #74.


Nomination 1:

Sam - 2 (beast, Samurai)
Iverson - 2 (AEnigma, trex)
Nance - 1 (trelos)
Rodman - 3 (Ohayo, hcl, OSNB)
Tatum - 1 (Doc)

No majority, going to vote 2 between Rodman, Sam & Iverson:

Sam - 1 (Doc)
Iverson - 0 (none)
Rodman - 0 (none)
none - 1 (trelos)

Rodman 3, Sam 3, Iverson 2

EDIT: Eliminating Iverson, AEnigma's vote goes to Rodman, so only Dennis Rodman should be added to Nominee list.

[OhayoKD]

Would you mind sharing your Cousy/Sherman/Sam samples?

At first glance, from '57-'63 the Celts were 359-137 with Cousy, and 20-14 without him. RS only, didn't check others.

Without Cousy records by year
'57: 3-5
'58: 5-2
'59: 4-3
'60: no missed games
'61: 1-2
'62: 4-1
'63: 3-1

They're ben's samples not mine(though I imagine they could be corraborated by statmuse):

For instance, when his teammates missed time, Boston rarely missed a beat. In 1958, Bob Cousy sat for seven games and the Celtics played far better without him. In ’59 and ’60, Sharman, Cousy and Tom Heinsohn missed a few games each, and the machine kept on ticking. In ’61, Sharman missed 18 games and the Celtics were (again) better without him. In ’62, Cousy missed five and, yes, the Celtics were better without him (portending his retirement years).6

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.

There's also this:

Boston platooned different players around Russell while he anchored the greatest defensive dynasty in NBA history. At its height (1960-1966), Russell played 43 to 45 minutes per game while only Sam Jones topped 35 per game (once, in 1965). During the 1963 season, no other Celtic played over 31 minutes per contest.

The only teammate I've seen a significant drop-off cited for was Hondo who we voted in a while back

Apologies for continuing to harp on Sharman, but this is another point in his favor, insofar as one of the arguments that's been held against him is that the Celtics kept winning when he missed games, and that appears to be true for most of Russell's teammates. So again, I say, either all three of them(Cousy/Jones/Sharman) should get in, or none of them should. Letting Cousy and Jones in and not Sharman makes little sense to me.

I would say Sharman and Cousy are in a better spot than Jones for none of that data being "prime" and having some success at a team level pre-Russell.

[OhayoKD]

Tally:

Induction 1:

Dantley - 1 (beast)
Sheed - 5 (AEnigma, trelos, hcl, OSNB, Doc)
Lillard - 2 (trex, Samurai)
Gobert - 1 (Ohayo)

Rasheed Wallace with the majority.
Rasheed Wallace is Inducted at #74.


Nomination 1:

Sam - 2 (beast, Samurai)
Iverson - 2 (AEnigma, trex)
Nance - 1 (trelos)
Rodman - 3 (Ohayo, hcl, OSNB)
Tatum - 1 (Doc)

No majority, going to vote 2 between Rodman, Sam & Iverson:

Sam - 1 (Doc)
Iverson - 0 (none)
Rodman - 0 (none)
none - 1 (trelos)

Rodman 3, Sam 3, Iverson 2
Dennis Rodman and Sam Jones are added to Nominee list. No Nomination vote will be held next time.

I think there might be a COUNTING error?

Aenigma listed Rodman as an alt nomination yet you have rodman having none.

Doesn't that make Rodman the sole winner?

[Doctor MJ]

Thanks. I'm not convinced Iverson's assist numbers are particularly good. He had the ball in his hands so much that he got off 30 shots a game, that's a lot of usage so there should be some assists there.

Well, how much you shoot and pass is not 1:1 to one's usage though I don't think anyone would dispute Iverson handled the rock a bunch. The question is if Iverson was only generating value with the ball when he was assisting and scoring. I would say no, so at this level, it's a bonus for me rather than a negative. Moreover, him handling the ball and taking so many shots floats the possibility he was drawing significantly more attention than average on those final passes which may well offset this accuracy concern of yours.

Ultimately though, I think the results speak for themselves: As mentioned, Iverson has a strong WOWY profile(at least alot stronger than the offense-slanted competition here) with plenty of replication and sizable samples. Additionally, contrary to what one may expect, he also looks rather good in RAPM
https://www.thespax.com/nba/quantifying-the-nbas-greatest-five-year-peaks-since-1997/

Over the last 30 years, Iverson has

-> 10 5-year stretches in the top 75
-> 3 in the top 50
-> 2 in the top 40
-> 1 in the top 30

So I think this breakdown is worthwhile, but I think we need to be clear what is meant and a comparison with other players.

First, my first thought here was that in the entire run 10 of the best 75 5-year stretches were Iverson, but what's actually meant here is that Iverson had 10 5-year stretches where he was one of the top 75 for that 5-year stretch.

So if we look at another guard from roughly the same era:

Baron Davis:
14 in the Top 75
12 in the Top 50
10 in the Top 30
5 in the Top 10

I'd say Davis looks like clearly the more impactful player...and obviously that doesn't surprise me given that I tested Baron first, because I know that Baron is a powerhouse with this data.

Just to put in some other guys from the era:

1996 draft:
Derek Fisher
10 in the Top 75
5 in the Top 50
3 in the Top 30

Jermaine O'Neal
5 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Rashard Lewis (1998):
11 in the Top 75
10 in the Top 50
7 in the Top 30

1999 draft (along with Baron):
Shawn Marion:
7 in the Top 75
5 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30

Elton Brand
6 in the Top 75
5 in the Top 50
3 in the Top 30

Andrei Kirilenko
11 in the Top 75
9 in the Top 50
9 in the Top 30
1 in the Top 10

From 2001:
Tony Parker
5 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Shane Battier
11 in the Top 75
9 in the Top 50
6 in the Top 30

Tyson Chandler
8 in the Top 75
8 in the Top 50
3 in the Top 30

From 2003:
Carmelo Anthony
10 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Kyle Korver
7 in the Top 75
6 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30
1 in the Top 10

From 2004:
Andre Iguodala
10 in the Top 75
7 in the Top 50

Luol Deng
16 in the Top 75
14 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30

From 2005:
Deron Williams
6 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Andrew Bogut
9 in the Top 75
6 in the Top 50
5 in the Top 30
2 in the Top 10

From the 2006 draft:
Kyle Lowry
11 in the Top 75
8 in the Top 50
8 in the Top 30
6 in the Top 10

LaMarcus Aldridge
13 in the Top 75
9 in the Top 50
8 in the Top 30
2 in the Top 10

Paul Millsap
13 in the Top 75
13 in the Top 50
7 in the Top 30

Rajon Rondo
1 in the Top 75

From 2007:

Mike Conley
11 in the Top 75
10 in the Top 50
9 in the Top 30

Marc Gasol
7 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Al Horford
6 in the Top 75
1 in the Top 50

From 2008:
Kevin Love
9 in the Top 75
8 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Derrick Rose
3 in the Top 75
1 in the Top 50

From 2009:
Blake Griffin
11 in the Top 75
10 in the Top 50
5 in the Top 30

Jrue Holiday
10 in the Top 75
7 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30

DeMar DeRozan
Zero in the Top 150

From 2011:
Klay Thompson
4 in the Top 75
3 in the Top 507

Kyrie Irving
4 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
1 in the Top 30

From 2012:
Damian Lillard
9 in the Top 75 (note that Dame's only eligible 9 times in this sample which goes to 2021))
9 in the Top 50
8 in the Top 30
1 in the Top 10

Khris Middleton
8 in the Top 75
8 in the Top 50
6 in the Top 30

Rudy Gobert (2013)
5 in the Top 75
5 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30

From 2015:
Karl-Anthony Towns
4 in the Top 75
3 in the Top 50
1 in the Top 30

Devin Booker
72 in the Top 75
1 in the Top 50
1 in the Top 30

Pascal Siakam (2016)
1 in the Top 75

Jayson Tatum (2017)
4 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30
1 in the Top 10

Luka Doncic (2018)
1 in the Top 75

Wrapping it all up, I don't think Iverson looks particularly strong here. To me the top stand outs with this type of approach would be:

Baron Davis 14/12/10/5
Kyle Lowry 11/8/8/6
Andrei Kirilenko 11/9/9/1
Andrew Bogut 9/6/5/2
LaMarcus Aldridge 13/9/8/2
Damian Lillard 9/9/8/1

Along with Tatum who by the end of '23-24 might be at something like
Maybe Tatum 7/7/7/6

Obviously I've been voting for Tatum so no super surprise there. On the other guys:

Baron - yes, he was that good
Lowry - his run in Toronto was special
Kirilenko - without health issues, a clear cut Top 100 guy
Bogut - without health issues, a clear cut Top 100 guy
Aldridge - I'm low on him but must concede there's data pointing in his direction
Lillard - yup, serious candidate

Of the bunch other than Lillard & Tatum, to me Baron & Lowry are the one's who are the next strongest candidates.

And yeah, Iverson really isn't on the radar from this approach. I tend to be higher on him than I think this data alone would lead me to and still see him as a Top 100 guy, but honestly, I don't think it's at all obvious that he had a more impactful career than Baron & Lowry.

[Doctor MJ]

Tally:

Induction 1:

Dantley - 1 (beast)
Sheed - 5 (AEnigma, trelos, hcl, OSNB, Doc)
Lillard - 2 (trex, Samurai)
Gobert - 1 (Ohayo)

Rasheed Wallace with the majority.
Rasheed Wallace is Inducted at #74.


Nomination 1:

Sam - 2 (beast, Samurai)
Iverson - 2 (AEnigma, trex)
Nance - 1 (trelos)
Rodman - 3 (Ohayo, hcl, OSNB)
Tatum - 1 (Doc)

No majority, going to vote 2 between Rodman, Sam & Iverson:

Sam - 1 (Doc)
Iverson - 0 (none)
Rodman - 0 (none)
none - 1 (trelos)

Rodman 3, Sam 3, Iverson 2
Dennis Rodman and Sam Jones are added to Nominee list. No Nomination vote will be held next time.

I think there might be a COUNTING error?

Aenigma listed Rodman as an alt nomination yet you have rodman having none.

Doesn't that make Rodman the sole winner?

Ah, I'd say you're right. I should have taken it one more round after Iverson got eliminated.

I'll correct.

[OhayoKD]

Additionally, contrary to what one may expect, he also looks rather good in RAPM
https://www.thespax.com/nba/quantifying-the-nbas-greatest-five-year-peaks-since-1997/

Over the last 30 years, Iverson has

-> 10 5-year stretches in the top 75
-> 3 in the top 50
-> 2 in the top 40
-> 1 in the top 30

Not sure if you understood the table correctly but those are the period ranks and there are 21 total 5 year periods. In other words, there are 630 top 30 stretches and Iverson only has 1 (rank: 29). For comparison,
- Lowry has 8 (rank: 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 10, 17)
- Kirilenko has 9 (6, 11, 11, 13, 16, 23, 25, 27, 30)
- Baron Davis has 10 (4, 6, 9, 9, 9, 12, 14, 15, 19, 24)
Iverson does not look good in RAPM compared to players who probably won't get nomination votes for a long time.

Fair.

Fwiw, if Lowry was viable, I'd be pushing for him here instead of iverson

[trex_8063]

So I think this breakdown is worthwhile, but I think we need to be clear what is meant and a comparison with other players.

First, my first thought here was that in the entire run 10 of the best 75 5-year stretches were Iverson, but what's actually meant here is that Iverson had 10 5-year stretches where he was one of the top 75 for that 5-year stretch.

So if we look at another guard from roughly the same era:

Baron Davis:
14 in the Top 75
12 in the Top 50
10 in the Top 30
5 in the Top 10

I'd say Davis looks like clearly the more impactful player...and obviously that doesn't surprise me given that I tested Baron first, because I know that Baron is a powerhouse with this data.

Just to put in some other guys from the era:

1996 draft:
Derek Fisher
10 in the Top 75
5 in the Top 50
3 in the Top 30

Jermaine O'Neal
5 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Rashard Lewis (1998):
11 in the Top 75
10 in the Top 50
7 in the Top 30

1999 draft (along with Baron):
Shawn Marion:
7 in the Top 75
5 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30

Elton Brand
6 in the Top 75
5 in the Top 50
3 in the Top 30

Andrei Kirilenko
11 in the Top 75
9 in the Top 50
9 in the Top 30
1 in the Top 10

From 2001:
Tony Parker
5 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Shane Battier
11 in the Top 75
9 in the Top 50
6 in the Top 30

Tyson Chandler
8 in the Top 75
8 in the Top 50
3 in the Top 30

From 2003:
Carmelo Anthony
10 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Kyle Korver
7 in the Top 75
6 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30
1 in the Top 10

From 2004:
Andre Iguodala
10 in the Top 75
7 in the Top 50

Luol Deng
16 in the Top 75
14 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30

From 2005:
Deron Williams
6 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Andrew Bogut
9 in the Top 75
6 in the Top 50
5 in the Top 30
2 in the Top 10

From the 2006 draft:
Kyle Lowry
11 in the Top 75
8 in the Top 50
8 in the Top 30
6 in the Top 10

LaMarcus Aldridge
13 in the Top 75
9 in the Top 50
8 in the Top 30
2 in the Top 10

Paul Millsap
13 in the Top 75
13 in the Top 50
7 in the Top 30

Rajon Rondo
1 in the Top 75

From 2007:

Mike Conley
11 in the Top 75
10 in the Top 50
9 in the Top 30

Marc Gasol
7 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Al Horford
6 in the Top 75
1 in the Top 50

From 2008:
Kevin Love
9 in the Top 75
8 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Derrick Rose
3 in the Top 75
1 in the Top 50

From 2009:
Blake Griffin
11 in the Top 75
10 in the Top 50
5 in the Top 30

Jrue Holiday
10 in the Top 75
7 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30

DeMar DeRozan
Zero in the Top 150

From 2011:
Klay Thompson
4 in the Top 75
3 in the Top 507

Kyrie Irving
4 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
1 in the Top 30

From 2012:
Damian Lillard
9 in the Top 75 (note that Dame's only eligible 9 times in this sample which goes to 2021))
9 in the Top 50
8 in the Top 30
1 in the Top 10

Khris Middleton
8 in the Top 75
8 in the Top 50
6 in the Top 30

Rudy Gobert (2013)
5 in the Top 75
5 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30

From 2015:
Karl-Anthony Towns
4 in the Top 75
3 in the Top 50
1 in the Top 30

Devin Booker
72 in the Top 75
1 in the Top 50
1 in the Top 30

Pascal Siakam (2016)
1 in the Top 75

Jayson Tatum (2017)
4 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30
1 in the Top 10

Luka Doncic (2018)
1 in the Top 75

Wrapping it all up, I don't think Iverson looks particularly strong here. To me the top stand outs with this type of approach would be:

Baron Davis 14/12/10/5
Kyle Lowry 11/8/8/6
Andrei Kirilenko 11/9/9/1
Andrew Bogut 9/6/5/2
LaMarcus Aldridge 13/9/8/2
Damian Lillard 9/9/8/1

Along with Tatum who by the end of '23-24 might be at something like
Maybe Tatum 7/7/7/6

Obviously I've been voting for Tatum so no super surprise there. On the other guys:

Baron - yes, he was that good
Lowry - his run in Toronto was special
Kirilenko - without health issues, a clear cut Top 100 guy
Bogut - without health issues, a clear cut Top 100 guy
Aldridge - I'm low on him but must concede there's data pointing in his direction
Lillard - yup, serious candidate

Of the bunch other than Lillard & Tatum, to me Baron & Lowry are the one's who are the next strongest candidates.

And yeah, Iverson really isn't on the radar from this approach. I tend to be higher on him than I think this data alone would lead me to and still see him as a Top 100 guy, but honestly, I don't think it's at all obvious that he had a more impactful career than Baron & Lowry.

Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong, but my mind quickly asked the question: how can Baron have 14 5-year stretches, when he only played 13 years? Wouldn't 9 be the MAXIMUM he could possibly have? (a stretch beginning his rookie year ['00], then one beginning '01, then '02, and so on to where the 5-year stretch beginning in '08 being his final one possible).

Or are we talking PI RAPM [sample being 5 years]? (Though obviously it would REALLY be 5-years during the early seasons of a player)
But even there: how do we get 14 top-75 finishes when he only played 13 years?


I'll also again throw in the mention that impact metrics is not a direct measure of goodness (it's also **role and fit and so on).

**It's worth noting also that some roles/types are more scarce than others. A player like Iverson (who actually could shoulder that much offensive burden [to ANY degree of quality]) is more rare than say......a Derek Fisher type, or an Amir Johnson.

I also suspect [disclaimer: this is pure speculation] that some "star" players are capable (via their inherent athleticism and skill-set) of hypothetically taking on different roles if they'd been mentored and conditioned to do so; in a manner that most role players cannot, I mean.....

i.e. Carmelo Anthony was probably capable of being a Trevor Ariza type: he had all the necessary physical tools and skills. He was just never as interested in defense, nor was he expected to expend much energy/attention on that end......because he was ALWAYS only deployed as a scoring centerpiece. And realistically, asking him to be otherwise probably would have been a waste of his offensive talents.
On the flip-side, I don't think you could say ever condition Trevor Ariza to score a reasonably efficient 25-30 ppg. He just doesn't have the skills for it.


And lastly, when looking at these [or ANY other rate metric], it's important to remember they are RATE metrics. This is ALWAYS relevant when comparing Allen Iverson to pretty much ANYONE.....
There's a solid decade where he was top-3 in the league in mpg EVERY YEAR (7x #1).

In the sample over which he has those 10 top-75 finishes, he's likely averaging nearly 42 mpg.
Compare that to, say.....Andrew Bogut, who averaged >35 mpg [barely] ONCE, and had a career avg of 28.1 mpg (while missing big chunks of multiple years). Do we think Bogut would have maintained his impact profile if asked to play 42 mpg? Do we think his body would have held up to the already poor(ish) # of games/season if he did?

Or same question with Derek Fisher, who also had only *ONE season (20-game sample) where he averaged [barely] >35 mpg, and a career avg of 25.4 (although that is a long career; but even removing the last three small-minute seasons, it's just a 26.3 mpg avg).

Or Tyson Chandler (never a 35 mpg season, career avg of 27.3 [or 28.4 if remove the last three years of his long career]).

To a lesser degree even guys like Kirilenko or Gobert can be entered into this theme.


Understand I'm not trying to take away from these guys (good players all). But I nonetheless think impact metrics are slightly misused against Iverson in this manner.

[Doctor MJ]

So I think this breakdown is worthwhile, but I think we need to be clear what is meant and a comparison with other players.

First, my first thought here was that in the entire run 10 of the best 75 5-year stretches were Iverson, but what's actually meant here is that Iverson had 10 5-year stretches where he was one of the top 75 for that 5-year stretch.

So if we look at another guard from roughly the same era:

Baron Davis:
14 in the Top 75
12 in the Top 50
10 in the Top 30
5 in the Top 10

I'd say Davis looks like clearly the more impactful player...and obviously that doesn't surprise me given that I tested Baron first, because I know that Baron is a powerhouse with this data.

Just to put in some other guys from the era:

1996 draft:
Derek Fisher
10 in the Top 75
5 in the Top 50
3 in the Top 30

Jermaine O'Neal
5 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Rashard Lewis (1998):
11 in the Top 75
10 in the Top 50
7 in the Top 30

1999 draft (along with Baron):
Shawn Marion:
7 in the Top 75
5 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30

Elton Brand
6 in the Top 75
5 in the Top 50
3 in the Top 30

Andrei Kirilenko
11 in the Top 75
9 in the Top 50
9 in the Top 30
1 in the Top 10

From 2001:
Tony Parker
5 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Shane Battier
11 in the Top 75
9 in the Top 50
6 in the Top 30

Tyson Chandler
8 in the Top 75
8 in the Top 50
3 in the Top 30

From 2003:
Carmelo Anthony
10 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Kyle Korver
7 in the Top 75
6 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30
1 in the Top 10

From 2004:
Andre Iguodala
10 in the Top 75
7 in the Top 50

Luol Deng
16 in the Top 75
14 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30

From 2005:
Deron Williams
6 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Andrew Bogut
9 in the Top 75
6 in the Top 50
5 in the Top 30
2 in the Top 10

From the 2006 draft:
Kyle Lowry
11 in the Top 75
8 in the Top 50
8 in the Top 30
6 in the Top 10

LaMarcus Aldridge
13 in the Top 75
9 in the Top 50
8 in the Top 30
2 in the Top 10

Paul Millsap
13 in the Top 75
13 in the Top 50
7 in the Top 30

Rajon Rondo
1 in the Top 75

From 2007:

Mike Conley
11 in the Top 75
10 in the Top 50
9 in the Top 30

Marc Gasol
7 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Al Horford
6 in the Top 75
1 in the Top 50

From 2008:
Kevin Love
9 in the Top 75
8 in the Top 50
2 in the Top 30

Derrick Rose
3 in the Top 75
1 in the Top 50

From 2009:
Blake Griffin
11 in the Top 75
10 in the Top 50
5 in the Top 30

Jrue Holiday
10 in the Top 75
7 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30

DeMar DeRozan
Zero in the Top 150

From 2011:
Klay Thompson
4 in the Top 75
3 in the Top 507

Kyrie Irving
4 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
1 in the Top 30

From 2012:
Damian Lillard
9 in the Top 75 (note that Dame's only eligible 9 times in this sample which goes to 2021))
9 in the Top 50
8 in the Top 30
1 in the Top 10

Khris Middleton
8 in the Top 75
8 in the Top 50
6 in the Top 30

Rudy Gobert (2013)
5 in the Top 75
5 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30

From 2015:
Karl-Anthony Towns
4 in the Top 75
3 in the Top 50
1 in the Top 30

Devin Booker
72 in the Top 75
1 in the Top 50
1 in the Top 30

Pascal Siakam (2016)
1 in the Top 75

Jayson Tatum (2017)
4 in the Top 75
4 in the Top 50
4 in the Top 30
1 in the Top 10

Luka Doncic (2018)
1 in the Top 75

Wrapping it all up, I don't think Iverson looks particularly strong here. To me the top stand outs with this type of approach would be:

Baron Davis 14/12/10/5
Kyle Lowry 11/8/8/6
Andrei Kirilenko 11/9/9/1
Andrew Bogut 9/6/5/2
LaMarcus Aldridge 13/9/8/2
Damian Lillard 9/9/8/1

Along with Tatum who by the end of '23-24 might be at something like
Maybe Tatum 7/7/7/6

Obviously I've been voting for Tatum so no super surprise there. On the other guys:

Baron - yes, he was that good
Lowry - his run in Toronto was special
Kirilenko - without health issues, a clear cut Top 100 guy
Bogut - without health issues, a clear cut Top 100 guy
Aldridge - I'm low on him but must concede there's data pointing in his direction
Lillard - yup, serious candidate

Of the bunch other than Lillard & Tatum, to me Baron & Lowry are the one's who are the next strongest candidates.

And yeah, Iverson really isn't on the radar from this approach. I tend to be higher on him than I think this data alone would lead me to and still see him as a Top 100 guy, but honestly, I don't think it's at all obvious that he had a more impactful career than Baron & Lowry.

Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong, but my mind quickly asked the question: how can Baron have 14 5-year stretches, when he only played 13 years? Wouldn't 9 be the MAXIMUM he could possibly have? (a stretch beginning his rookie year ['00], then one beginning '01, then '02, and so on to where the 5-year stretch beginning in '08 being his final one possible).

Or are we talking PI RAPM [sample being 5 years]? (Though obviously it would REALLY be 5-years during the early seasons of a player)
But even there: how do we get 14 top-75 finishes when he only played 13 years?


I'll also again throw in the mention that impact metrics is not a direct measure of goodness (it's also **role and fit and so on).

**It's worth noting also that some roles/types are more scarce than others. A player like Iverson (who actually could shoulder that much offensive burden [to ANY degree of quality]) is more rare than say......a Derek Fisher type, or an Amir Johnson.

I also suspect [disclaimer: this is pure speculation] that some "star" players are capable (via their inherent athleticism and skill-set) of hypothetically taking on different roles if they'd been mentored and conditioned to do so; in a manner that most role players cannot, I mean.....

i.e. Carmelo Anthony was probably capable of being a Trevor Ariza type: he had all the necessary physical tools and skills. He was just never as interested in defense, nor was he expected to expend much energy/attention on that end......because he was ALWAYS only deployed as a scoring centerpiece. And realistically, asking him to be otherwise probably would have been a waste of his offensive talents.
On the flip-side, I don't think you could say ever condition Trevor Ariza to score a reasonably efficient 25-30 ppg. He just doesn't have the skills for it.


And lastly, when looking at these [or ANY other rate metric], it's important to remember they are RATE metrics. This is ALWAYS relevant when comparing Allen Iverson to pretty much ANYONE.....
There's a solid decade where he was top-3 in the league in mpg EVERY YEAR (7x #1).

In the sample over which he has those 10 top-75 finishes, he's likely averaging nearly 42 mpg.
Compare that to, say.....Andrew Bogut, who averaged >35 mpg [barely] ONCE, and had a career avg of 28.1 mpg (while missing big chunks of multiple years). Do we think Bogut would have maintained his impact profile if asked to play 42 mpg? Do we think his body would have held up to the already poor(ish) # of games/season if he did?

Or same question with Derek Fisher, who also had only *ONE season (20-game sample) where he averaged [barely] >35 mpg, and a career avg of 25.4 (although that is a long career; but even removing the last three small-minute seasons, it's just a 26.3 mpg avg).

Or Tyson Chandler (never a 35 mpg season, career avg of 27.3 [or 28.4 if remove the last three years of his long career]).

To a lesser degree even guys like Kirilenko or Gobert can be entered into this theme.


Understand I'm not trying to take away from these guys (good players all). But I nonetheless think impact metrics are slightly misused against Iverson in this manner.

When this is being done it's doing a series of 5-year studies for the entire league, and so a player who plays less than 5 years in that sample is still eligible. So in theory, a player who has only played his rookie year could make the list. This generally doesn't happen because rookies suck of course.

For Baron, he has his first entrance on these leaderboards in the sample from 1997-01, during which he played 2 seasons.

We can certainly go through and eliminate the years Cheema lists like this if we want, and it might be really worthwhile to do so. I would just note that in doing so we'll probably be mostly be knocking down guys who showed the ability to be valuable early in their career - which again, isn't necessarily a bad thing when trying to get a better sense of longevity.

[eminence]

And lastly, when looking at these [or ANY other rate metric], it's important to remember they are RATE metrics. This is ALWAYS relevant when comparing Allen Iverson to pretty much ANYONE.....
There's a solid decade where he was top-3 in the league in mpg EVERY YEAR (7x #1).

I agree with a bunch of the above, and why I'll consider AI much higher than where an impact metric would rate him.

But a note - MPG is also a rate metric. In '04 when AI led the league in mpg he was 122nd in total minutes. He finished with 6 seasons where he was top 20 in total minutes.

[trex_8063]

And lastly, when looking at these [or ANY other rate metric], it's important to remember they are RATE metrics. This is ALWAYS relevant when comparing Allen Iverson to pretty much ANYONE.....
There's a solid decade where he was top-3 in the league in mpg EVERY YEAR (7x #1).

I agree with a bunch of the above, and why I'll consider AI much higher than where an impact metric would rate him.

But a note - MPG is also a rate metric. In '04 when AI led the league in mpg he was 122nd in total minutes. He finished with 6 seasons where he was top 20 in total minutes.

You caught me "massaging the numbers" here. I went with mpg because it looks a little more impressive.

Yet even going with total minutes, it's fairly impressive where Iverson is concerned; and noting 6 times in top-20 actually bears the appearance of "massaging the numbers" to reflect LESS impressively upon him.

Not that it isn't true: he does indeed have 6 finishes in the top-20.......however [more specifically], he has 6 finishes in the top 13 (even if you wanted to stick with nice round numbers, you might have chosen "15" instead of "20": which both sounds more impressive and is in fact more specific/accurate).
I'd further note......
FIVE of those six were in the top-10.
He has FOUR finishes in the top-6 (TWICE was #1 in the league in total minutes).
He has EIGHT finishes in the top-25.
He has TEN finishes in the top-31.
He has ELEVEN finishes in the top-50.

He played more career minutes than every single other player listed in Doc's post except Andre Iguodala (with DeMar DeRozan being the only other guy who's even close).
Baron Davis, since he was highlighted, played almost exactly 9000 fewer minutes (despite basically having the same length career, and having his LESS limited by hold-out seasons).

[Owly]

Not to mention Cousy has a MUCH more relevant career outside of these overlapping years.

Is this pushback because Cousy has been historically overrated by casual fans?

Did he though?

And if so what is meant by ... relevance.

And maybe you're understanding '46 to be out of the scope of the project and mean "for the purposes of this project" ...

It has been my understanding that we include all North American professional basketball played from the '47 [1946-47] season onward.
Yet for what follows I'll even include '46 for Davies......

Cousy has his MVP ... and Davies has his.

Davies, as you noted, got his with Mikan not playing a full season (though only 7 games fewer than Davies himself); Cousy got his with rookie Bill Russell not playing the full season. Though there were multiple other notable [white] players [in their primes] whom Cousy was selected ahead of: Bob Pettit, Dolph Schayes, Neil Johnston, Paul Arizin, Bill Sharman.
To be explicitly clear, I think Cousy's MVP over these guys is dubious. Though knowing his defensive reputation, I might suggest that Davies over Mikan was also dubious (and that even vs players like teammate Al Cervi, or perhaps Arnie Risen or Bobby McDermott, his pick as MVP is debatable).
Nonetheless, we're talking about an MVP in a league/time-period where---aside from 1st-year Mikan---guys like Cervi, Risen, McDermott (and Davies) were the best players in the NBL; and in the BAA guys like Bob Feerick and Joe Fulks were perhaps far and away the best players.
The environment in which Cousy obtained his MVP [right or wrong] was one in which the game had progressed a considerable amount, and in a league that had SEVERAL players better than anything Davies faced [aside from Mikan].

Cousy has titles ... but has circa -1.3 Win Shares for those title runs on the end he's primarily touted as helping (-0.8 OWS if including '58 to get a continuous spell - 0.0 OWS if going for the no Davies era and including '56). PER is more positive but it's solid more than great and that's before defense which is at least ... uncertain ... for him. Davies has his title.

I mean, you note Cousy has ~1.3 playoff WS per year in the years OUTSIDE of their overlapping seasons; but Davies only had 0.8 WS in the year of their title run [likely his single-season best]. Cousy has 6.3 playoff win shares in the years OUTSIDE of the overlapping seasons; Davies might [generously] have something close to half that.

The negative OWS may merit a little grain of salt, for reasons previously discussed regarding likely turnover rates of these Celtic teams, and the likely over-estimating of DRtg/under-estimating ORtg that results. And "bad" [fast] offense for the sake of more possessions was a mandate of Red Auerbach; in effort to keep the pace frantic, there were lots of [bad] shots going up early in the shotclock. These were quite often by the guy(s) handling the ball.

If, by citing that, you mean to suggest Cousy [among others] should have a huge chunk of their shares going to Russell; perhaps that the Celtics were winning in spite of his inept play, and they'd have been better off with any one of Hot Rod Hundley, Slick Leonard, Carl Braun, Jack George, George Dempsey, or similar. If that is the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And I'm not sure guard in his 30s in the 50s versus guard in his 20s is a fair comp.

Just going to point out that in playing devil's advocate/counterpoint above you did the very same thing: using Cousy's 30+ years [vs Davies 20s years] against him.

The only difference is: Davies [as he moved from his early 30s to his mid 30s] struggled to remain relevant in a less developed game/league; where players of a quality like Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Bob Pettit had yet to exist (and noting that the game probably progressed futher between 1953 and 1963 than it did from 1963 to 1983).


Otherwise, I'm noting that [in non-overlapping years], Davies played five additional seasons vs EIGHT for Cousy. Cousy was not irrelevant in any of them. Though we can argue the merits of each season, I'll note here that he was selected an All-Star in all eight of those (was on average an 18.9 PER and .143 WS/48 in 33.3 mpg in the rs; 16.4 PER, .111 WS/48 in 37.1 mpg collectively in the playoffs during those eight seasons). He was also top-10 in the MVP vote ALL EIGHT years (top 5 in four of them).

Davies won one additional title [three additional Finals appearances], vs SIX titles [on seven appearances] for Cousy.

Each have an MVP during those non-overlapping years, perhaps dubious selection for each of them (though Cousy's came in a clearly better league).

Davies has four additional All-NBL/BAA selections (3x 1st Team, 1x 2nd), vs EIGHT additional All-NBA finishes for Cousy (6x 1st Team, 2x 2nd)--->again going to note (and as it pertains to the short-form stats of Cousy cited above): more competitive league.

^^^^And again: this is even including '46 for Davies (which, I'm given to understand that that year actually does NOT count for the purposes of this project).


As far as quibbling about the semantics of "relevant", I'd rather we just don't, since it's going to be different for different people. Suffice to say that as far as MY sensibilities are concerned, yes, I think Cousy's career in non-overlapping years is significantly more relevant:

*markedly LONGER period of being a good player (box-based per-minute metrics for these five extra seasons of Davies [if we had them for those years] might look similar to '56-'60 Cousy, except on [probably] fewer minutes; then Cousy has the three additional [All-Star(ish)] seasons).

*did so in a [much?] better league environment,

*FAR more team sucess, even if he wasn't the best player (or even the 2nd best many years) of that period

*more (FAR more??) media and player recognition [via accolades]; and again: in a better league.

Those are the significant bullet-points [to me].

Sooo

point 1:
I was more just outlining a possible framing than trying to say your framing is wrong though, if we are quibbling, ... I believe (and I'm not a voter) it is for this years project...

In post 1 of the general thread (RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - General Thread)

Additionally, the 2023 Project will focus on the play between the years '45-46 and '22-23.

Thus '46 would seem to be fair game.

I think one of the biases of MVP voting is tilting towards a dominant team. You say yourself it's dubious. I'm not sure what's being debated here. Had the game progressed ... I'd guess so. The fact that the stars are better known ... for me isn't the case for that. If that's more regarding competition for the award unless we had a ton of footage and fuller boxscores and ... I think we're on shaky ground in determining how good the competition was ... and if the tilt is to any significant degree an absolute terms list I don't think either of these guys is top 100, or probably top 1000. As before it's really hard to get any secure, certain read on the early guys.

I'm not sure what you meant on that first bit on WS for Cousy - or else I'm struggling to parse things here*. 1.3 is mentioned in the context of -1.3 (negative) Offensive Win Shares over the title years. It regards your point on relevancy outside the overlap. As others also noted a significant part of the relevancy is dependent on Russell. As I noted, not all given voted accolades.

*You seem to put negative but don't mention "Offensive" initially, give it as per year but I can't see it's intended to be new info since it's "you note" ...

As in terms of playoff Davies I said Wanzer looks the better box playoff player. Since I've noticed that I've been pretty assertive about people that tilt towards the playoffs should rank Wanzer higher. I'm not pushing the idea Davies has a great playoff boxscore.

In terms of are Reference estimates the best ... idk. It's a reminder that these era composites are approximates.
I'm aware of the Celtics ... "pressure offense" ... how much effect it will have, I'm unsure. Red was a running coach on earlier Boston teams without giving signal of impeding offense. Maybe Cousy's career offense is undersold.

In terms of projecting Davies' numbers (e.g. non-overlap or best year) I don't really have any means of being confident of what he's doing in the NBL. Fwiw he's the leading scorer and I would guess primary playmaker on two finals teams, plus 2nd scorer and I'd guess playmaker again on a champ but without actually having fuller data we can't know on big details - it is possible his shooting was bad too. I do think Cousy and other Celtics are taking what should be Russell's DWS. You pivot it into a comparison with other guards which ... yeah I don't know where that's coming from, I would just say yeah '57 the ratio of DWS 1.5 (Russell): 1.1 (Cousy) ... isn't in line with their contribution. 59 (to avoid missed games): 1.6: 1.2; '60: 1.8:1.2 ... part of it is the absence of replacement level instead offering a 0 win level but my impression would be Cousy and other Celtics are over-credited and Russell under-credited for defensive contribution by DWS.

fwiw, regarding "the Celtics were winning in spite of his inept play, and they'd have been better off with any one of Hot Rod Hundley, Slick Leonard, Carl Braun, Jack George, George Dempsey, or similar"
1) the criticism is focused on what happened to happen in the title winning years in the playoff ... for myself that's a small sample and against unbalanced competition so I tend to weight it less ... but others don't and you're talking relevence so ... the focus is on that sample.
2) those players you name vary quite a bit. And I'm not sure which versions I'm getting. Otoh ... If I can get a prime-ish Braun over locked-in levels of playoff performance of where I'd guess Cousy was at ... at first glance and granting significant uncertainty ... that seems very tempting. My impression is that I don't want any part of Rod Hundley if my intention is winning basketball games at a high level.

"Just going to point out that in playing devil's advocate/counterpoint above you did the very same thing: using Cousy's 30+ years [vs Davies 20s years] against him."
You ... literally started that conversation with regards to discussing their non-overlapping years in the section that I underlined the post as a response to. It's a discussion on your terms. And I don't know how much you've been looking at NBL stuff but if not then nearly everything from Davies is 30+. Davies is missing a chunk of his early career for WWII reasons.


Fwiw I don't think Davies does struggle to remain relevent. I think his RS number look good to the end and for "relevance" his accolades do well to though this is getting away from player goodness ... Cousy was a bigger "star" and remained relevant in that way. I think he has bad playoffs to end his career though on a much smaller sample than Cousy.

I think the titles stuff ... yeah if it's ring count it's a given. And Cousy doesn't seem to really be helping. Like for championship equity John Salley's two Pistons titles ... he's known as a good defender and in his minutes he's productive within the confines of his role (PER is lower on him, other box composites look good - how one rates his non-box D and how box metrics from that era parse credit out ... can be debated ... I don't think he's the one getting inflated fwiw) ... I wouldn't do it myself but if you want to say he seemed to really help a team that happened to win a title ... I see it. Cousy ... if you're somewhere between PER and OWS for his offense, are moderate on his D (and I think that's the nicer end view) ... I don't think there's a lot a equity there.

So it comes back to my question

And if so what is meant by ... relevance.

If we're celebrating being on title team then Charles Johnson ... Will Perdue ...
And sure Cousy was better. He was a note-worthily good player over his career. But if you're talking about "ring contribution" ... my mental aggregation of those offensive numbers ... I can't see getting excited over him without doing the same for Pep Saul or Jim Eakins or Earl Cureton or Wally Walker because it seems to be merely valuing circumstance.

Davies' career value as I say is hard to say with any confidence ... I'm kind of inclined towards winging the earliest era guys off. But I'm a bit queasy over arguing for Cousy because he has longevity because part of his career would fall outside and WW2 (or what feels a grudging reluctance to grant '46 ... I guess that's why it's brought up twice). Or he's more relevant because he played with Russell and Davies didn't play with Mikan as pertinent to rating them. I think "far" is a stretch regarding accolades. I think Cousy retrospectively got more fame, because we had more footage and Russell's dynasty and Boston and NBA bigger are more accepted narratives than Rochester and NBL. Davies made the Silver Anniversary team has an MVP was All-league nearly every year he played. I guess the NBL wasn't as relevant and Rochester isn't as relevant a basketball market as Boston and it's hard to affirm the real-terms standards of any league.

The thing is Cousy had some great playoffs earlier (in a limited sample) but pointing to the Russell era and those titles and the legacy that comes from that ... doesn't sit well with me. And it seems like I'm being told about the other accolades that ... I feel like I noted ... "[beyond Russell era stuff accolades] ... it's not irrelevant. He's the top player at his position for the decade and getting accolade attention".

IDK, maybe this is coming off spiky and maybe it's just you're more comfortable with narrative stuff than me or you're heavier on absolute terms than me (though per above I think that would kill 50s Cousy's chances in anywhere near here just as much as 40s Davies' because they'd both be zero with any significant tilt that way) ... as I say this stuff is hard especially for the earliest guys.

[eminence]

And lastly, when looking at these [or ANY other rate metric], it's important to remember they are RATE metrics. This is ALWAYS relevant when comparing Allen Iverson to pretty much ANYONE.....
There's a solid decade where he was top-3 in the league in mpg EVERY YEAR (7x #1).

I agree with a bunch of the above, and why I'll consider AI much higher than where an impact metric would rate him.

But a note - MPG is also a rate metric. In '04 when AI led the league in mpg he was 122nd in total minutes. He finished with 6 seasons where he was top 20 in total minutes.

You caught me "massaging the numbers" here. I went with mpg because it looks a little more impressive.

Yet even going with total minutes, it's fairly impressive where Iverson is concerned; and noting 6 times in top-20 actually bears the appearance of "massaging the numbers" to reflect LESS impressively upon him.

Not that it isn't true: he does indeed have 6 finishes in the top-20.......however [more specifically], he has 6 finishes in the top 13 (even if you wanted to stick with nice round numbers, you might have chosen "15" instead of "20": which both sounds more impressive and is in fact more specific/accurate).
I'd further note......
FIVE of those six were in the top-10.
He has FOUR finishes in the top-6 (TWICE was #1 in the league in total minutes).
He has EIGHT finishes in the top-25.
He has TEN finishes in the top-31.
He has ELEVEN finishes in the top-50.

He played more career minutes than every single other player listed in Doc's post except Andre Iguodala (with DeMar DeRozan being the only other guy who's even close).
Baron Davis, since he was highlighted, played almost exactly 9000 fewer minutes (despite basically having the same length career, and having his LESS limited by hold-out seasons).

Merely the BBref default for top 20

Laziness always wins out. But I don't think your minutes perception for careers are accurate. A few others ahead (Melo/Parker/Marion), and plenty that I would think of as close (probably down to Brand on the list below).

Combined PO+RS minutes (it's a RS+PO RAPM, I want to match) for the guys listed (who make the top 250 NBA guys since '52, others below the minimum - sorry to my Jazz dudes in AK/Rudy and other more recent guys)
Melo 46606
Parker 46037
Iguodala 44773
Marion 43934
Iverson 40787
DeRozan 39835
Lowry 39659
Fisher 39575
Horford 39463
Aldridge 38910
Conley 36885
Rashard 36370
Brand 36053
Korver 34554
Holiday 34317
Millsap 34048
Chandler 33816
Deng 33368
Rondo 33130
Battier 33036
Dame 32182
Marc Gasol 32113
Deron 31867
Klay 30918
Baron 30443
O'Neal 29941
Love 29423

[Owly]

I also suspect [disclaimer: this is pure speculation] that some "star" players are capable (via their inherent athleticism and skill-set) of hypothetically taking on different roles if they'd been mentored and conditioned to do so; in a manner that most role players cannot, I mean.....

i.e. Carmelo Anthony was probably capable of being a Trevor Ariza type: he had all the necessary physical tools and skills. He was just never as interested in defense, nor was he expected to expend much energy/attention on that end......because he was ALWAYS only deployed as a scoring centerpiece. And realistically, asking him to be otherwise probably would have been a waste of his offensive talents.
On the flip-side, I don't think you could say ever condition Trevor Ariza to score a reasonably efficient 25-30 ppg. He just doesn't have the skills for it.

I think I'd be inclined to be ... iffy on the principle (at least to the degree presented where Carmelo to defensive specialist level ... stamina and load and effect on motor is absolutely a thing) and pretty hard against the example.

Different versions vary the degree but long-term RAPMs seem to suggest he gave a substantial chunk of his offensive advantage back at the other end (97-22 says nearly all; 97-14 says nearly 2/3s; 97-24 says a little over half) ...

... I feel like if he could have done significantly better on D (and I don't know how sold I am on that - think his, iirc, reluctance to play his best position [PF] as the game evolved mean even if it's physically there ...) he probably should have. If the latent talent were there ... getting other guys more shots, more touches and not letting them down "in the trenches" on the other end ... not being the weak link there, I don't know. It depends on the teammates and you don't specify an expected tradeoff. The "could [defend like Ariza] but right not to" feels generous in this case.