RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 (Connie Hawkins)

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,573
And1: 8,207
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 (Connie Hawkins) 

Post#1 » by trex_8063 » Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:34 pm

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Lebron James
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kobe Bryant
12. Kevin Garnett
13. Oscar Robertson
14. Karl Malone
15. Jerry West
16. Julius Erving
17. Dirk Nowitzki
18. David Robinson
19. Charles Barkley
20. Moses Malone
21. John Stockton
22. Dwyane Wade
23. Chris Paul
24. Bob Pettit
25. George Mikan
26. Steve Nash
27. Patrick Ewing
28. Kevin Durant
29. Stephen Curry
30. Scottie Pippen
31. John Havlicek
32. Elgin Baylor
33. Clyde Drexler
34. Rick Barry
35. Gary Payton
36. Artis Gilmore
37. Jason Kidd
38. Walt Frazier
39. Isiah Thomas
40. Kevin McHale
41. George Gervin
42. Reggie Miller
43. Paul Pierce
44. Dwight Howard
45. Dolph Schayes
46. Bob Cousy
47. Ray Allen
48. Pau Gasol
49. Wes Unseld
50. Robert Parish
51. Russell Westbrook
52. Alonzo Mourning
53. Dikembe Mutombo
54. Manu Ginobili
55. Chauncey Billups
56. Willis Reed
57. Bob Lanier
58. Allen Iverson
59. Adrian Dantley
60. Dave Cowens
61. Elvin Hayes
62. Dominique Wilkins
63. Vince Carter
64. Alex English
65. Tracy McGrady
66. James Harden
67. Nate Thurmond
68. Sam Jones
69. Kevin Johnson
70. Bob McAdoo
71. Sidney Moncrief
72. Paul Arizin
73. Grant Hill
74. Bobby Jones
75. Chris Bosh
76. Tony Parker
77. Shawn Marion
78. Hal Greer
79. Ben Wallace
80. Dan Issel
81. Larry Nance
82. James Worthy
83. Chris Webber
84. Rasheed Wallace
85. Dennis Rodman
86. Horace Grant
87. Elton Brand
88. Terry Porter
89. Maurice Cheeks
90. Carmelo Anthony
91. Tim Hardaway
92. Jack Sikma
93. Billy Cunningham
94. Mookie Blaylock
95. Chet Walker
96. Kawhi Leonard
97. Vlade Divac
98. Bill Walton
99. ???

Just two spots left. GO.

Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

Colbinii wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dr Spaceman wrote:.

fpliii wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

pandrade83 wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

SactoKingsFan wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

JordansBulls wrote:.

RSCS3_ wrote:.

BasketballFan7 wrote:.

micahclay wrote:.

ardee wrote:.

RCM88x wrote:.

Tesla wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:.

kayess wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

MisterHibachi wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

mischievous wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Bad Gatorade wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Cyrusman122000 wrote:.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:.

Narigo wrote:.

wojoaderge wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.

Outside wrote:.

scabbarista wrote:.

janmagn wrote:.

Arman_tanzarian wrote:.

oldschooled wrote:.

Pablo Novi wrote:.

john248 wrote:.

mdonnelly1989 wrote:.

Senior wrote:.

twolves97 wrote:.

CodeBreaker wrote:.

dhsilv2 wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,573
And1: 8,207
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#2 » by trex_8063 » Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:35 pm

On Walt Bellamy's biggest weakness (edited [again])....

I was watching a bit of the following game from the '71 season the other day......

.....mostly scrutinizing Bellamy on the defensive end, and watching for any other noteworthy tendencies.

I want to point out some plays, but first a preface: bear in mind this isn't even prime Walt Bellamy; this is Bellamy at age 31 and on the down-slope of his career, in his 10th season----having missed just 5 games in the 9+ seasons to this point (which he more than made up for playing 6 extra games in '69, the season of 88 rs games)----while averaging about 38 mpg in his career. jsia: 31 years, and a lotta miles on those legs, and we're looking at a post-prime version (though he would go on to have a somewhat rejuvenated [statistically] season in '72).

Few things I noted just based on this game.....
1) He seems like a very good outlet passer. Not sure if this was the case his whole career, or something he picked up on a later, but it's partially on display in the very first Hawk possession: PHX wins the tip and has a semi-transition opportunity. Bellamy snares the rebound and immediately sees Maravich cherry-pickin', throws a nice outlet catching Pete in stride at half-court.
He has another superb outlet on the defensive rebound at 11:47.
This appears consistent throughout the game (even when he begins to look fatigued); even if he doesn't have an outlet to throw, you see him swivel his head around to look after each and every defensive rebound.
EDIT (again!): He also makes one really nice assist from the high-post to a cutting teammate (Bridges, iirc; early in the 3rd quarter, I think) on the baseline. It's one of those narrow window plays where if he doesn't make the pass quickly [and on the money] the defense will have time to recover and either bat the pass away or at least be able to smother and make difficult the lay-up attempt. But Bellamy hits him square immediately, leading to a minimally contested lay-up.

2) Rebounding -- He boxes out.....fairly consistently. I like that in a big. I don't like the ones who chase the rebounding angles/bounces, potentially just poaching a rebound from a teammate while leaving their man without a body on him. Bellamy's boxing out pretty consistently in the first half; a little less consistently in the second half.

3) Defensively -- I'm not happy with the quality of his post defense on display in this game: he never really bumps as his man comes across the lane or otherwise pushes him off his spot. Granted, they don't seem to allow as much off-ball contact to my eye as they do today, so he may be trying to avoid the whistle. That said, on games I've scouted of Willis Reed, I see Reed fairly consistently pushing guys off their spot. Bellamy more or less lets Neal Walk set up where ever he wants. He's then not quite as physical bodying up as I'd like once Walk receives the pass either. I've not looked at H2H data, but I'd not be surprised to find many centers did better against Bellamy than they did against the rest of the field.
However, his help defense is often pretty good in this game. Some examples:

2:54 - Bellamy sees the play developing, rotates at the ideal moment and blocks the shot on the help D, keeping it in play and igniting the fast break===>in which he hustles down the court on the break (showing pretty good foot-speed for a 31-yr-old high-mileage big man who's supposedly "eaten his way to mediocrity") beating most of the field downcourt and being the recipient of the fast-break pass (gets fouled, goes to line, though misses both iirc).

4:59 - So-so help on Dick Van Arsdale (Pete's man--->Pete does not look good defensively, fwiw; his man is frequently breaking free, scored on the previous play, in fact); could have been better, but does force him into a difficult behind-the-backboard reverse along the baseline, and appears ready to have swatted a more "conventional" shot attempt on the strong-side.

5:20 - OK, he didn't box out well on the first shot----although to be fair, is it necessarily a good idea to box a guy out 9 feet from the rim (someone else can easily slip inside your boxout when you're that far from the rim)----and Connie Hawkins gets the offensive rebound for PHX. But then Bellamy swats the lay-up attempt away (again keeping it in play: PHX recovers), challenges and severely effects the follow-up shot, and secures the defensive rebound. And then again note he's immediately looking up-court (with the ball above his head, ready to whip an outlet pass if available; they actually do get sort of a semi-transition opportunity, ultimately).

6:48 - Does a good job cutting off the drive by Dick Van Arsdale. Cuts off a second drive by Arsdale a few second later. And though he seems a little slow to recover and contest his man (who receives the pass from DVA), the play really makes Bill Bridges look bad: Bridges has Neal Walk in his field of vision as the play develops but makes no move at all to rotate; he's just sort of standing there defending no one.

8:50 - shades the drive decently on the help.

9:50 - a bit slow/inattentive on the transition D (certainly are a few merely "average" defensive possessions, but this was the first truly "poor" defensive possession I noted in this game).

Anyway, I'll stop there with the detailed reporting. I will admit that his defense seems to slide a little bit later in the game (fatigue becoming a factor???).....just some instances where he's a little slow on the rotation and whatnot. He still does make some nice plays later in the game, though: is one instance early in the 3rd quarter where he anticipates and picks off the entry pass to Walk.
There's another instance (approx middle of the 3rd quarter) where he rotates and makes a good contest on a driving Dick Van Arsdale (*who had burned Maravich again), forcing a miss; Bellamy's man (Walk) then gets the put-back, but you can't put that on Bellamy: if he'd not rotated, DVA would have had an utterly uncontested lay-up.

*Side-note: I know it's just his rookie season, but Pete Maravich is putrid defensively in this game.
By halfway thru the 3rd quarter, I've lost count of the number of times (it is literally 7-8 times minimum)
that Pete has either lost his man off-ball or been burned on the dribble leading to his man getting a clean look, a foul, or otherwise forcing a defensive break-down like the one described above. It's almost shockingly bad, the kind of defense that would make James Harden look like a defensive stud. Bellamy (or anyone else in Bellamy's shoes) has his plate pretty full trying to cover/erase Maravich's errors.


Anyway, small sample reported here, but the ratio of good to bad plays here doesn't well-fit the narrative of a guy who is categorically bad defensively (at least not Enes Kanter bad), even if his post defense does look soft. His help defense appears respectable, and his overall performance in this game is adequate. And again: defense is the single biggest criticism of him as a player.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,573
And1: 8,207
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#3 » by trex_8063 » Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:36 pm

Piggy-backing on post #2 above.....

1st vote: Walt Bellamy
Leaves something to be desired defensively (though as alluded to in post above, perhaps not quite as poor as sometimes indicated), but a heckuva offensive man in the middle and entirely decent rebounder. And he provided that for a good long stretch, as he was more or less an ironman: missed just five games TOTAL in his first ELEVEN seasons, despite playing >35 mpg in 9 of those 11 seasons (>40 mpg in 5 of them); including one season in which (due to a mid-season trade) managed to play 88 rs games (a record I’ll wager will never be broken unless they change the length of the rs). Even in his 12th season he was still playing 37.9 mpg (missed an acceptable 8 games that year), and was still playing 31.7 mpg in his 13th season (was still a 15.2 PER, .107 WS/48, +0.3 BPM player in that 13th season, too).

Pen has in the past remarked that Bellamy “ate his way to mediocrity”, or something to that effect. I’ve never been clear on whether that was his choice of words, or quoting someone (nor have I seen a photo where he looks remotely obese, or even as big as guys like Bob Lanier and DeMarcus Cousins). But when a guy is still----statistically, per minute----an above average player in nearly 32 mpg in his 13th season (at age 34), and had a near All-Star caliber 11th season at age 32, and basically never missed games in his whole career…….idk, it’s collectively not very supportive of this “lazy” or “didn’t take care of himself” narrative.

Bells, in 1,043 career rs games averaged 37.3 mpg (nearly 39,000 career minutes--->42nd all-time in NBA/ABA history) while averaging an estimated 22.2 pts/100 possessions @ +5.91% rTS, 15.1 reb and 2.7 ast per 100 possessions. 19.8 PER and .160 WS/48 over those 13+ big-minute seasons.

fwiw, wrt impact: his prime regressed WOWY is +2.9 (+2.7 for career), which is very respectable.

It’s hard to not give him serious consideration at this point.


2nd vote: Dave DeBusschere
Statistically, DeBusschere’s fairly underwhelming. He was a pinch too willing to pop up those mid-range jumpers for my taste, though that was to no small degree a by-product of era. He’s got range, for sure (have seen him fire away out to ~20 feet or so, even a quick release curling off a screen at the top of the key), and given he was usually playing the PF, that does provide a positive spacing effect; likely would fit better in a 3pt era. I’d be more comfortable with him (likely would have supported him earlier), if he were just a bit more accurate/efficient as a scorer (his FT% could be better, too).
But with DeBusschere, obviously his defense [and rebounding] is where the lion’s share of his value comes from. Widely credited with being one of the very best defensive forwards of his generation, he appears to exhibit versatility, physical play, and decent rebounding for a PF/combo forward.
Closest modern comparison is Draymond Green (but without the playmaking). Dave did his thing for 10 fairly consistent seasons, too (plus one irrelevant injury-hit season), and oddly seemed to hang up his sneakers at the height of game (his final season is one of his very best). Not sure if there was an off-season injury that went into that decision or what.

WOWY data (looking only at W/L column) is a bit inconsistent, though the huge jump the Knicks make in trading Bellamy and Komives for him is certainly in his favour:
WOWY
‘63: 34-46 (.425) with
‘64: 4-11 (.267) with, 19-46 (.292) without
‘65: 31-48 (.392) with, 0-1 without
‘66: 22-57 (.278) with, 0-1 without
‘67: 30-48 (.385) with, 0-3 without
‘68: 38-42 (.475) with, 2-0 without
‘69: Pistons were 11-18 (.379) [DeBusschere played in all 29] prior to trading him for Bellamy and Komives, 21-32 (.396) after the trade. Knicks were 18-17 (.514) before the trade, 36-11 (.766) after obtaining DeBusschere (he played in all 47).
‘70: 57-22 (.722) with, 3-0 without
‘71: 52-29 (.642) with, 0-1 without
‘72: 47-33 (.588) with, 1-1 (.500) without
‘73: 52-25 (.675) with, 5-0 without
‘74: 41-30 (.577) with, 8-3 (.727) with

Elgee’s regressed WOWY (looking at pt differential) rates him as an elite +5.9 for his prime (+5.5 for career).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#4 » by pandrade83 » Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:08 pm

[quote="pandrade83"]We're at the point where you're deciding to go with players who were outstanding for short periods of time ( Davis, Hawkins, Tiny, Daniels) or guys who were very good for a long time but it's hard to argue they were ever great (Divac, Bellamy, my candidate to be named, etc).

I've decided to go with the first group (and fwiw - if you're going the other way, I don't think it's unreasonable).

Now the first decision point is made, let's look at the candidates.

Daniels, & Hawkins achieved their fame in the ABA at a point where professional basketball was extremely diluted. When Daniels won his final title, there were 27 teams in pro hoops - that's as many as there were 20 years later. That's also when Tiny peaked - who never won a series except for the time he got to play with Bird, Parish & rookie McHale.

While I'm aware that the ABA was better in the 70's, this tape of the '68 ABA Finals leaves some things to be desired.




If you're going with a guy who had a very high but short lived peak - why not go with the guy who had the best of it?

Achieving a PER of 30+ puts you in rare territory. Here's the list of guys who have done this in the post-merger era.

MJ
Lebron
Robinson
Shaq
Steph
McGrady
Wade
Davis
Westbrook
Harden

Davis has 4 very strong years under his belt - which by the standards of this group is not bad - and with the exception of Hawkins I don't think anyone else even has a case that their peak is close to Davis.

Now, the knock on him is that he's never even won a playoff game - but the time he did make it, he delivered 31-11 & 3 blocks on 61% TS!

He played great - I don't put that loss on him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of the high peak, short longevity candidates, Davis is the last one I feel comfortable with right now.

My alternate candidate has the highest career WS of any post-merger player - Buck WIlliams.

Disclosing WIlliams' weaknesses right away - the box score paints him as a weak passer - though I don't believe he's a selfish player having watched him.
He also "led" the Nets to 3 straight 55+ loss seasons including one doozy where they went 19-63. I don't think any of the other high longevity candidates would've done materially better in that situation - but anyway - it's out there.

Williams' brings strong rebounding to the table - leading the league in REB% in '82, and finishing in the Top 5 in rebounds per game his first 7 years in the league.
Additionally, Williams was a strong defender, making all Defense 4 times. What's noteworthy about this, is that one of those appearances were for the 19-63 Nets; to earn All-Defense on that bad of a team, you truly have to have the voters' respect.

Although Williams' peak was with the Nets, he had a strong post-prime as well where he impacts some strong Blazer teams.

Portland was +0.2 & -0.6 in rel D Rating the two years before Williams' arrival & in the following 3 years - all years where Williams makes All-D, Portland finishes -3.7, -3.6 & -4.0 (Wayne Cooper & Cliff Robinson were also added during this period).

From an offensive standpoint, this video is a fair representation of how he scores - he moves well in transition and is strong finisher at the rim and he'll score on put backs.



Overall, Williams is a strong rebounding, strong defending forward who scores efficiently on moderate volume through hustle.

Let's look at Williams' place on the Win Share leaderboard is worth a look since I noted that he's #1 in post-merger players not in yet.

He generated 52% of his career Win Shares with the Nets - a franchise that didn't do anything for virtually all of the 80's & the '90's.

While in New Jersey, he was key in getting the Nets to the playoffs most years early on - his signature playoff moment was getting 18.4-15.2 with 3.4 blocks + steals on 60% TS against the defending champion Sixers in '84.

The lion's share of his remaining win shares came when he adapted to a new role on Portland from '90-'94 - taking on a smaller offensive role but becoming very impactful to the team's defense and being a key part of Portland's success during that era.

If you're looking at high longevity quality players who brought meaningful career value to the table, I think Williams is worth a look.

Primary: Davis
Alternate: Buck Williams
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 20,222
And1: 26,100
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#5 » by Clyde Frazier » Sun Mar 11, 2018 6:51 pm

Moving here since Daniels is still on the board...

LA Bird wrote:Run off vote: Bill Walton

Despite the importance of longevity, I'll go with Walton here. He had a top 20 peak of all time and proved to be multiple tiers higher even if only for a very, very short period. I am simply not sold on Mel Daniels here. He was outshined at his peak by Beaty who was probably never more than a top 5 center in the NBA. Daniels also lacked longevity and failed to successfully transition to the NBA like every other ABA MVP winner did. His 2 MVPs look nice at face value but is far less impressive in context.


I actually think your last 2 sentences are lacking context. Daniels won his MVPs in 69 and 71 (2nd and 4th seasons). By the time he turned 30 (8th season), he was on the downside of his career. He then played 1 season in Italy and had a cup of coffee with the nets in the NBA. It’s not as if he jumped to the NBA in his prime and totally fell off in production. So while his longevity wasn’t great, there was really no meaningful transition to the NBA to be had. Can’t knock him for something that never happened.
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 20,222
And1: 26,100
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#6 » by Clyde Frazier » Sun Mar 11, 2018 7:23 pm

Vote 1 - Tiny Archibald

Vote 2 - Mel Daniels

- 13 year career
- 5x All NBA (3 1st, 2 2nd)
- 2 top 5 and 3 top 10 MVP finishes
- Only player to ever lead league in scoring and assists (per 100 he still measures as elite, especially for his era)

His ability to get to the line was pretty special for someone his size. He has a career FT rate of .456 with 5 seasons over .500. His prime basically lasted 6 seasons, but he was highly productive and efficient:

Per game: https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/architi01.html#1972-1977-sum:per_game

Advanced: https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/architi01.html#1972-1977-sum:advanced

The lack of playoff success before Boston leaves something to be desired, but he wasn’t exactly on teams rich with talent, either. He was an important piece for the celtics for a few seasons, and played a big role in their 81 title run. His transition into that role post prime / injury is impressive to me.

Even though we should take anecdotal commentary on players with a grain of salt, i always find it rewarding to look back at them for players before my time. In clips from the Sports Illustrated article below, we see a dominant guard who was a precursor to the plethora of drive and kick PGs we see in the NBA today.

Archibald was one of the smallest players to come into the NBA in years, being listed at a bit over six feet and weighing about 150 pounds. He had speed, but the trend was to big guards. The first time that Cincinnati Coach Bob Cousy and General Manager Joe Axel-son met Archibald at a Memphis motel they mistook him for a bellboy. Now Cousy says he might quit the Kings—the team was renamed upon being shifted to Kansas City-Omaha last year—if he ever were to lose Archibald.

- - - - -

[Former teammate Norm Van Lier] “The brother's mean, man. He comes to play every day and he does it to death. I don't believe there is anything he can't do, and his moves are inexhaustible. He'll stand out there 25 to 30 feet away from the basket dribbling. It looks so easy to go up and take the ball away, right? Wrong. Nate's just baiting you. He wants you to make a move for the ball because when you do, you're all his."

"Nate's one of the most unselfish players in the game," says Chicago's Bob Love. "I've seen him go a whole quarter without shooting, and he still killed us whistling those passes in underneath. The fact he led the league in assists explains his unselfishness. If anything, he's underrated."

- - - - -

Archibald's style has altered the order of the NBA. Once the behemoths were the intimidators; now they find themselves helpless as Archibald bears in on them. "I feel like I can draw a foul most every time," he says. "You would think that the big man has an advantage, but I would say I have it, because he has his arms up high and he has to come down on you. I get shots blocked, but not very often, because I don't just shoot a layup. I go right at the big man and make him commit himself, then I make my move." Nowadays many of the league's top teams have a small guard.

"Nate has added an extra dimension to the game," says Portland Guard Charlie Davis. "Cousy and them could clear out the ball, pass it, but there's never been one like Nate who could set those dudes up, score and pass." Says Jerry West, "He looks like a high school kid and plays like a superstar. One step and he's at full speed and gone." When asked if Archibald's "dominance" of the ball could hurt Kansas City, Oscar Robertson looked incredulous, then responded drily, "The only way his style could hurt them is if he played against them.”


https://www.si.com/vault/1973/10/15/618390/tiny-does-very-big-things

Highlights (music NSFW):

dhsilv2
RealGM
Posts: 49,570
And1: 26,748
Joined: Oct 04, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#7 » by dhsilv2 » Sun Mar 11, 2018 7:36 pm

For the AD voters, just looking at current players to make sure I'm not missing anyone. Why AD over Love? There peaks in box score metrics aren't that difference. Love has a longer career and has won a title. Career WS is 70+ before this year which is above most of the guys we're talking about. Sure his team missed the playoffs but they were 40-42 which gets teams in half the time.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,240
And1: 9,820
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#8 » by penbeast0 » Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:41 pm

Vote: Mel Daniels
Alternate: Jerry Lucas (Sharman, Hawkins, Marques Johnson, Anthony Daniels?)


Why Mel Daniels? It may be winner's bias, but when I see a team win multiple championships, I tend to look more closely at the makeup of the teams to see WHY they are winning. I don't automatically value big minute contributors to championships, I have been down on Bob Cousy's role on those Celtic titles for example. However, I do value the championships a lot and how a team got there. Indiana was the Boston Celtics of the ABA. They didn't have nearly the big name stars of Kentucky (Gilmore, Issel, Dampier), New York (Erving, Kenon), or even San Antonio (Gervin, Silas, Paultz) but they won the most and the most consistently. Breaking those teams down, Slick Leonard was a competent coach but had little success elsewhere and wasn't that highly regarded for either his game management or his player development. Their guards were pretty weak. Freddie Lewis a below average PG, not much of a distributor and only an average shooter and defender, while their 2 guards changed regularly and were unimpressive. Roger Brown at SF was a nice scorer with good range, great handles, and enough variety that his nickname was "the man of a thousand moves." He was definitely a key factor but he didn't play much defense or add much rebounding or playmaking. The PF were Bob Netolicky (the self proclaimed Joe Namath of the ABA) who was another excellent scorer and decent rebounder with no interest in defense then they replaced him with George McGinnis, another volume scorer (less efficient) and a great rebounder who generated a lot of assists, and turnovers. But for me, looking at this franchise's success, it was all built around Mel Daniels in the middle. A good scorer (consistently close to 20 a game on above average efficiency), great rebounder (usually among top in league), and powerful defender (better positionally than in help defense) who set the tone of the team and acted as their enforcer. His career was short and corresponds almost exactly with the rise and fall of the Pacers as a force in the ABA (his rookie year, he apparently shot a lot of long jump shots and had poor efficiency for Minnesota, which Leonard immediately banned when he came to Indiana).


Mel Daniels is certainly the only multiple MVP winner left. Nobody else changed or dominanted on both ends to the same degree for more than 1-1.5 years (Walton, Hawkins). Daniels was the best player on two championship teams plus a willing support role on a third championship though in a weak league (probably better than the pre-Russell 50s though). I tend to value defense, particularly for big men, and Mel was basically the original Alonzo Mourning with more rebounding but less shotblocking or, to use dhsilv2's comp, Moses Malone (without the longevity of course). He was a 1st round NBA pick (the first to sign with the ABA) and in the NBA would probably have been one of the best centers as well, not in the Jabbar league, but contending with Unseld/Cowens for the rebounding leaderboard and 2nd team All-Defense with good scoring (but poor playmaking). The two MVPs show he was valued above his box scores.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#9 » by pandrade83 » Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:34 pm

dhsilv2 wrote:For the AD voters, just looking at current players to make sure I'm not missing anyone. Why AD over Love? There peaks in box score metrics aren't that difference. Love has a longer career and has won a title. Career WS is 70+ before this year which is above most of the guys we're talking about. Sure his team missed the playoffs but they were 40-42 which gets teams in half the time.


Fair discussion. Couple things from my perspective:

1) If you're a big & you are a liability on defense, I have a hard time getting behind you. I know he offers spacing & hes highly valuable to an offense, but it makes the team building process that much harder.

2) Flowing from 1 - because there is a large separation defensively, I discount the box score metrics somewhat that paint Love in a favorable light. I think by the end of Love's career, he'll finish around Bosh territory and if we were to include this year, I think that will probably have given him enough career value to justify a Top 100 finish. Right now, I'd put him just a touch behind my alternate candidate.
dhsilv2
RealGM
Posts: 49,570
And1: 26,748
Joined: Oct 04, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#10 » by dhsilv2 » Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:38 pm

pandrade83 wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:For the AD voters, just looking at current players to make sure I'm not missing anyone. Why AD over Love? There peaks in box score metrics aren't that difference. Love has a longer career and has won a title. Career WS is 70+ before this year which is above most of the guys we're talking about. Sure his team missed the playoffs but they were 40-42 which gets teams in half the time.


Fair discussion. Couple things from my perspective:

1) If you're a big & you are a liability on defense, I have a hard time getting behind you. I know he offers spacing & hes highly valuable to an offense, but it makes the team building process that much harder.

2) Flowing from 1 - because there is a large separation defensively, I discount the box score metrics somewhat that paint Love in a favorable light. I think by the end of Love's career, he'll finish around Bosh territory and if we were to include this year, I think that will probably have given him enough career value to justify a Top 100 finish. Right now, I'd put him just a touch behind my alternate candidate.


I somewhat agree on defense, but Love was an elite rebounder before being put into a stretch 4 role. And the other "big" for cleveland has been TT who's value is mostly offensive rebounding. Then on box score metrics, AD's block and steal numbers at least in prior years imo overrate his defensive impact (RPM mind you disagrees with me in 15, sadly I'm stuck with just my eye test where I saw him just reading the offense poorly too often). Either way I can't believe AD is not getting at least his fair value on defense if not getting overrated there. Meanwhile the advanced metrics are rating love out as a poor defender. So unless you think AD is elite defensively or that Love is just horrible, I feel the box metrics are decent here.

I'd throw in Love is an elite outlet passer in today's nba, not sure that gets caught in any box score stats or that it's a huge bonus, but that's at least something I think might be missing from their box stats.

To be honest, I'd be pushing AD if this year counted, this year has been imo a meaningful step forward for him and imo makes him a top 100 guy. But going in, I see a bunch of people I'd look at, and I'm actually shocked to see Richmond and Mullins still not getting any play. I don't disagree but was expecting them to get noticed.
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,596
And1: 3,355
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#11 » by LA Bird » Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:27 am

Clyde Frazier wrote:Moving here since Daniels is still on the board...

LA Bird wrote:Run off vote: Bill Walton

Despite the importance of longevity, I'll go with Walton here. He had a top 20 peak of all time and proved to be multiple tiers higher even if only for a very, very short period. I am simply not sold on Mel Daniels here. He was outshined at his peak by Beaty who was probably never more than a top 5 center in the NBA. Daniels also lacked longevity and failed to successfully transition to the NBA like every other ABA MVP winner did. His 2 MVPs look nice at face value but is far less impressive in context.


I actually think your last 2 sentences are lacking context. Daniels won his MVPs in 69 and 71 (2nd and 4th seasons). By the time he turned 30 (8th season), he was on the downside of his career. He then played 1 season in Italy and had a cup of coffee with the nets in the NBA. It’s not as if he jumped to the NBA in his prime and totally fell off in production. So while his longevity wasn’t great, there was really no meaningful transition to the NBA to be had. Can’t knock him for something that never happened.

The lack of a successful NBA transition is important because we know the early ABA was pretty weak and the only way to quantify the level of competition is to see how the ABA stars perform in the NBA. Burden of proof is on Daniels to show he stacks up against the other good centers in the NBA but he declined even in the ABA just as it was catching up to the other league. There are many other ABA pioneers who all faded away fairly quickly in the mid 70s as the league improved and I think this is an indictment of the poor quality of the early ABA and the inability of many of their players to adjust to a better league, not just a sign of weak longevity for the players involved.

The same criticism applies somewhat to the 50s and Mikan in terms of proving himself in the post shot clock, integrated league but at least he destroyed everybody else in dominant fashion - Daniels didn't. In the early ABA, a new player would join every season and own the league temporarily (Hawkins in 68, Hawkins/Barry in 69, Haywood in 70, Beaty in 71, Gilmore in 72) but Daniels had never been that top guy. At his peak, he was outplayed by a 31 year old Zelmo Beaty who was at best the #5 center in the NBA. Not only did he not prove himself in the NBA, Daniels was not dominant enough in the ABA to earn the benefit of doubt that I would give to somebody like Mikan who absolutely crushed a weaker league.
pandrade83
Starter
Posts: 2,040
And1: 604
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#12 » by pandrade83 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:45 am

dhsilv2 wrote:
pandrade83 wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:For the AD voters, just looking at current players to make sure I'm not missing anyone. Why AD over Love? There peaks in box score metrics aren't that difference. Love has a longer career and has won a title. Career WS is 70+ before this year which is above most of the guys we're talking about. Sure his team missed the playoffs but they were 40-42 which gets teams in half the time.


Fair discussion. Couple things from my perspective:

1) If you're a big & you are a liability on defense, I have a hard time getting behind you. I know he offers spacing & hes highly valuable to an offense, but it makes the team building process that much harder.

2) Flowing from 1 - because there is a large separation defensively, I discount the box score metrics somewhat that paint Love in a favorable light. I think by the end of Love's career, he'll finish around Bosh territory and if we were to include this year, I think that will probably have given him enough career value to justify a Top 100 finish. Right now, I'd put him just a touch behind my alternate candidate.


I somewhat agree on defense, but Love was an elite rebounder before being put into a stretch 4 role. And the other "big" for cleveland has been TT who's value is mostly offensive rebounding. Then on box score metrics, AD's block and steal numbers at least in prior years imo overrate his defensive impact (RPM mind you disagrees with me in 15, sadly I'm stuck with just my eye test where I saw him just reading the offense poorly too often). Either way I can't believe AD is not getting at least his fair value on defense if not getting overrated there. Meanwhile the advanced metrics are rating love out as a poor defender. So unless you think AD is elite defensively or that Love is just horrible, I feel the box metrics are decent here.

I'd throw in Love is an elite outlet passer in today's nba, not sure that gets caught in any box score stats or that it's a huge bonus, but that's at least something I think might be missing from their box stats.

To be honest, I'd be pushing AD if this year counted, this year has been imo a meaningful step forward for him and imo makes him a top 100 guy. But going in, I see a bunch of people I'd look at, and I'm actually shocked to see Richmond and Mullins still not getting any play. I don't disagree but was expecting them to get noticed.



I indirectly thought about Love's outlet passing when I wrote he's "highly valuable to an offense".

But it's hard to find a defensive metric that even thinks he's decent defensively and most of the gap between them on defense is on Love's end, rather than Davis being superb or anything like that.

I think there's a lot of reasonable candidates to support honestly. The separation is just so thin right now. If someone were to support Mullin - for example - I could get behind him in a run-off over the 70's stars being nominated right now
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,573
And1: 8,207
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#13 » by trex_8063 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:10 pm

Thru post #12:

Mel Daniels - 1 (penbeast0)
Walt Bellamy - 1 (trex_8063)
Tiny Archibald - 1 (Clyde Frazier)
Anthony Davis - 1 (pandrade83)


We had a remarkable turnout for this late in the project in the last thread; I'm hoping we can match it for these final two. About 24 hours until this one goes to runoff.

Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

Colbinii wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dr Spaceman wrote:.

fpliii wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

pandrade83 wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

SactoKingsFan wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

JordansBulls wrote:.

RSCS3_ wrote:.

BasketballFan7 wrote:.

micahclay wrote:.

ardee wrote:.

RCM88x wrote:.

Tesla wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:.

kayess wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

MisterHibachi wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

mischievous wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Bad Gatorade wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Cyrusman122000 wrote:.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:.

Narigo wrote:.

wojoaderge wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.

Outside wrote:.

scabbarista wrote:.

janmagn wrote:.

Arman_tanzarian wrote:.

oldschooled wrote:.

Pablo Novi wrote:.

john248 wrote:.

mdonnelly1989 wrote:.

Senior wrote:.

twolves97 wrote:.

CodeBreaker wrote:.

dhsilv2 wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,139
And1: 22,153
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#14 » by Doctor MJ » Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:28 pm

Vote: Connie Hawkins
Alt: Chris Mullin

I think my argument for the Hawk is clear at this point. In general, his longevity isn't really that much of an issue compared to the guys he's being compared with, and his prime ability is well north of the other guys.

Mullin on the other hand is someone who I could have voted in a while ago if I really thought about it. Great player.

Regarding 2 of the guys who already have votes:

Bellamy has the longevity...unfortunately he sucks at defense and played at a time where big men basically only knew how to impact the game on defense. I don't trust him.

Davis? Well, I'm not going to say he's unworthy. I can see a good argument for Davis over anyone mentioned, but I do think people need to remember not to include this year in their analysis. Longevity is a major issue, as is the fact we haven't actually seen him thrive on the grand stage.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 16,884
And1: 11,707
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#15 » by eminence » Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:30 pm

I see my boy Bob Davies has not yet made it in.
I bought a boat.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,614
And1: 3,132
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#16 » by Owly » Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:17 pm

eminence wrote:I see my boy Bob Davies has not yet made it in.

Trex in 'List, voter panel & sign-up, convo' thread wrote:This top 100 list is to comprise the greatest in all of BAA/NBA/ABA history (EDIT: where Mikan is concerned, you may also consider NBL as far back as '47). I am not going to stipulate a specific criteria that we all must follow. Everyone is free to be guided by their own values as to their ranking. However, the one thing I do ask [given this is to be an ALL-TIME list] is that you consider ALL players from all eras of BAA/NBA/ABA history.

Aside from the Mikan exception, NBL isn't considered. So you're missing Davies' MVP in '47, Rochester's title in '46, and '48 too, where the NBL is still the strongest league. Throw in how difficult it is to evaluate the super early leagues, and general cyncism about the standard of the pro game in 50s (and before) and it's easy to understand why he isn't in. Heck, what numbers there are don't make it clear that he was the top guard in Rochester (and Wanzer has some big playoff numbers and his own MVP - though it's not clear how official that one is or how it was allocated).

All of which is to say (whilst I don't necessarily buy a huge gap between him and Cousy - as one might interpret from these rankings, especailly if not cognizant of years being missed) it's easy to see how/why he's not in. There's a sense in which it's easier to just fence of early pioneers because it's hard to meaningfully rank them (it's hard enough to rank more modern contemporaries and near contemporaries - players with way more data/video available).
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 16,884
And1: 11,707
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#17 » by eminence » Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:41 pm

Owly wrote:
eminence wrote:I see my boy Bob Davies has not yet made it in.

Trex in 'List, voter panel & sign-up, convo' thread wrote:This top 100 list is to comprise the greatest in all of BAA/NBA/ABA history (EDIT: where Mikan is concerned, you may also consider NBL as far back as '47). I am not going to stipulate a specific criteria that we all must follow. Everyone is free to be guided by their own values as to their ranking. However, the one thing I do ask [given this is to be an ALL-TIME list] is that you consider ALL players from all eras of BAA/NBA/ABA history.

Aside from the Mikan exception, NBL isn't considered. So you're missing Davies' MVP in '47, Rochester's title in '46, and '48 too, where the NBL is still the strongest league. Throw in how difficult it is to evaluate the super early leagues, and general cyncism about the standard of the pro game in 50s (and before) and it's easy to understand why he isn't in. Heck, what numbers there are don't make it clear that he was the top guard in Rochester (and Wanzer has some big playoff numbers and his own MVP - though it's not clear how official that one is or how it was allocated).

All of which is to say (whilst I don't necessarily buy a huge gap between him and Cousy - as one might interpret from these rankings, especailly if not cognizant of years being missed) it's easy to see how/why he's not in. There's a sense in which it's easier to just fence of early pioneers because it's hard to meaningfully rank them (it's hard enough to rank more modern contemporaries and near contemporaries - players with way more data/video available).


From my understanding discussing with Trex all players got NBL seasons back to '47. Though Mikan is obviously the main guy it applies to (Davies probably next in line), and I suppose Schayes gets his rookie season back.
I bought a boat.
euroleague
General Manager
Posts: 8,448
And1: 1,871
Joined: Mar 26, 2014
 

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#18 » by euroleague » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:17 pm

Vote Connie Hawkins
Highest peak left, MVP and championship winner at his peak. Lauded by all his peers for his skill, combined Harlem tricks with his Baylor-esque driving to the inside, paving the way for Dr J and David Thompson. Elite in almost all facets of the game.

Alt: Mel Daniels
Strong 2 way peak, but not at the level of Connie. Had a big impact on the ABA, but lacked serious positional competition and struggled against Gilmore.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,573
And1: 8,207
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#19 » by trex_8063 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:46 pm

eminence wrote:
Owly wrote:
eminence wrote:I see my boy Bob Davies has not yet made it in.

Trex in 'List, voter panel & sign-up, convo' thread wrote:This top 100 list is to comprise the greatest in all of BAA/NBA/ABA history (EDIT: where Mikan is concerned, you may also consider NBL as far back as '47). I am not going to stipulate a specific criteria that we all must follow. Everyone is free to be guided by their own values as to their ranking. However, the one thing I do ask [given this is to be an ALL-TIME list] is that you consider ALL players from all eras of BAA/NBA/ABA history.

Aside from the Mikan exception, NBL isn't considered. So you're missing Davies' MVP in '47, Rochester's title in '46, and '48 too, where the NBL is still the strongest league. Throw in how difficult it is to evaluate the super early leagues, and general cyncism about the standard of the pro game in 50s (and before) and it's easy to understand why he isn't in. Heck, what numbers there are don't make it clear that he was the top guard in Rochester (and Wanzer has some big playoff numbers and his own MVP - though it's not clear how official that one is or how it was allocated).

All of which is to say (whilst I don't necessarily buy a huge gap between him and Cousy - as one might interpret from these rankings, especailly if not cognizant of years being missed) it's easy to see how/why he's not in. There's a sense in which it's easier to just fence of early pioneers because it's hard to meaningfully rank them (it's hard enough to rank more modern contemporaries and near contemporaries - players with way more data/video available).


From my understanding discussing with Trex all players got NBL seasons back to '47. Though Mikan is obviously the main guy it applies to (Davies probably next in line), and I suppose Schayes gets his rookie season back.


Yes, I just went and edited the sign-up thread to reflect: "can consider the NBL as far back as '47". I stated Mikan, as tbh I figured he was the only individual for whom this consideration would bear relevant. Speaking for myself, noting Bob Davies' two additional NBL seasons still just barely even puts him on my radar for the top 100.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,614
And1: 3,132
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 

Post#20 » by Owly » Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:20 pm

trex_8063 wrote:
eminence wrote:
Owly wrote:
Aside from the Mikan exception, NBL isn't considered. So you're missing Davies' MVP in '47, Rochester's title in '46, and '48 too, where the NBL is still the strongest league. Throw in how difficult it is to evaluate the super early leagues, and general cyncism about the standard of the pro game in 50s (and before) and it's easy to understand why he isn't in. Heck, what numbers there are don't make it clear that he was the top guard in Rochester (and Wanzer has some big playoff numbers and his own MVP - though it's not clear how official that one is or how it was allocated).

All of which is to say (whilst I don't necessarily buy a huge gap between him and Cousy - as one might interpret from these rankings, especailly if not cognizant of years being missed) it's easy to see how/why he's not in. There's a sense in which it's easier to just fence of early pioneers because it's hard to meaningfully rank them (it's hard enough to rank more modern contemporaries and near contemporaries - players with way more data/video available).


From my understanding discussing with Trex all players got NBL seasons back to '47. Though Mikan is obviously the main guy it applies to (Davies probably next in line), and I suppose Schayes gets his rookie season back.


Yes, I just went and edited the sign-up thread to reflect: "can consider the NBL as far back as '47". I stated Mikan, as tbh I figured he was the only individual for whom this consideration would bear relevant. Speaking for myself, noting Bob Davies' two additional NBL seasons still just barely even puts him on my radar for the top 100.

Seems an odd choice to state it as isolated to Mikan if it wasn't only applicapble to him ... still, don't think it mattered anyhow, as 50s (especially earlier 50s) aren't so highly valued (and as I said even if you do so as an idea, it's hard to meaningfully compare).

Return to Player Comparisons