trex_8063 wrote:Owly wrote:trex_8063 wrote:
These respective orders are a little puzzling to me: Unseld has [in your opinion] the 2nd-best peak, but somehow falls to 3rd in career rank, despite having the best effective longevity among the three [rather handily, in fact]??
"Handily" because he's the best of the three in terms of:
*years played
**fewest games missed [despite playing the most seasons]
***showing the least amount of decline by end of his career, and....
****being "great" the quickest [immediately in his rookie season].
It would seem as though his career rank among the three can only go UP [relative to his peak rank].
I feel like the only way one could justify the respective ranks you have would be if you think Unseld's peak season to be a notable outlier from the rest of his career.......but that just clearly isn't the case.
What am I missing?
I don't go too tightly on individual years so I don't know that I would put him over Cowens for peak. But a possible angle on Cowens for better longevity of quality
The dings real and occasionally percieved would be ...
Just playing less, between that weird leave of absence thing he did, later year injuries.
Stuff with team numbers hurt (e.g. WS) hurt because the Celtics declined at the back end of his career whilst the Bullets were strong with Dandridge and Hayes and then transitionioned to Ballard, Mahorn etc. They didn't have the full on down period of Celtics 77-79 (now arguably Cowen hurt '77 by his absence).
But I think it comes down to injuries and non-tangible stuff.
If you think Unseld, between screens, passing and not-missing was a really good offensive player and you have him as a very good defender latterly, I can see a bullish angle on him. On this vein one might see him as an angel for putting up with Hayes and a lunchpail worker bringing it every day.
If you take the slightly more negative angle a luxury on offense (very low usage, ft% doesn't indicate spacing), if you credit Hayes (which I have been moved towards on here) and then perhaps even Dandridge too as the top defenders and if you buy in a touch more to the negative angle on Unseld (Hayes wasn't so bad, at least had substantial positives e.g. was a great worker himself and there's some discussion of Unseld not being committed to the game - talking of becoming a teacher, or after '76 the Hollander Handbooks has ... "says he can't remember the last time he got excited about a basketball game, and critics say his blase attitude shows up on the court sometimes" - though he certainly kept turning up) ... I could see being lower on Unseld.
Does one think the '74 dip was a turning point for Unseld, is the year-to-year inconsistency in production thereafter a sign that he's a decidedly lesser player overall or do we imagine him as some numbers do as coming back into (and out an into) his prime.
Finally on peak ... " if you think Unseld's peak season to be a notable outlier from the rest of his career.......but that just clearly isn't the case."
Box-wise I'd agree. I think some might credit him heavily with the Bullets' turnaround but be less confident of his impact thereafter. I think that would broadly justifiable to an extent though how far I'd go would depend on the nuances of the take.
On Cowens I think you can get 72-78 as a mostly uninterrupted prime that might be better. If you're bullish on the ultimate warrior, dive on the floor, run the opposing center into the ground stuff, Cowens' prime (and presumably he has these qualities in year one, and the last two proper years of his career) might build a lead that "role player" Unseld years don't make up. One might use Cowens's more consistent MVP ballot presence to support this.
As noted in my original post Cowens has trended higher in historical rankings for what that's worth.
In summary:
I don't necessarily buy 100% into all the arguments above.
I do trend - mostly instinctively rather than by deep dive - more pro Cowens and bearish on Unseld.
As before huge noise in this. Lots of room for difference in non-box stuff.
The conventional wisdom tilts pro-Cowens.
I think a lot hangs on how you see the defense, mobility and perhaps also effort and intangibles of mid- (and to a lesser extent late-) 70s Unseld in terms of where you have him for longevity of quality. Of course some will ding him just for not being a 10ppg scorer (which seems overly simplistic though per the above there is a cost to a very low-usage player).
(I hope I don't break the page with too many quotes within quotes within quotes)....
Some good talking points in your reply. However, I just don't see how one can arrive at Cowens having better longevity of quality, personally.
As mentioned, the only way I can really get there is if one thinks Unseld's peak was an outlier (such that even though his peak is better [than Cowens'], his prime as a whole is not as good [as Cowens']). However, Unseld's peak [by the numbers] is not at all an outlier within his prime: indeed, statistically it's even difficult to to pick which year is Unseld's peak. From '69 thru '73, his numbers are about as steady as anyone ever is for a 5-year period. Then he has a down year ['74, possibly injury-related?? as he misses 26 games] before bouncing back to nearly the same level [statistically] for the next TWO years.
So in an 8-year period, Unseld has 7 seasons that are really darn consistent with each other (just one down/injury year in the middle). Assuming one of these years is his peak----a peak which is supposedly better than Cowens'---that presumbably means 5-6 additional seasons that are at least in the same general neighborhood as Cowens' peak [because they're all similar in all-around quality as whichever season you choose as Unseld's peak].
Given Cowens' prime only lasts 7 years, and given Unseld also has more useful "role player" type seasons.........how then do we arrive at Cowens having the better career (again: IF we're sticking to the conclusion that Unseld peaked higher)?
That's my confusion.
So again - going with the contention of Unseld's peak as better, not necessarily my opinion - and there's likely some repetition here I'll explain where i think the view could come from and the extent to which I am or am not sympathetic.
Some buy into Unseld as the single transformative force of 21 win turnaround and most wins in the league and buy that as significantly greater certainty on Unseld's peak would be my read. That and they buy into the MVP itself on the team with most wins.
I don't really agree - most wins but 4th of 14 teams (and some recent expansion - including two just arrived teams artificially improving all other teams mitigating the Bullets apparent improvement somewhat) they'd underachieved in wins the prior year and overachieved in '69 - it's really an 11 win pythagoeran expected win improvement and that's before accounting for inflation by expansion lowering the average and providing some easy points margin boost. That 4.28 SRS move doesn't stack up well versus real transformative gains (or losses) like rookie arrival Bird among other changes moving SRS by 12.15, or rookie arrival Robinson and other changes moving it by 11.03 (though cross era comparisons can be tough). Also cross year comps are crude with different teammates and improvements and declines. Team fit could a be a factor too.
But I think that people are buying into the accolades as rookie Unseld as a genuine monster. Then when the accolades go and the team falls back they're lower. I don't agree but I can see where it might come from.
On when Unseld's prime ends: As noted maybe the 10 point threshold means too much to some but I can see that being part of demoting 74 and after Unseld. More reasonably he looks a very different human from the very early pics and there's speculation on his weight ... after '76 [a year you#'re counting as prime and in which he's box productive] the Hollander book [the edition cited prevously about his "blase attitude"] goes "250 [me: his official listed weight], 260, 299, who knows" ... speculation that he might be 300 pounds, between that and the comments about his lack of interest/fire I could see that a guy could be putting up the same numbers but be substantially lest impactful.
That's how I could see someone getting there. I don't agree with a lot of it.
