RealGM Top 100 List #98

[penbeast0]

Hagan- Love his massively forgotten, monster '58 playoffs (and playoff metrics generally strong, particularly through his best years). Gut instinct is to want to have him in the top 100, I guess maybe longevity, era and maybe overshadowed "2nd banana" status don't help.

I also think that Hagan belongs on the top 100 list, and I think his "second banana" status absolutely shouldn't hurt him. However, I'm wondering - why did his minutes go down by such a significant margin after the '61-'62 season? Injury problems, perhaps?
This is the only thing that prevented me from taking Hagan over Sharman. I think that peak/prime Hagan was better than peak/prime Sharman. Better all-around player, very comparable scorer (much worse shooter, but much better inside scorer), pretty efficient for his era, and a very good playoff performer.

To be absolutely clear I don't think the "second banana" status should hurt him but I suspect it does (for instance in that his '58 playoffs is forgotten but Pettit's 50 points in the final game isn't. Though other factors possibly leading to it being forgotten may include (a) that specific playoff performances, e.g. moments, games rather than consistency are often celebrated and (b) lionization of playoff "greatness" has tended to come only after the NBA media boom). Era and longevity are more legit though obviously people will weigh them differently.

Versus Sharman I would note Sharman was a noted defender whereas Hagan wasn't (not to say he was bad, as with many older players, it's hard to tell with any degree of accuracy, he says he didn't necessarily have a reputation but tended to guard the best forward).

I've located my book on the Hawks from that time (Full Court) and there isn't an obvious reason for Hagan's minutes slip that I can see by scanning through it. It mentions his ppg dropping but credits that with from the guard positions (Wilkens, Barnhill and Vaughn named, and then Beaty mentioned too). It mentions in injury for the final 3 games of the conference finals, but that suggests one suffered (maybe reaggrivated?) during the playoffs. Looking at that team that year maybe Gallatin liked having a lot of players in the rotation (many between 15m and 24m). In all honesty I don't know.

[Post edited to remove typo (accidental double negative)]

Actually, Hagan's defensive rep was pretty decent, if I remember right, in a Jim Loscutoff light kind of way. Hagan was a complete gentleman off the court but a major thug on it; some pretty funny stuff about it in Loose Balls when Hagan made a comeback as a P/C in the ABA.

[Owly]

Okay, well it looks like I should vote.

Vote: Walt Bellamy

Put up monsterous numbers for 3-4 years. And yes on crummy team, but he kept an expansion team with otherwise limited talent afloat (solid team shooting % and Orating by their second year, and Dischinger helped but Bellamy appears to have been the main man).

Like I said, doesn't seem to generate massive respect, and can't have been as good as his boxscore, but at some point you've got to ask how bad could his D have been.

The hit he takes for NY improving without him is probably a bit harsh because imo, otoh, the Knicks' flowering was about fit and players playing their proper positions (though one can ask questions as to whether Bellamy's value holds up as much on better teams).


Re: Hagan yeah I seem to recall that now you mention it, though I think I'd stand by my point albeit it wasn't greatly expressed (i.e. Sharman seems to be noted for his D, it's a big thing about him, and this isn't, I don't think, the case for Hagan). I guess there was some aspect of recency bias in that I'd just read Hagan saying he didn't have a rep as a defender. I was just going to look at my spreadsheet based on the Robert Kalich Basketball Rating Handbook for how he rated Hagan's D, but I can't seem to find it.

Edit: Just after posting I find it. It gives Hagan a 6 (out of 10) on D, nothing special for a star, but then it gives Sharman the same grade. I wouldn't necessarily give it great credence, but it is interesting.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Joe Dumars

Yeah I just have to go with Joe here. You have to be something huge for me to be impressed with a big man volume scoring and nothing else, and Dumars is a hell of a 2-way player.

[RSCD3_]

Vote joe Dumars

Good offensive player
Very good/great defensive guard
Pretty good longevity
Excellent teammate

[trex_8063]

Vote: Joe Dumars

Yeah I just have to go with Joe here. You have to be something huge for me to be impressed with a big man volume scoring and nothing else, and Dumars is a hell of a 2-way player.

Responding to some of the choice of words above.....

1) "....something huge..."
Bellamy was somewhat "huge" imo as a scorer for a certain period of time there. By way of comparison, I'm gonna go on a somewhat wild tangent and look at Reggie Miller. Miller was not bad, but nor was he special defensively. Miller was not bad, but nor was he special as a play-maker for the SG position. Miller was actually somewhat poor as a rebounder for a SG. He got voted in at #40 on basis of his strength as a scorer and his longevity.

Now, if we look at what was probably Miller's best 4-year stretch as a scorer ('90-'93), his Per 100, relative ts% and mpg were as follows:
29.3 pts @ +10.1% rts in 37.3 mpg.

Bellamy played in a time when, due to generally lower shooting efficiency, Pts per 100 possessions ran ~10% or so lower. Nonetheless, his best 4-year stretch as a scorer ('62-'65):
27.3 pts @ +7.5% rts in 41.8 mpg.

Again, adjusted for raw difference in shooting efficiency of the era, 27.3 pts/100 poss then would be roughly similar to 30 pts/100 possessions in the modern era. In short, he doesn't look too terrible far off what Miller was doing in that span. And I don't think it was entirely without effect; by his second season---really with Terry Dischinger being his only relevant help on offense---he spear-headed the 3rd-best (of 9) offense in the league.
One can argue Miller's floor spacing/warping effect, yada yada, and I cannot answer to that. Anyway, just putting that out there. And yes, Miller was a fantastic playoff performer.

Over an ELEVEN-year span (in which Bellamy played essentially a "full schedule" of 891 rs games), he averaged >23 pts per 100 poss @ +6.5% rts in 37.8 mpg.

So anyway......"Something huge" is a vague descriptor; but Bellamy certainly doesn't appear "small" as a scorer.

2) "......and nothing else....."
I don't think that's entirely fair. Over that same 11-year span he averaged 15.5 reb/100 poss in 37.8 mpg. Now I mentioned how the lower shooting efficiency of the time made for generally lower Pts (and Ast) per 100 numbers; it had the converse effect on Reb/100 poss.
But even adjusted for that, his rebound rate is clearly superior to Chris Bosh, Brook or Robin Lopez, and Marc Gasol (to name a few familiar current players), and roughly on par with (probably just slightly superior to, actually) Pau Gasol. Although they played a different position, he was out-rebounding his contemporary Dave DeBusschere by a solid 2.5 Reb/100.
So while that doesn't put him in a tier of "great" rebounding centers, he was very clearly what could be described as an entirely solid rebounder.

3) ".....hell of a 2-way player....."
I suppose so.....maybe. idk......."Hell of a" is another vague descriptor, though it does imply something awfully impressive. But was he (on offensive, I mean)?
I liked Dumars a lot at the time, and he always seemed to have a "well-rounded" offensive game to me. Not necessarily great or elite at anything, but decent at most things (could shoot, pass, dribble/drive reasonably well). But looking at him statistically, he doesn't quite look like a "hell of an" offensive player:

*His peak PER was 18.0. Overall average of his prime was around 16 or so.
*His peak WS/48 was .162. Overall for his prime was around .125.
*His peak offensive year was probably '91???: 27.9 pts, 7.6 ast, 3.2 tov per 100 poss @ +1.8% rts; ORtg +7.1 to league avg in 38.1 mpg. Or maybe '93??: 30.1 pts, 5.1 ast, 2.3 tov per 100 poss @ +1.9% rts; ORtg +10.0 to league avg in 40.2 mpg (meh team though: 40-42 record, 18th of 27 offensively).

Pretty good, just not sure I'd go with "helluva" to describe him offensively.

And one strike on Dumars: he was poor as a rebounder, even for his position. And while his longevity is decent, it clearly takes somewhat of a back-seat to Bellamy imo (particularly considering era standards).

[Moonbeam]

Vote: Joe Dumars

Yeah I just have to go with Joe here. You have to be something huge for me to be impressed with a big man volume scoring and nothing else, and Dumars is a hell of a 2-way player.

Responding to some of the choice of words above.....

1) "....something huge..."
Bellamy was somewhat "huge" imo as a scorer for a certain period of time there. By way of comparison, I'm gonna go on a somewhat wild tangent and look at Reggie Miller. Miller was not bad, but nor was he special defensively. Miller was not bad, but nor was he special as a play-maker for the SG position. Miller was actually somewhat poor as a rebounder for a SG. He got voted in at #40 on basis of his strength as a scorer and his longevity.

Now, if we look at what was probably Miller's best 4-year stretch as a scorer ('90-'93), his Per 100, relative ts% and mpg were as follows:
29.3 pts @ +10.1% rts in 37.3 mpg.

Bellamy played in a time when, due to generally lower shooting efficiency, Pts per 100 possessions ran ~10% or so lower. Nonetheless, his best 4-year stretch as a scorer ('62-'65):
27.3 pts @ +7.5% rts in 41.8 mpg.

Again, adjusted for raw difference in shooting efficiency of the era, 27.3 pts/100 poss then would be roughly similar to 30 pts/100 possessions in the modern era. In short, he doesn't look too terrible far off what Miller was doing in that span. And I don't think it was entirely without effect; by his second season, really with Terry Dischinger being his only relevant help on offense, he spear-headed the 3rd-best (of 9) offense in the league.
One can argue Miller's floor spacing/warping effect, yada yada, and I cannot answer to that. Anyway, just putting that out there. And yes, Miller was a fantastic playoff performer.

Over an ELEVEN-year span (in which Bellamy played essentially a "full schedule" of 891 rs games), he averaged >23 pts per 100 poss @ +6.5% rts in 37.8 mpg.

So anyway......"Something huge" is a vague descriptor; but Bellamy certainly doesn't appear "small" as a scorer.

2) "......and nothing else....."
I don't think that's entirely fair. Over that same 11-year span he averaged 15.5 reb/100 poss in 37.8 mpg. Now I mentioned how the lower shooting efficiency of the time made for generally lower Pts (and Ast) per 100 numbers; it had the converse effect on Reb/100 poss.
But even adjusted for that, his rebound rate is clearly superior to Chris Bosh, Brook or Robin Lopez, and Marc Gasol (to name a few familiar recent current players), and roughly on par with (probably just slightly superior to, actually) Pau Gasol. Although they played a difference position, he was out-rebounding his contemporary Dave DeBusschere by a solid 2.5 Reb/100.
So while that doesn't put him in a tier of "great" rebounding centers, he was very clearly what could be described as an entirely solid rebounder.

3) ".....hell of a 2-way player....."
I suppose so.....maybe. idk......."Hell of a" is another vague descriptor, though it does imply something awfully impressive. But was he (on offensive, I mean)?
I liked Dumars a lot at the time, and he always seemed to have a "well-rounded" offensive game to me. Not necessarily great or elite at anything, but decent at most things (could shoot, pass, dribble/drive reasonably well). But looking at him statistically, he doesn't quite look like a "hell of an" offensive player:

*His peak PER was 18.0. Overall average of his prime was around 16 or so.
*His peak WS/48 was .162. Overall for his prime was around .125.
*His peak offensive year was probably '91???: 27.9 pts, 7.6 ast, 3.2 tov per 100 poss @ +1.8% rts; ORtg +7.1 to league avg in 38.1 mpg. Or maybe '93??: 30.1 pts, 5.1 ast, 2.3 tov per 100 poss @ +1.9% rts; ORtg +10.0 to league avg in 40.2 mpg (meh team though: 40-42 record, 18th of 27 offensively).

Pretty good, just not sure I'd go with "helluva" to describe him offensively.

And one strike on Dumars: he was poor as a rebounder, even for his position. And while his longevity is decent, it clearly takes somewhat of a back-seat to Bellamy imo (particularly considering era standards).

Some great points for Bellamy. He was a big-time scorer, with a career Score+ of 2.505 (44th all-time), a PosScore+ of 2.184 (64th), and a TeamScore+ of 2.228 (33rd). His longevity is enough to give him a Total Score+ of 2349.62, good for 12th all-time.

One thing that's a total mystery with Dumars is how poorly he looks by defensive metrics. For his career, he's at a DWS/48 of 0.0319, which is well below the average of 0.05. Nearly 75% of his career win shares come on offense. He's got a DRating of 110, and a Defensive BPM of -1.7. Things look a little better in the playoffs, but he still appears as sub-average there. For whatever reason, I don't think these metrics are accurately capturing his impact. I'm looking at a way to decompose defensive win shares as I have with offensive ones, but it is proving tougher. Still, there's no way I believe that Dumars was a poor defender, and as such I feel these metrics are likely to underrate him (probably by quite some bit). Dumars was a very, very good defender - clearly the best perimeter defender Detroit had during their years as contenders (1987-1991).

The question in my mind is Dumars' defensive superiority vs. Bellamy's offensive superiority. I don't have as great of a feel for Bellamy's game as I do for Dumars', so I think I should sit this one out as I can't vote with my minimum threshold of confidence.

[Clyde Frazier]

Runoff vote - Joe Dumars

Definitely close for me considering the handful of players I think should get in before Dumars. Would've loved to see a comparison with him, price and hardaway as I don't see much separation between the 3.

Pretty impressed with bellamy's longevity and efficiency for his era. I think Dumars' contribution to those multiple finals / championship runs should be rewarded here, though.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[penbeast0]

Winners are rewarded again as Joe Dumars goes in.