RealGM Top 100 #35

[Doctor MJ]

Thanks for the catch! I fixed it in the original post.

As for substance -- what you're calling "the worst offense in the entire league" is the one that, in fact, scored the MOST points in the entire league. So I'm challenging your assessment, and bemoaning the lack of easy access to stats that would allow us to accurately judge just how good the Celtics' offense was or wasn't.

Well if you don't buy that Boston's offense was bad then I certainly understand why you rate Cousy differently than I do.

Remember though:

-It's widely known Boston played at an extremely fast pace.
-In Cousy's final year, the Celtics had an eFG% of .427 (worst in the league) and FT/FGA of .229 (2nd worst in the league). The team with the 2nd worst eFG% was New York at .429, and they had a FT/FGA of .246 (3rd worst in the league). By estimates such as ElGee's, Boston has the worst offense, New York the 2nd worst. So how did the teams do overall?

Boston won 58 games (best in the league) and went on to win the title. New York won 21 games, which made them worst in the league. If you're familiar with SRS, which uses margin of victory to give the best estimate for how good teams actually were, Boston was a +6.38 while New York was a -6.20.

So basically we're talking about one team being 40 wins better than the other...despite having a worse offense. That is utterly insane.

Now it has to be said that turnovers and offensive rebounds are also involved in an offensive rating. We can assume that Boston did very well at offensive rebounding, but only because of Russell who had more than 3 times as many rebounds as any of his teammates, so that certainly doesn't help Cousy's case. We're left with only an uncertainty of turnovers, and I sincerely doubt there's ever been a team with horrendous shooting numbers who managed a solid offensive rating simply because of low turnovers.

Last I'll note that the following year without Cousy the offense got even worse. It wasn't that he had zero impact, just not much. And meanwhile, the defense got even better and the team got better.

[Doctor MJ]

I just remembered something that could be a major wrinkle on efficiency considerations for the old days -- centers at times would literally hang back to protect against fast breaks. Chamberlain was quoted in one of the articles posted in an earlier thread saying he did that in LA, for example. I also recall Walton doing it in college in a US vs. USSR game.

That could affect offense efficiency considerations, in numerous ways. First, if your own center is hanging back, your offense will naturally be less potent. Second, if your opponent's center is hanging back, your offense may also be less potent for that reason. Third, if your opponent's center decides whether or not to hang back depending upon whether he fears your fast break, then running the break aggressively -- even if it does little for your offensive numbers -- could help your DEFENSIVE stats by taking the opposing center part way out of the offense.

A relevant thing to consider. Boston was certainly putting well over 50% of their energy into defense. In terms of the evidence though of whether Cousy was really providing big lift to the team, it's orthogonal to the task at hand.

[Lever2Beaver]

Oh I'm not using the year he was born against him, I'm just using it to give context.
People are wondering how I can be so bold as to rate Cousy drastically different than observers of the time did, and I'm pointing out that observers of the time rated him against players of the time. While I've made quite clear why I think those observers overrated Cousy, I've never said anything to indicate he wasn't one of the top players of the early NBA.

I think part of what's unfortunate here is the exclusion of George Mikan. Cousy's really the first pre-shot clock star we're talking about here, and it strikes people as too skewed for some of us to argue that we'd go through the entire Top 50 without any such pioneers.

But that's only got a risk of happening because Mikan got excluded from the project. I think people need to consider where they'd place Mikan. I've typically seen him as a guy ranking in the 30s behind the Ewings of the world. I respect opinions that have him higher, but if you really think Mikan was clearly superior to Ewing, I'd love to hear your argument because I've never heard one that makes any sense to me.

Now remember, Mikan is only 4 years older than Cousy, and their careers overlapped for about half a decade. And there wasn't a soul alive who thought Cousy had anywhere near the impact that Mikan did during that overlap. If Mikan is in the 30s (or maybe 20s), and Cousy wasn't anywhere near Mikan's level, how exactly do people think Cousy's getting drastically underrated here when he could still easily make the top 50?

Well, I ask, but I know the answer: Mikan's being compared with big black guys while guys who still look like Cousy are superstars today. Makes it much easier to just rate Cousy by saying "Well he must have had everything you could want for someone of his athleticism, and that's still good enough today, he's probably like Nash with better longevity!".

And that's where it's just so terribly inadequate to paint in such broad strokes. A guy like Nash is a superstar today because he's miraculously able to create GOAT level offenses even with relatively modest talent while along the way establishing himself as one of the greatest shooters of all time. People think Cousy could be similar because his team won so much, but it was all because of the defense.

You're perplexed at how I could "underrate" Cousy and not underrate Russell, but the answer is quite clear: What Boston did was astounding, but I'm not satisfied with sprinkling brownie points randomly across the various men in green. I want to figure out what it was about them that made them so dominant, and credit the players involved in that. That thinking very quickly leads one to appreciate the Celtic defenders, which means praising Russell while staring skeptically at the teams so-called offensive wizard.

First let me thank you for your thoughtful response
Now I'm try to show why we disagree A LOT
Mikan is unquestionably a top 10 player of all-time
here's a list of three reasons why, I'll try to make them rhyme:

1) SECOND GREATEST WINNER EVER: Seven Championships inside of eight years, forget the era, you can only beat your peers. To assume he wouldn't do it inside another era is not fair, because Ewing and the like simply were not there. How can Mikan be held to a standard that didn't exist. If I were him and you ranked me that way, I'd be effing pissed.

2) MOST IMPORTANT NON-INTEGRATION PIONEER - Excluding the leagues first stars, is a giant freaking mystery. Why make a list like this if you don't care about the history. With that thought in mind, Mikan is a uber-pioneer, without him it's quite possible none of us would be here. The NBA changes mightily, the shot clock and goal-tending are delayed, not to mention the stars he brought in because of the extra money they'd be paid.

3) CLEAR BEST PLAYER OF HIS ERA - That can only be said about three fellas in all, Kareem, Michael Jordan is the original tall. Russell had Wilt, Shaq had Duncan, even Snoopy's Red Baron had to out-do their great pumpkin. Mikan distinguished himself to a whole other degree. The best player in the game from '47 to '53. Who cares what you think about Ewing being more suited for glory. He had his chance and failed, Mikan won, end of story.

There are three reasons which you can not oppose without making up numbers and disrespecting those, who came long before and watched the damn era, not on some black and white feed, but instead they were there-ah. Where is Schayes, were is Cousy, where are Davies and Fulks. How bout' Johnston and Arizin and Zaslofsky and Stokes. Shall we ignore Pollard and his dunks from the free throw line and Mikkelsen and Martin and Yardley! well fine.

Now certainly they don't all belong in the top 50, but four or five do and guess is they'll all get the zippy. I'm sure once again though it'll fall on deaf ears, but you can only fairly judge a player by what they did against their peers.

The idea of context, which I can appreciate, is fine to give your opinion, but doesn't carry much weight.
It's wholly subjective, I can combat it with a "No Way." That's the end of your argument, what else can you say?
I'll go back to it a third because I can't believe what I read, Mikan not clearly better are you out of your head?
One guy made one all-NBA first team, the other guy owned the spot annually.
One guy never won a title, but choked one away, the other guy won seven that would have been eight (if he didn't break his leg and only average 20+ on it)
One guy was the best at what he did for his the time, the other was third at best, that was an easy rhyme.
Now sure the center position was deeper when Pat and them were being seen. But I'm pretty sure none of them own a time machine.
So Mikan was okay, but what if he faced them? Who is to say he not raise his game and totally disgrace them?
The point is we don't know and we won't ever either. If you want to talk make believe, go to a theater.

In 50 years time when the standards are changed, when new stats exist and few current remain. When guys like Malone and Nash are forgotten and some young guys make a list without them, won't you feel rotten. The point of this undertaking is to tell a historical story through the sharing of players who achieved great glory. Ignore facts for opinions and you'll surely be defeated. Fail to study history and you're doomed to repeat it.

Let's also note that we've already had 3 players from the 50s voted in and in Mikan a 4th player that would have made it. It's not so distorted as you think.

WOW THREE!!!!!!!

BTW since one or two years counts as being a player of that decade dude
you've also voted in seven players from the 2010's...oops!

[ElGee]

Consider, however, the following:

(1) Being a "winner" has nothing to do with this project. Literally, the point is to separate individual performance from team-related results.

(2) Pioneers have nothing to do with how good someone was at basketball. It's up to each poster to decide how much credit, if any, they give to that. But again, this list isn't a list of "importance." If it is, James Naismith would be on it. Or Danny Biasone.

(3) Being the "clear" best player of the era is both irrelevant (it's dependent on competition) and subjective...as I consider Russell clearly the best player of the 1960s, yet you don't.

Furthermore, perhaps you are unaware, but the project managers declared we were starting at the shot clock. So Mikan's career is pinched off, and some of Cousy's as well...everything starts in 1955. I understand the disappointment in that to some, but I had no problem starting **somewhere** since we weren't going to start in 1891 and basketball, as we know it, really only took shape after the inception of the clock (early games often featured "passing exhibitions" with spurts of surprise attacks for shots...not to mention the racial issues and different rules like goaltending).

(4) Since we are only using part of the 50s, having 3 players in already is representative. Especially when you consider the POOL of individuals we are choosing from:

1957-1966 119 players logged 200 games
1967-1976 229 players (368 if we include the ABA) - how's that for rapid expansion?
1977-1986 356 players
1987-1996 417 players
1997-2006 450 players

Or by percentage, the first decade has 7.5% of the pool, the second 14.6%, the third 22.6%, the fourth 26.5% and that last chunk 28.6%. Which means if we picked our top players proportionally from those groups, the first decade would make up about 4 players for every 50 we chose. We already have more than that!

[Laimbeer]

Furthermore, perhaps you are unaware, but the project managers declared we were starting at the shot clock. So Mikan's career is pinched off, and some of Cousy's as well...everything starts in 1955.

Interesting point about Cousy's career being cut in half. I had assumed a player was all in or all out, didn't think of it that way...

[Lever2Beaver]

Consider, however, the following:

(1) Being a "winner" has nothing to do with this project. Literally, the point is to separate individual performance from team-related results.

(2) Pioneers have nothing to do with how good someone was at basketball. It's up to each poster to decide how much credit, if any, they give to that. But again, this list isn't a list of "importance." If it is, James Naismith would be on it. Or Danny Biasone.

(3) Being the "clear" best player of the era is both irrelevant (it's dependent on competition) and subjective...as I consider Russell clearly the best player of the 1960s, yet you don't.

You poor, poor misguided sole, if this were a woman you'd have picked the wrong hole
There is no separation between individual and team, the game as played to determine who best blends those things
As for pioneers, its supposed to reflect history, what Biasone or Naismith have to do with playing is a mystery
I do consider the Russell the best player of the 60's, but unlike you I don't ignore that other people might dismiss me.
There is an argument for Wilt, any fool can see it, it's not up to me or up to you to agree or disagree it.
Whereas with Kareem and with MJ and Mikan most of all, there is no one who can contend, it matters most of all.
You can beat who you play, anything else is pure conjecture, being the best amongst your peers is the single most accurate measure
Your priorities are out of whack, or so is my assertion, I find the idea of Nash ahead of Isiah a freakish perversion
One guy is winner, as an individual trait, the other must destroy a team's chances to be individually great
Now you can oppose my opinion, but neither is more valid, the proof and pudding is on my side, your left with soup and salad
I had those opinions of those two before there careers were half done, watching time prove my right was really quite fun
Now you chalk that up as coincidence or just call it luck, but that sounds like sour grapes to me and i don't give a funk

[Laimbeer]

(4) Since we are only using part of the 50s, having 3 players in already is representative. Especially when you consider the POOL of individuals we are choosing from:

1957-1966 119 players logged 200 games
1967-1976 229 players (368 if we include the ABA) - how's that for rapid expansion?
1977-1986 356 players
1987-1996 417 players
1997-2006 450 players

Or by percentage, the first decade has 7.5% of the pool, the second 14.6%, the third 22.6%, the fourth 26.5% and that last chunk 28.6%. Which means if we picked our top players proportionally from those groups, the first decade would make up about 4 players for every 50 we chose. We already have more than that!

Not sure I agree. First, the three players are basically stradling the line of 1966-67. Also, does a greater number of teams mean there are more worthy players? If the NBA expanded to 50+ teams for the upcoming decade, would it produce twice as many players of GOAT calibre?

[Fencer reregistered]

I just remembered something that could be a major wrinkle on efficiency considerations for the old days -- centers at times would literally hang back to protect against fast breaks. Chamberlain was quoted in one of the articles posted in an earlier thread saying he did that in LA, for example. I also recall Walton doing it in college in a US vs. USSR game.

That could affect offense efficiency considerations, in numerous ways. First, if your own center is hanging back, your offense will naturally be less potent. Second, if your opponent's center is hanging back, your offense may also be less potent for that reason. Third, if your opponent's center decides whether or not to hang back depending upon whether he fears your fast break, then running the break aggressively -- even if it does little for your offensive numbers -- could help your DEFENSIVE stats by taking the opposing center part way out of the offense.

A relevant thing to consider. Boston was certainly putting well over 50% of their energy into defense. In terms of the evidence though of whether Cousy was really providing big lift to the team, it's orthogonal to the task at hand.

I don't see why it's orthogonal at all.

Boston scored the most points in the league, for many years, and was top 3 all the way to the end of Cousy's career. Boston also was the best team in the league. If we stopped the analysis there, it would seem that Boston probably had one of the best offenses.

Yet you say that Boston had the WORST offense in the league. I'm suggesting that your assessment of the quality of Boston's offense might be rather off the mark.

[therealbig3]

I don't really understand the basis for giving brownie points to people who were "pioneers", or to whoever came first. Jordan came after Dr. J, and followed him as the flashy, uber-athletic swingman...but nobody ranks Dr. J over Jordan, and they shouldn't...Jordan was simply better, even though he might not have been as great if Dr. J didn't come before him.

GilmoreFan wasn't the most liked poster here, but he did say something before, concerning "pioneers", which I think made a lot of sense:

Bumping Cousy over modern day PGs that do the job better is like saying the cavemen who invented the wheel or discovered fire were smarter than NASA scientists today, because they were bigger pioneers in their time, and since a lot of scientific information we have today was based off the most basic discoveries that cavemen made, the cavemen should be considered smarter, or better scientists.

Using Nash as an example, Cousy would be the caveman, while Nash would be the NASA scientist. Cousy may have defined the way that PGs should play, and he may have set the standard...but Nash blows the standard away. A lot of PGs since Cousy have blown the standard away.

[penbeast0]

I just remembered something that could be a major wrinkle on efficiency considerations for the old days -- centers at times would literally hang back to protect against fast breaks. Chamberlain was quoted in one of the articles posted in an earlier thread saying he did that in LA, for example. I also recall Walton doing it in college in a US vs. USSR game.

That could affect offense efficiency considerations, in numerous ways. First, if your own center is hanging back, your offense will naturally be less potent. Second, if your opponent's center is hanging back, your offense may also be less potent for that reason. Third, if your opponent's center decides whether or not to hang back depending upon whether he fears your fast break, then running the break aggressively -- even if it does little for your offensive numbers -- could help your DEFENSIVE stats by taking the opposing center part way out of the offense.

A relevant thing to consider. Boston was certainly putting well over 50% of their energy into defense. In terms of the evidence though of whether Cousy was really providing big lift to the team, it's orthogonal to the task at hand.

I don't see why it's orthogonal at all.

Boston scored the most points in the league, for many years, and was top 3 all the way to the end of Cousy's career. Boston also was the best team in the league. If we stopped the analysis there, it would seem that Boston probably had one of the best offenses.

Yet you say that Boston had the WORST offense in the league. I'm suggesting that your assessment of the quality of Boston's offense might be rather off the mark.

(a) If certain players for Boston were putting over 50% of their effort into defense and STILL looked as bad defensively as Cousy, Heinsohn, and Bailey Howell frequently did . . . they should have been replaced. (they did have defensive specialists like Jungle Jim Lotscutoff, Satch Sanders, and KC Jones plus Havlicek and by far the most important Bill Russell who did put constant effort into defense (not sure Havlicek didn't expend equal effort both ways, he just had silly stamina). Maybe you are saying Russell alone counted for more than 50% of Boston's SRS over average and he put more effort into defense which is accurate at least.

(b)You are using raw points (ie. pace) for offensive rating, Doctor MJ is using efficiency (points per 100 possessions I think)
-- so it's not surprising you come out with 2 different, even wildly different results.

(c) And centers hung back only when the rest of the team was running. When it moved into the half court offense, a center who had started the break finished coming up court (frequently walking up) and set up in the post with the PG or SG having primary responsiblity for defending fast breaks while the big men crashed the defensive boards.

[ElGee]

Consider, however, the following:

(1) Being a "winner" has nothing to do with this project. Literally, the point is to separate individual performance from team-related results.

(2) Pioneers have nothing to do with how good someone was at basketball. It's up to each poster to decide how much credit, if any, they give to that. But again, this list isn't a list of "importance." If it is, James Naismith would be on it. Or Danny Biasone.

(3) Being the "clear" best player of the era is both irrelevant (it's dependent on competition) and subjective...as I consider Russell clearly the best player of the 1960s, yet you don't.

You poor, poor misguided sole, if this were a woman you'd have picked the wrong hole
There is no separation between individual and team, the game as played to determine who best blends those things
As for pioneers, its supposed to reflect history, what Biasone or Naismith have to do with playing is a mystery
I do consider the Russell the best player of the 60's, but unlike you I don't ignore that other people might dismiss me.
There is an argument for Wilt, any fool can see it, it's not up to me or up to you to agree or disagree it.
Whereas with Kareem and with MJ and Mikan most of all, there is no one who can contend, it matters most of all.
You can beat who you play, anything else is pure conjecture, being the best amongst your peers is the single most accurate measure
Your priorities are out of whack, or so is my assertion, I find the idea of Nash ahead of Isiah a freakish perversion
One guy is winner, as an individual trait, the other must destroy a team's chances to be individually great
Now you can oppose my opinion, but neither is more valid, the proof and pudding is on my side, your left with soup and salad
I had those opinions of those two before there careers were half done, watching time prove my right was really quite fun
Now you chalk that up as coincidence or just call it luck, but that sounds like sour grapes to me and i don't give a funk

Try speaking in English for god's sakes. And I've written thousands of words on "winners" and other misguided concepts. If you want to judge players based on what team won a game, go ahead. But that's not what we're doing here. At this point, it's like arguing with people who insist the gambler's fallacy is correct or evolution is made up. Really, what more can you say?

PS There is no wrong hole.

[Dr Positivity]

I don't really understand the basis for giving brownie points to people who were "pioneers", or to whoever came first. Jordan came after Dr. J, and followed him as the flashy, uber-athletic swingman...but nobody ranks Dr. J over Jordan, and they shouldn't...Jordan was simply better, even though he might not have been as great if Dr. J didn't come before him.

GilmoreFan wasn't the most liked poster here, but he did say something before, concerning "pioneers", which I think made a lot of sense:

Bumping Cousy over modern day PGs that do the job better is like saying the cavemen who invented the wheel or discovered fire were smarter than NASA scientists today, because they were bigger pioneers in their time, and since a lot of scientific information we have today was based off the most basic discoveries that cavemen made, the cavemen should be considered smarter, or better scientists.

Using Nash as an example, Cousy would be the caveman, while Nash would be the NASA scientist. Cousy may have defined the way that PGs should play, and he may have set the standard...but Nash blows the standard away. A lot of PGs since Cousy have blown the standard away.

Yeah.

I would even go as far to bring Dwight Howard into it. Dwight is often considered #2 of
his generation... while Patrick Ewing 15-20 years ago had a hard time cracking the top 5
for most people. But that's because Dwight is by far the best C in the league, he's like
a grand canyon away from Bogut or whatever, while Ewing was actually behind Hakeem,
Robinson and eventually Shaq. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Cousy
was the revolutionary PG in the land of the blind. But that doesn't make him better than
his contemporaries or future PGs, just more rare. Dr MJ has provided a handful of reasons
showing that Cousy may have not had much of an impact at all due to shooting that badly -
I don't know if I had him over like, Terry Porter and Tony Parker, to be honest

I'd also need to be seriously convinced of why Bob Cousy is better than Paul Arizin and
Dolph Schayes. Arizin in particular is a 25ppg+ peak player at one of the best
efficiencies in the league because he gets to the FT line so much + spreads the floor +
rebounds well. He gets top 3 MVP credit and is probably the best player on a title team
considering Neil Johnson looks like Adrian Dantley in impact the rest of his career.
Schayes similarly is a 22/14 on top 10 efficiency guy, wins a title post shot clock and
gets top 5 credit. Both Arizin and Schayes put up better PER and WS numbers than Cousy at
12 WS+ in 70 G seasons which looks good compared to everyone else on the board. Arizin and Schayes were also 'winners' - and if they played with Bill Russell, I don't think they'd have lost during their post shot clock careers either

Now I'm not ready to nominate either because I don't know if they'd translate, but I'd
nominate them before Cousy.

[Lever2Beaver]

Now I'm not ready to nominate either because I don't know if they'd translate, but I'd nominate them before Cousy.

Since you admit you don't
would it not be wise
to ask someone who does
or at least might...

[Lever2Beaver]

...

The next point you make will be the first
when that finally happens, I'll break from my verse

[Wone]

Consider, however, the following:

(1) Being a "winner" has nothing to do with this project. Literally, the point is to separate individual performance from team-related results.

(2) Pioneers have nothing to do with how good someone was at basketball. It's up to each poster to decide how much credit, if any, they give to that. But again, this list isn't a list of "importance." If it is, James Naismith would be on it. Or Danny Biasone.

(3) Being the "clear" best player of the era is both irrelevant (it's dependent on competition) and subjective...as I consider Russell clearly the best player of the 1960s, yet you don't.

You poor, poor misguided sole, if this were a woman you'd have picked the wrong hole
There is no separation between individual and team, the game as played to determine who best blends those things
As for pioneers, its supposed to reflect history, what Biasone or Naismith have to do with playing is a mystery
I do consider the Russell the best player of the 60's, but unlike you I don't ignore that other people might dismiss me.
There is an argument for Wilt, any fool can see it, it's not up to me or up to you to agree or disagree it.
Whereas with Kareem and with MJ and Mikan most of all, there is no one who can contend, it matters most of all.
You can beat who you play, anything else is pure conjecture, being the best amongst your peers is the single most accurate measure
Your priorities are out of whack, or so is my assertion, I find the idea of Nash ahead of Isiah a freakish perversion
One guy is winner, as an individual trait, the other must destroy a team's chances to be individually great
Now you can oppose my opinion, but neither is more valid, the proof and pudding is on my side, your left with soup and salad
I had those opinions of those two before there careers were half done, watching time prove my right was really quite fun
Now you chalk that up as coincidence or just call it luck, but that sounds like sour grapes to me and i don't give a funk

You sir are GOAT. Greatest sthick I've ever seen.

[Fencer reregistered]

I don't really understand the basis for giving brownie points to people who were "pioneers", or to whoever came first. Jordan came after Dr. J, and followed him as the flashy, uber-athletic swingman...but nobody ranks Dr. J over Jordan, and they shouldn't...Jordan was simply better, even though he might not have been as great if Dr. J didn't come before him.

GilmoreFan wasn't the most liked poster here, but he did say something before, concerning "pioneers", which I think made a lot of sense:

Bumping Cousy over modern day PGs that do the job better is like saying the cavemen who invented the wheel or discovered fire were smarter than NASA scientists today, because they were bigger pioneers in their time, and since a lot of scientific information we have today was based off the most basic discoveries that cavemen made, the cavemen should be considered smarter, or better scientists.

Using Nash as an example, Cousy would be the caveman, while Nash would be the NASA scientist. Cousy may have defined the way that PGs should play, and he may have set the standard...but Nash blows the standard away. A lot of PGs since Cousy have blown the standard away.

I rank Newton as a greater physicist than anybody working today, even though he made lots of errors, and even though I was better at physics than he ever was before I dropped out of my physics major. He in turn wrote "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."*

*Approximate wording. Newton didn't actually originate the quote, which makes it all the more apropos.

And it says at the beginning of every thread that we're out to decide who was the "greatest" player, by standards that are not strictly confined to "who would be better if he stepped into a time machine and started playing today."

[Fencer reregistered]

Criteria: Take into account both peak and career play, era dominance, impact on the game of basketball, and how well their style of play and skills would transcend onto different eras. To be more exact, how great they were at playing the game of basketball.

I'm a little tired of being told that we should disregard much of that. If it had read

Take into account both peak and career play, and how well their style of play and skills would transcend onto different eras. To be more exact, how good they were at playing the game of basketball.

I might not have participated in the project, and would be voting differently if I had still joined.

[ElGee]

So you are interpreting impact on the game of basketball as setting trends? I literally haven't thought about this in the process at all...it seems totally unrelated to the spirit of the project.

If that's what we're supposed to be doing, then I have some reservations about why Cousy gets so much love for dribbling behind the back, but not Jason Williams for passing with his elbow. Or Gus Johnson for really being the first high-flyer. Or Kareem for his sky hook? (Or does that trace to Mikan? Or Mikan's teacher? Or does anyone use the sky hook?)

See where I'm going with this...

[Doctor MJ]

Furthermore, perhaps you are unaware, but the project managers declared we were starting at the shot clock. So Mikan's career is pinched off, and some of Cousy's as well...everything starts in 1955.

Interesting point about Cousy's career being cut in half. I had assumed a player was all in or all out, didn't think of it that way...

I as well assume we're doing the all or nothing thing.

[Fencer reregistered]

So you are interpreting impact on the game of basketball as setting trends? I literally haven't thought about this in the process at all...it seems totally unrelated to the spirit of the project.

If that's what we're supposed to be doing, then I have some reservations about why Cousy gets so much love for dribbling behind the back, but not Jason Williams for passing with his elbow. Or Gus Johnson for really being the first high-flyer. Or Kareem for his sky hook? (Or does that trace to Mikan? Or Mikan's teacher? Or does anyone use the sky hook?)

See where I'm going with this...

Not to a very logical place.

Cousy innovated a fast break offense. That's big. Mikan innovated post scoring. That's big. Russell innovated defense that assumes a mobile shotblocker. That's big. Baylor, Erving, and Jordan together innovated an effective high-flying game, but no one of them did as much as the three guys I named before them.

Kareem's skyhook has actually been rarely copied. So that's not big. Elbow passing is smaller yet.

And yes, I count as an "innovator" somebody who figured out how to repeatedly use something as a major weapon, even over somebody who earlier had a glimmer of the idea.