Re: REDOING THE NBA HALL OF FAME (retired in 1990 or earlier)

[Doctor MJ]

Considering Gus Williams? On my first glance he was probably at the back end of my 10.

Hard for me to frame a case for him against this bunch. Is there a particular comparison at the forefront of your mind?

Lucas is the guy from your list I'm lowest on (there's a case against Walton too, but that's a completely different one that I'm sure everyone has already made up their mind on).

And he's getting my vote, but way lower on McAdoo than it sounds like some are.

Sounds like Lucas vs Williams might end up being a major melee. Care to expound?

Thoughts on Marques vs Jamaal? (I realize these one-on-one debates aren't necessary, but I find them helpful.)

[70sFan]

Locks for me:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - king of the class, arguably GOAT
Julius Erving - prince of the draft
Artis Gilmore - one of my favorites, amazing career
George Gervin - one of the best scorers ever with decent team success and long relevant career
Bob McAdoo - elite player at his best, had problems in late 1970s but came back strongly as a bench player in LA

Other choices:

Bobby Jones - ultimate team player, amazing defender and valuable offensive player. I see him as an MVP candidate in his best years.

Bill Walton - I'm not convinced if I should vote for him, but his brief peak was dominant and I believe that we need him in HOF.

Dennis Johnson - I think he's sometimes a bit overrated (at least offensively) but he was huge contributor to Sonics and Celtics, his defense was real too.

Gus Williams - I don't agree that he wasn't that valuable to Sonics. It was clear that Seattle got better offensively when they got him and they became absolutely terrible after his trade in 1984. You can also look at 1981 season, when Sonics played without him they were terrible offensively and missed playoffs.
I view him similary to Isiah Thomas, except he's not as well known and is not overrated by casual fans. He upped his production in playoffs too.

Undecided between Marques and Jamaal for the last vote. I really like what Wilkes gave his teams, he fit any offense with his off-ball movement, smart passing and some self-creation but he wasn't dominant player and he usually underperformed in playoffs. Marques was a legit star in his prime and although his career is short, it's not like his prime lasted three years. Bucks were very strong team and he usually played nicely in playoffs. He wasn't as good off-ball and was worse shooter than Slick, but he was a terror inside, he gave you additional playmkaing and he was a strong defender too (I'm not sure who was better, I view them closely on that end). Right now I'm inclined to pick Marques but I need more opinions here.

I don't vote for Maurice Lucas. He was very good player of course and he deserves praise for his Blazers career and off-court intangibles but I don't like his offensive approach (shot way to much for my taste) and his defense (although very good) isn't up to Hayes to me for example. I'd probably have Lenny Wilkens or Paul Silas over him and I definitely prefer Jamaal.

[70sFan]

Also, I think that people are way too harsh on Sonics team from late 1970s and early 1980s. They were legit title contenders and I disagree that they wouldn't have won in any other era. This team was stacked with talent and well coached. They went to two finals and in 1979 they beat very solid teams in Lakers, Suns and Bullets. Next year they came to WCF and lost to Showtime Lakers. Then they added another two 50 wins seasons and outside of 1981 (they lost Gus and Shelton) they were always relevant in playoffs.

I always felt that these Sonics teams are underappreciated historically. They played beautiful (even if not highly efficient) offense to watch and they defended as well as possible. Sometimes I wonder, how much better Bad Boy Pistons really were than 1978-80 Sonics?

I don't see any reason to view 1970s Blazers as much better. They had brief moment of greatness during Walton's healthy time in 1978 season, but let's not act like they were ATG team in 1977. They were really good of course, but how much better than 1979 Sonics? Probably a bit, but the gap is small and Sonics didn't have anyone as good as Walton.

[Dr Positivity]

With such a stacked pool I’m probably not going to vote for Lucas. His career fell apart obviously after a few years

I think it's really important to note that he becomes an all-star again 6 years after the championship. and he kept playing for another half decade afterward retiring at 35. He's no Kareem of course, but there are lots of guys who careers actually did fall apart after only a few years and never did anything else after that. Lucas isn't that. Quite honestly, I don't know if there's much reason to think he was worse at 30 than he was in his heyday.

My bad, for some reason I thought he got derailed by off court issues in the 80s, but I can’t find much (maybe someone mentioned the Lucas name and drugs together and I mixed it up). I still think his career after the Blazers is only ok though.

I think maybe the most interesting thing about the late '70s Sonics is that we know exactly what made them go from bad to good and when it happened:

Lenny Wilkens took over as coach midseason, promoted Dennis Johnson and Jack Sikma, and the team went from a 5-17 team to one that almost won the championship that exact year, and did win it the next year with Johnson & Sikma as the 2 big minute guys. Gus Williams was a new arrival this year but had been featured from the beginning of the season. He was a major part of that much-worse-than-the-previous-year that resulted in the coaching change.

I’m not sure holding the team’s 5-17 start against Gus because he was playing more minutes is totally fair. There may be a reason why this Bob Hopkins guy’s head coaching career lasted 22 games and was playing Johnson and Sikma like 10 minutes a game at the start of the year (Wtf?). Gus holdout year also looks favourable for him as they went from 56 W to 34 wins (DJ for Westphal trade as well) and then back to 52. They also got worse when he left the second time (42 wins to 31 with a really bad point differential)

There's also the matter that the Sonics were winning with defense, and basically all of the major Sonics are showered with defensive praise except Williams - with DJ of course getting tons of a defensive adulation. Williams role was to be the scorer. He did so with an efficiency that left a lot to be desired.

While this is true, you still need to score enough to win, and a player who put up 27ppg in the playoffs and 29ppg in the finals and was an elite speed guy breaking down the defense was going to be valuable for them. His efficiency is fine in my opinion, starting in 79 he was more efficient than DJ and Sikma.

From 78-80 they get progressive better on offense, and it would make sense to me if Gus value compare to DJ and Sikma increases. By 78 I would probably go with the latter 2, but by 80 he is starting to have a pretty big gap in stats like WS and BPM and is putting up the 22ppg, and the team is more offensively minded than before (8th offense, 3rd defense). DJ and him have about the same accolades with 2nd team All-NBA and a few fractional MVP votes good for 5th/7th. 79 is probably somewhere in the middle but he does well in the playoffs. It’s also possible that the 1980 Sonics team is actually the best team, they just ran into the Lakers. I’m definitely unconvinced the 78 team is any more impressive than them.

Back to Lucas being the #2 on the Blazers: I don't think it's crazy to argue that someone else had the 2nd most on-court value of the Blazers, but aside from the off-court value, what is clear is that the Blazers won the title relying primarily on Walton & Lucas. Lucas played the most in the regular season by a significant margin, and his MPG only went up in the playoffs (where Walton's MPG went way up and surpassed him).

My only issue with Lucas is that if you look at the way the Blazers succeeded which was passing and off the ball IQ, I would say the guy who took the most shots on the team on a mediocre % while being one of the worst passers of the rotation guys, probably had less to do with creating that style of play than other players. I suggested Gross may have a shot to be more valuable because a wing secondary playmaker who plays defense and seems to be one of those always in the right spots glue guy reputations, seems like it would be one of the things that makes that team what it was (Walton’s very Walton like article about him https://www.espn.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=walton_bill&id=3782004). Then again in accolades it wasn’t very close so it may be a reach, and Lucas is good on defense and two and makes 2 All-D teams. I’m not sure if being the #1 intimidating physicality guy in the league guarantees you’re a good defender and I wouldn’t be surprised if some voters caped for that alone, but I don’t have enough reason to doubt it either. I will also add that Lucas did had good stats in the Blazers 77 run in both passing and TS%.

[eminence]

Hard for me to frame a case for him against this bunch. Is there a particular comparison at the forefront of your mind?

Lucas is the guy from your list I'm lowest on (there's a case against Walton too, but that's a completely different one that I'm sure everyone has already made up their mind on).

And he's getting my vote, but way lower on McAdoo than it sounds like some are.

Sounds like Lucas vs Williams might end up being a major melee. Care to expound?

Thoughts on Marques vs Jamaal? (I realize these one-on-one debates aren't necessary, but I find them helpful.)

I'll come back to Lucas/Williams tomorrow, I don't have real solid thoughts there right now and it's getting late.

First - Wilkes has his brief run with the Warriors to start that closes this somewhat, but not really discussing it here, a positive for Wilkes to be sure. Johnson had some decent #'s on some bad Clippers squads after leaving the Bucks that don't really measure up.

The basics of it is that I don't see a large enough gap in team success to put the #2-#4 (KAJ and then Magic, arguably Dantley/Nixon at times) guy from those Lakers over the #1/#1B (Moncrief equal later years) from the Bucks. To get in as a #3 sort your team has to absolutely dominate (Martin/Mikkelsen, multiple guys over Russell's Celtics run) and I don't think the early 80's Lakers meet that bar.

Lakers '78-'84
375-199 (2/23)
3.85 SRS (2/23)
108.3 Ortg (2/23)
104.2 Drtg (10/23)

Bucks '78-84
347-227 (5/23)
3.71 SRS (3/23)
106.3 Ortg (6/23)
102.6 Drtg (5/23)

I'm pretty high on KAJ's defense overall, not super high at this point, but still a decent to solid defender in my estimation. If that's correct there's basically no way for KAJ/Wilkes to have teamed up as the #1/#2 minutes guys over that period and led a mediocre defense if Wilkes was any sort of + defender.

[Dutchball97]

I think my main problem with Bobby Jones is that he was never the star on his teams. He was part of 1st seed Denver teams that failed to win a title in 75 and 76. In 1975 he looks like the 3rd guy behind Simpson and Mack, while a year later I'd even say he's the 4th guys behind Simpson, Thompson and Issel. Being the 3rd/4th best on a 1st seed that doesn't win the title isn't much of a HoF case imo. On the legendary 83 Sixers he won 6th man of the year and was 5th in importance to the team behind Malone, Erving, Cheeks and Toney. I guess I'm just not seeing it.

[Dutchball97]

Tentative votes:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Julius Erving
Artil Gilmore
George Gervin
Bill Walton
Bob McAdoo
Dennis Johnson
Spencer Haywood
Marques Johnson
Gus Williams

[70sFan]

I think my main problem with Bobby Jones is that he was never the star on his teams. He was part of 1st seed Denver teams that failed to win a title in 75 and 76. In 1975 he looks like the 3rd guy behind Simpson and Mack, while a year later I'd even say he's the 4th guys behind Simpson, Thompson and Issel. Being the 3rd/4th best on a 1st seed that doesn't win the title isn't much of a HoF case imo. On the legendary 83 Sixers he won 6th man of the year and was 5th in importance to the team behind Malone, Erving, Cheeks and Toney. I guess I'm just not seeing it.

He was at worst 1B to Thompson in 1976-78 period, Issel had no case over him to me. I know he didn't score a lot but he did everything else at very high level. Issel was just a volume scorer who didn't bring much value defensively.

[70sFan]

I'm pretty high on KAJ's defense overall, not super high at this point, but still a decent to solid defender in my estimation. If that's correct there's basically no way for KAJ/Wilkes to have teamed up as the #1/#2 minutes guys over that period and led a mediocre defense if Wilkes was any sort of + defender.

I think that a lot of this have to do with the style Lakers played then. LA relied on fastbreak, they didn't crash the glass and Kareem couldn't handle it alone at this point. They sacrifice a bit of defense to upgrade offense. It also didn't help that Lakers usually didn't have any strong 2nd bigman (even McAdoo wasn't great defensively).

Jamaal wasn't all-timer on that end, but he was very solid based on my observations. Very good man defender, usually was where needed and he generated steal fairly well. I would definitely call him a positive defender, although not sure if better than Marques.

[Dutchball97]

I think my main problem with Bobby Jones is that he was never the star on his teams. He was part of 1st seed Denver teams that failed to win a title in 75 and 76. In 1975 he looks like the 3rd guy behind Simpson and Mack, while a year later I'd even say he's the 4th guys behind Simpson, Thompson and Issel. Being the 3rd/4th best on a 1st seed that doesn't win the title isn't much of a HoF case imo. On the legendary 83 Sixers he won 6th man of the year and was 5th in importance to the team behind Malone, Erving, Cheeks and Toney. I guess I'm just not seeing it.

He was at worst 1B to Thompson in 1976-78 period, Issel had no case over him to me. I know he didn't score a lot but he did everything else at very high level. Issel was just a volume scorer who didn't bring much value defensively.

Jones was an elite defender and well rounded player overall but I'm not sure his impact warrants a HoF selection. Just playing really well for a considerable time isn't enough to me.

[70sFan]

I think my main problem with Bobby Jones is that he was never the star on his teams. He was part of 1st seed Denver teams that failed to win a title in 75 and 76. In 1975 he looks like the 3rd guy behind Simpson and Mack, while a year later I'd even say he's the 4th guys behind Simpson, Thompson and Issel. Being the 3rd/4th best on a 1st seed that doesn't win the title isn't much of a HoF case imo. On the legendary 83 Sixers he won 6th man of the year and was 5th in importance to the team behind Malone, Erving, Cheeks and Toney. I guess I'm just not seeing it.

He was at worst 1B to Thompson in 1976-78 period, Issel had no case over him to me. I know he didn't score a lot but he did everything else at very high level. Issel was just a volume scorer who didn't bring much value defensively.

Jones was an elite defender and well rounded player overall but I'm not sure his impact warrants a HoF selection. Just playing really well for a considerable time isn't enough to me.

I understand your concerns, but then again - you voted for Dennis Johnson and what makes him a better candidate? He wasn't the star of his teams either and he just played very well for some (a bit longer than Jones) time. His strength (defense) is also considerably weaker when you compare it to Jones.

[Dutchball97]

He was at worst 1B to Thompson in 1976-78 period, Issel had no case over him to me. I know he didn't score a lot but he did everything else at very high level. Issel was just a volume scorer who didn't bring much value defensively.

Jones was an elite defender and well rounded player overall but I'm not sure his impact warrants a HoF selection. Just playing really well for a considerable time isn't enough to me.

I understand your concerns, but then again - you voted for Dennis Johnson and what makes him a better candidate? He wasn't the star of his teams either and he just played very well for some (a bit longer than Jones) time. His strength (defense) is also considerably weaker when you compare it to Jones.

That's definitely a fair comparison to make. I view DJ's time with the Celtics in a similar light as Bobby Jones with the 76ers. Both were All-Star level players who were valuable pieces in championship runs. What creates the adavantage for Dennis Johnson in my eyes is the 1979 Finals MVP. I definitely think it was a deserved award as well. Being the best player on a championship team is worth a lot in my eyes. I went back to look at Bobby Jones' ABA years but them not winning after having the best record two years in a row, while playing on a team with multiple stars feels kind of disappointing.

[70sFan]

Jones was an elite defender and well rounded player overall but I'm not sure his impact warrants a HoF selection. Just playing really well for a considerable time isn't enough to me.

I understand your concerns, but then again - you voted for Dennis Johnson and what makes him a better candidate? He wasn't the star of his teams either and he just played very well for some (a bit longer than Jones) time. His strength (defense) is also considerably weaker when you compare it to Jones.

That's definitely a fair comparison to make. I view DJ's time with the Celtics in a similar light as Bobby Jones with the 76ers. Both were All-Star level players who were valuable pieces in championship runs. What creates the adavantage for Dennis Johnson in my eyes is the 1979 Finals MVP. I definitely think it was a deserved award as well. Being the best player on a championship team is worth a lot in my eyes. I went back to look at Bobby Jones' ABA years but them not winning after having the best record two years in a row, while playing on a team with multiple stars feels kind of disappointing.

Fair enough, although it's far from clear that Johnson was the best player on 1979 Sonics team. I need to rewatch the finals (and I will, as I'm working on Unseld tribute video) but I don't remember him being clearly the best. Sonics team was a lot like 2004 Pistons - they didn't have clear leader. Gus and Sikma were fantastic in the finals too and always-underrated John Johnson was phenomenal (arguably the best series of his career).

[penbeast0]

First thing that pops out to me is that I'm going to need some convincing on Bobby Jones. So far people seem to mention him among their locks but right now he's on the outside looking in for me.

The top 6 of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Julius Erving, George Gervin, Artil Gilmore, Bill Walton and Bob McAdoo seem pretty far ahead of everyone else but after that there are quite a few options for the last 4 spots.

Right now I'd round out my list with Spencer Haywood, Dennis Johnson, Marques Johnson and Gus Williams but that leaves Bobby Jones out. I'll be listening to arguments for him to make it and decide from there if I should include him after all.

The case for Bobby Jones starts with the fact that he has more 1st team All-Defense awards than anyone in history with 10 (including two in the last two years of the ABA). That's in a 12 year career. Add to that the he was an extremely efficient, if not high volume, offensive player leading the league in fg% 3 times without relying on a post up game (his game was more short midrange runners and step back jumpers) and with very good passing and off ball movement. His career ts% is over .600. One of the smartest and cleanest players to ever play, unlike many great defenders, even his opponents had good things to say about him. He was versatile as well, playing everywhere from 5 (mainly in Denver) to 2 (he and Erving frequently played on the wings together with Jones guarding the more dangerous opponent). One of the few players to ever average 2 steals and 2 blocks a season. Considered the ultimate glue man in NBA history by many.

The case against him is that his counting stats (points and rebounds) are weak compared to his competition here. Even per minute, his scoring and rebounding were not prolific though not terrible. He suffered from asthma and never played 35 minutes a game, moving to 6th man when asked by his coach (though he had more minutes than the starter for some years anyway). So, if you vote for Jones, you are voting for a 3rd/4th option type who played great team defense over several guys who were #1/#2 scorers (or over a Maurice Lucas type).

[Dutchball97]

First thing that pops out to me is that I'm going to need some convincing on Bobby Jones. So far people seem to mention him among their locks but right now he's on the outside looking in for me.

The top 6 of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Julius Erving, George Gervin, Artil Gilmore, Bill Walton and Bob McAdoo seem pretty far ahead of everyone else but after that there are quite a few options for the last 4 spots.

Right now I'd round out my list with Spencer Haywood, Dennis Johnson, Marques Johnson and Gus Williams but that leaves Bobby Jones out. I'll be listening to arguments for him to make it and decide from there if I should include him after all.

The case for Bobby Jones starts with the fact that he has more 1st team All-Defense awards than anyone in history with 10 (including two in the last two years of the ABA). That's in a 12 year career. Add to that the he was an extremely efficient, if not high volume, offensive player leading the league in fg% 3 times without relying on a post up game (his game was more short midrange runners and step back jumpers) and with very good passing and off ball movement. His career ts% is over .600. One of the smartest and cleanest players to ever play, unlike many great defenders, even his opponents had good things to say about him. He was versatile as well, playing everywhere from 5 (mainly in Denver) to 2 (he and Erving frequently played on the wings together with Jones guarding the more dangerous opponent). One of the few players to ever average 2 steals and 2 blocks a season. Considered the ultimate glue man in NBA history by many.

The case against him is that his counting stats (points and rebounds) are weak compared to his competition here. Even per minute, his scoring and rebounding were not prolific though not terrible. He suffered from asthma and never played 35 minutes a game, moving to 6th man when asked by his coach (though he had more minutes than the starter for some years anyway). So, if you vote for Jones, you are voting for a 3rd/4th option type who played great team defense over several guys who were #1/#2 scorers (or over a Maurice Lucas type).

It's between Gus Williams and Bobby Jones right now for the 10th spot. Jones was overall more accomplished and arguably more important overall but Williams peaked higher and was an important part of a championship himself. The main thing still working against Jones for me is that he was only part of 1 title run and that was as 6th man on the Dr. J/Moses 76ers. For glue guys you'd like to see a bit more team success. I do wonder how much of the ABA years with Denver was on Jones. Did his teammates underperform in the play-offs or was he not ready yet himself?

[penbeast0]

I think it's more that the whole team overperformed with the jump and switch defense pioneered by Larry Brown leading to great offensive efficiency in the regular season off turnovers then teams playing to avoid those turnovers in the postseason. Julius Erving did have one of his great performances ever against Jones in the 75 finals. Jones is a rookie but it seems that he is still playing very good defense but it just doesn't matter as Erving goes over him, through him, hits from midrange, and basically plays like the greatest player in the world, which that year he was. The next year they swapped out Mack Calvin for David Thompson and the team focused more on Thompson and Ralph Simpson's high flying athleticism and one on one drives for their identity and less on the defense and off ball movement of the previous year (though still very good on both).

[Dr Positivity]

Official votes

Lock
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Julius Erving
Artis Gilmore
George Gervin

Pretty easy:

Bob McAdoo - Offensive monster at his peak when you consider the stats and spacing, and came back as positive for the Lakers

Bill Walton - It would feel wrong to tell the story of the NBA without him, and like McAdoo the late career bench role helps solidify it

Other picks:

Dennis Johnson - Very winning career with 6 finals and 3 titles, and a finals mvp. Has a good argument for the Sonics best guy of that era.

Bobby Jones - one of the best defensive careers and seemingly just a high impact player.

Gus Williams - Major stats in the playoffs and finals in their run, went on to have some solid individual success in the 80s

Lenny Wilkens - Long very solid PG career

I'm not really a fan of Marques case the more I looked at it.

[penbeast0]

I think my main problem with Bobby Jones is that he was never the star on his teams. He was part of 1st seed Denver teams that failed to win a title in 75 and 76. In 1975 he looks like the 3rd guy behind Simpson and Mack, while a year later I'd even say he's the 4th guys behind Simpson, Thompson and Issel. Being the 3rd/4th best on a 1st seed that doesn't win the title isn't much of a HoF case imo. On the legendary 83 Sixers he won 6th man of the year and was 5th in importance to the team behind Malone, Erving, Cheeks and Toney. I guess I'm just not seeing it.

He was the #3 offensive guy in 75, but that team was built around his style of play and around creating offense off of defense. The commentators at the time thought their success was a bit flukey and only Calvin made the All-ABA team. Jones was in my opinion clearly the most valuable overall guy as Calvin was a badly undersized (but high motor) defender and Simpson was probably most inconsistent defensive player on the squad.

Then they lost Calvin and transitioned to being a team where all the attention was focused on David Thompson, one of the most highly hyped rookies of all time even though Simpson made All-ABA 1st team ahead of him! in Simpson's career year. And the performance of the team barely changed (still creating offense off transition and playing a jump and switch defense) staying strong defensively despite adding Issel who was a weak defensive center. Yes, again, he did drop to 4th option offensively but he held that defense together (with some help from Fatty Taylor and Byron Beck) to keep it the best team in the ABA.

Then they lose Simpson and lose very little offensively but are actually the best defense in the NBA despite starting Issel and platooning at PG and the other forward spot (Paul Silas comes in to give another strong interior defender and Calvin comes back as the backup PG to be the offense to Fatty Taylor's defense). I personally give a lot of credit to Larry Brown for a HOF coaching job but you can see him wearing out his welcome the next 3 years as he did so often until he moves on. Still Brown built the defense around Bobby Jones and when they deal Jones for McGinnis, they have one good year left then the wheels fall off.

[penbeast0]

Although we have some tentative lists, we have 3 that indicated they were fully voting (including me). Here are the votes so far:

Kareem Abdul Jabbar (penbeast0, Narigo, Dr Positivity)
Julius Erving (penbeast0, Narigo, Dr Positivity)
George Gervin (penbeast0, Narigo, Dr Positivity)
Artis Gilmore (penbeast0, Narigo, Dr Positivity)
Bob McAdoo (penbeast0, Narigo, Dr Positivity)

Bobby Jones (penbeast0, Narigo, Dr Positivity)
Bill Walton (penbeast0, Narigo, Dr Positivity)

Marques Johnson (penbeast0, Narigo)
Dennis Johnson (penbeast0, Dr Positivity)
Gus Williams (penbeast0, Dr Positivity)
Lenny Wilkens (Narigo, Dr Positivity)

Spencer Haywood (Narigo)

[Doctor MJ]

Had a bunch of good responses to my critiques on Williams, going to just respond here.

1. Not saying Williams had a bad career. I think he was good enough to be brought up in this discussion.

2. I think it's important to recognize that for a volume scorer, Williams was inefficient. People are coming back at me about the connection between Hayes & Lucas and bad efficiency. Go look at TS Add. The damage it attributes to Williams over his career is closer to Hayes than Lucas (it's like 3 times that of Lucas) despite the fact that Williams actually played far less than Hayes (and also less than Lucas) and Williams scoring is supposed to be the reason why we're praising him in a way it isn't with Lucas.

3. Let me really emphasize the career arcs here. People think Lucas was nothing after Walton in Portland, but the reality is that his time with Portland gave him a spotlight his game would never earn elsewhere, but was still very much appreciated...which is why he was an all-star on a different team 6 years after the title and why he was still valued as a presence at age 35.

Williams' relevance begins when Wilkens gets named coach in Seattle partway through '77-78, and ends when he leaves Seattle after '83-84, with a year gap in the middle because of a hold out. Williams is relevant here almost entirely for being the 3rd best player on a team that won a title at a time in between greatness.

4. Sonics got worse in his hold out year and better when he returned. A great argument for why Westphal maybe wasn't worthy of our vote. But as is, with Westphal & Williams you have two offensive oriented guards, and you're still only raising the team to mediocrity in ORtg. That is the legacy of both of these guys.

5. On elite teams and my allegation that Seattle wasn't while Portland was.

I think there is a clear cut truth here that Seattle peaked in '79-80, and there's basically no reason to think they were a Top 3 team that year. The year's '77-78 & '78-79 are years where the parity in the NBA is just obviously extreme, and your two champion teams are both relying on volume scorers who are historically noteworthy for the inefficiency. The idea that these teams should be seen as the equal of the '80s Lakers/Celtics/76ers is just bizarre to me. I mean, DJ's last 4 games in Seattle - aka the last 4 games of Seattle's relevance as a contender - were 4 straight losses to the Lakers. If Seattle wins that series, do we really think they trade DJ?

If the question is not about Seattle's inadequacy on this level, but rather whether Portland really deserves to be in a higher tier, I do understand that. I'll flat out say that if you see as Portland as a team that was a "lucky" champ inferior to most, then I don't think you should vote for Lucas and possibly not Walton either.

Things to consider though:

Portland had a +5 SRS in both '76-77 & '77-78. In the 3 years in question involving Portland/Washington/Seattle as champs, those Blazer teams are the only 2 teams with an SRS north of 5. Even taken just there, Portland should be seen as a better team I think.

But we also know that over those two years, the team was much stronger than even that. Portland had the best record in the league in '76-77 when Walton played, clearly up'ed their ability in the playoffs, and clearly up'ed it even further the next year. Start by acknowledge the clear gap between Portland and Seattle/Washington just by looking at something like SRS, then acknowledge how much better they were still when healthy and the fact that they were a young core that was to be expected to get better, I see them on an entirely different tier.

To me the only question is whether Walton was so good that we'd be overrating Lucas to let him in too. That's a distinct possibility I'd say...but if the competition is just Gus Williams, the inefficient volume scorer on a team winning with defense on a less dominant champion with a shorter longevity of relevance? I seriously looked at it, but I'm not seeing it.