In the end, Jones contributed a lot to many championships, and should be included as a Top 50 player.
1. Sam Jones 2. Dave Cowens - dominant player in regular season, plus key player on two title teams. 3. Paul Pierce
Pierce is already voted in bro.
Oops - no wonder I liked him better than anybody else left - the group already thought so. Let me give it a little more thought - I voted McHale here last time, but I'm on the fence on a lot of guys right now. I just looked at his 84 playoffs, and wasnt thrilled by it - I'm liking Parish more these days than McHale, which is a shift for my brain.
DQuinn1575 wrote:In the end, Jones contributed a lot to many championships, and should be included as a Top 50 player.
Yes, Sam Jones contributed to many championships. But I don't think that alone would earn him enough to put him in the top 50. Dwight Howard got his only ring as a role player. Does this situation make Howard less deserving of top 50 compared to Sam Jones? Similar with Ray Allen or other players went out without a ring? What about Kevin McHale, arguably bigger roles and certainly better performances in 2 title runs, middle of the road?
really hard to say McHale had a better performance in 2 title runs - even if you call 86 better, Jones has about 5 years better than either of the other two.
So I feel pretty good about Jones over McHale.
Howard is a tough call. It's a question of regular season performance and playoffs, and how to balance it. I'm leaning towards Jones, but again it's a tough call when to weigh the contributions to titles.
Was talking about '84 and '86 for McHale, not '81. Though I have to admit I mistook 1985 with 1984 for McHale.
BPM is not available for Jones and also your ws/48 approach is kind of flawed because with no off/def rebounds distinction, no steals, no blocks and with all that there's a heavy bias towards scoring numbers. Another thing to keep in mind is that ws numbers are derived from team MoV in the first place.
Jones from '63 to '67 in playoffs; 61 games, 25.3/5.2/2.7 on .468 fg, .830 ft, .529 ts (.487 ts r. season average) and 9.5 ws, 0.206 ws/48 McHale from '85 to '88 in playoffs; 77 games, 23.2/9.0/2.1 on .583 fg, .801 ft, .640 ts (.540 ts r. season average) and 11.4 ws, 0.177 ws/48
The Celtics started to play from the Division Finals in '63, '64, '65 and the Division Semifinals in '66, '67. They had +4.16 MoV over their opponents. If we match such thing with starting from second rounds in '85 and '86 and starting from conference finals in '87 and '88; the Celtics had +2.59 MoV over their opponents. [In those games, McHale was 22.9/8.9/2.2 on .630 ts] If we match such thing with starting from second rounds in '87 and '88 and starting from conference finals in '85 and '86; the Celtics had +0.52 MoV over their opponents. [In those games, McHale was 23.4/9.1/2.0 on .640 ts] If we disregard only first round matchups; the Celtics had +1.89 MoV over their opponents. [In those games, McHale was 23.3/9.0/2.0 on .635 ts] In general, the Celtics had +2.95 MoV on overall their opponents.
And one important note about ws process; a team's total ws acts logarithmic, not linear. That gaps in MoV numbers are just massive.
So, you could argue that Jones was one of the primary reasons why the Celtics had that kind of MoV numbers to start with but that cuts both ways, doesn't it? It's also true for McHale.
McHale's offensive production seems to be on par with Sam Jones. If we look at pace, McHale's numbers would probably make up for that 2 ppg gap. McHale was also the better defensive player.
What I see is you're just basically rewarding Sam Jones for having a clearly superior team over their competition. WS numbers are all good but I think you go overboard with your interpretation because they are not on the same scale for everyone.
If anything, while knowing how ws is derived from MoV numbers and the gap between MoV numbers, it should highlight McHale as the better player. Here's a simple example for you to think about; Garnett's ws/48 was 0.163 in 2004 playoffs and 0.199 in 2008 playoffs.
You can point out Jones having 1 extra playoffs than McHale surely. But the issue with McHale was not his quality, it's the Celtics couldn't go far in the playoffs after '88, that's the reason 1988 was my cut-off point.
The issue with per75 numbers; 36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins? The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine. Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
Odinn21 wrote:Yes, Sam Jones contributed to many championships. But I don't think that alone would earn him enough to put him in the top 50. Dwight Howard got his only ring as a role player. Does this situation make Howard less deserving of top 50 compared to Sam Jones? Similar with Ray Allen or other players went out without a ring? What about Kevin McHale, arguably bigger roles and certainly better performances in 2 title runs, middle of the road?
really hard to say McHale had a better performance in 2 title runs - even if you call 86 better, Jones has about 5 years better than either of the other two.
So I feel pretty good about Jones over McHale.
Howard is a tough call. It's a question of regular season performance and playoffs, and how to balance it. I'm leaning towards Jones, but again it's a tough call when to weigh the contributions to titles.
Was talking about '84 and '86 for McHale, not '81. Though I have to admit I mistook 1985 with 1984 for McHale.
BPM is not available for Jones and also your ws/48 approach is kind of flawed because with no off/def rebounds distinction, no steals, no blocks and with all that there's a heavy bias towards scoring numbers. Another thing to keep in mind is that ws numbers are derived from team MoV in the first place.
Jones from '63 to '67 in playoffs; 61 games, 25.3/5.2/2.7 on .468 fg, .830 ft, .529 ts (.487 ts r. season average) and 9.5 ws, 0.206 ws/48 McHale from '85 to '88 in playoffs; 77 games, 23.2/9.0/2.1 on .583 fg, .801 ft, .640 ts (.540 ts r. season average) and 11.4 ws, 0.177 ws/48
The Celtics started to play from the Division Finals in '63, '64, '65 and the Division Semifinals in '66, '67. They had +4.16 MoV over their opponents. If we match such thing with starting from second rounds in '85 and '86 and starting from conference finals in '87 and '88; the Celtics had +2.59 MoV over their opponents. [In those games, McHale was 22.9/8.9/2.2 on .630 ts] If we match such thing with starting from second rounds in '87 and '88 and starting from conference finals in '85 and '86; the Celtics had +0.52 MoV over their opponents. [In those games, McHale was 23.4/9.1/2.0 on .640 ts] If we disregard only first round matchups; the Celtics had +1.89 MoV over their opponents. [In those games, McHale was 23.3/9.0/2.0 on .635 ts] In general, the Celtics had +2.95 MoV on overall their opponents.
And one important note about ws process; a team's total ws acts logarithmic, not linear. That gaps in MoV numbers are just massive.
So, you could argue that Jones was one of the primary reasons why the Celtics had that kind of MoV numbers to start with but that cuts both ways, doesn't it? It's also true for McHale.
McHale's offensive production seems to be on par with Sam Jones. If we look at pace, McHale's numbers would probably make up for that 2 ppg gap. McHale was also the better defensive player.
What I see is you're just basically rewarding Sam Jones for having a clearly superior team over their competition. WS numbers are all good but I think you go overboard with your interpretation because they are not on the same scale for everyone.
If anything, while knowing how ws is derived from MoV numbers and the gap between MoV numbers, it should highlight McHale as the better player. Here's a simple example for you to think about; Garnett's ws/48 was 0.163 in 2004 playoffs and 0.199 in 2008 playoffs.
You can point out Jones having 1 extra playoffs than McHale surely. But the issue with McHale was not his quality, it's the Celtics couldn't go far in the playoffs after '88, that's the reason 1988 was my cut Well first of all you excluded 1984, so for better or worse you are only looking at 4 years for McHale vs 5. And second, McHale was also on a real good team, with Parish Bird DJ etc and still only won once, while Jones playing with Russell, a pre prime Havlicek won each year. And yes, the competition was less, but they won every year and with bigger margins. The Celtics won every year, and it wasn’t just because of Russell. Robertson, Wilt and West/Baylor were his peers in talent. The Celtics won because guys 2-4 were better than Wilt, Oscar, West/Baylor. And their #2 guy was Jones more than anyone else. At least part of the reason they were better was because of Jones. He wasn’t the 5th starter these years; he helped get championships.
And win shares is additive, but it’s additive on wins, not points. But it scales points to wins, so x number of points = 1 win. But that scale is constant each year.
Well, I looked at some players via "Title Shares" [as defined by proportion of team's playoff WS during a title year, expressed same as how MVP shares are expressed]; was expecting it to paint Sam Jones in a slightly less flattering way, but to "his credit", it does not.
Jones is very near the top. In fact, the ONLY players who beat him in Title Shares are: *George Mikan (*assumed he would lead, if we had WS going back to the beginning of his career [particularly all the way to his NBL years]; otherwise he also trails Jones) Michael Jordan Bill Russell
That's it.....in all 74 years of pro ball history in North America. Jones is ahead of Magic, Lebron, Kareem, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Bird (way ahead of Bird, actually).......which actually makes a considerable statement on how useful this is as a metric, imo.
Incidentally, also ahead of Larry Bird in title shares are John Havlicek [by a solid margin] and Tom Heinsohn; and Frank Ramsey is REALLY close (0.869 to Bird's 0.892). Tom Sanders is also not far off at 0.746 (and ahead of guys like Horace Grant and Dennis Rodman [by a solid margin over Rodman]). Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy, and even K.C. Jones are not tremendously far off from Bird, for that matter.
It's almost as if playing next to Bill Russell for multiple years guarantees players a strong standing in this metric.
Also ahead of Larry Bird are Scottie Pippen and Robert Horry, fwiw. And the lead Larry Bird has over Derek Fisher is smaller than the lead Sam Jones has on Kareem fricking AJ!
So yeah......it was a fun quick study, but not seeing a tremendous amount of meaningful application for this experimental metric.
fwiw, I don't think anyone is saying Sam Jones wasn't the second-best player for a number of those Celtic title teams. What we're suggesting is that if Sam Jones had played his career for the Pistons [for example], he likely doesn't have a single title to speak of. Thus, some of us are preaching caution about overly lauding him for basically being a right place/right time kind of guy.
He's still an excellent, and very historically relevant player; no one's trying to say otherwise.
"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
Pau Gasol - 2 (trex_8063, penbeast0) Manu Ginobili - 1 (Dutchball97) Ray Allen - 1 (Odinn21) Kevin McHale - 1 (Hal14) Dave Cowens - 1 (Cavsfansince84) Dwight Howard - 1 (Joao Saraiva) Sam Jones - 1 (DQuinn1575) Bob Cousy - 1 (euroleague)
Maybe around 19-20 hours left for this one. Don’t leave it to the last minute.
Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.
Ambrose wrote:.
Baski wrote:.
bidofo wrote:.
Blackmill wrote:.
Cavsfansince84 wrote:.
Clyde Frazier wrote:.
Doctor MJ wrote:.
DQuinn1575 wrote:.
Dr Positivity wrote:.
drza wrote:.
Dutchball97 wrote:.
Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.
eminence wrote:.
euroleague wrote:.
Franco wrote:.
Gregoire wrote:.
Hal14 wrote:.
HeartBreakKid wrote:.
Hornet Mania wrote:.
iggymcfrack wrote:.
Jaivl wrote:.
Joao Saraiva wrote:.
Joey Wheeler wrote:.
Jordan Syndrome wrote:.
LA Bird wrote:.
lebron3-14-3 wrote:.
limbo wrote:.
Magic Is Magic wrote:.
Matzer wrote:.
Moonbeam wrote:.
Odinn21 wrote:.
Owly wrote:.
O_6 wrote:.
PaulieWal wrote:.
penbeast0 wrote:.
PistolPeteJR wrote:.
RSCD3_ wrote:.
[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]
Senior wrote:.
SeniorWalker wrote:.
SHAQ32 wrote:.
Texas Chuck wrote:.
Tim Lehrbach wrote:.
TrueLAfan wrote:.
Whopper_Sr wrote:.
ZeppelinPage wrote:.
2klegend wrote:.
70sFan wrote:.
876Stephen wrote:.
90sAllDecade 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
DQuinn1575 wrote:Well first of all you excluded 1984, so for better or worse you are only looking at 4 years for McHale vs 5. And second, McHale was also on a real good team, with Parish Bird DJ etc and still only won once, while Jones playing with Russell, a pre prime Havlicek won each year. And yes, the competition was less, but they won every year and with bigger margins. The Celtics won every year, and it wasn’t just because of Russell. Robertson, Wilt and West/Baylor were his peers in talent. The Celtics won because guys 2-4 were better than Wilt, Oscar, West/Baylor. And their #2 guy was Jones more than anyone else. At least part of the reason they were better was because of Jones. He wasn’t the 5th starter these years; he helped get championships.
And win shares is additive, but it’s additive on wins, not points. But it scales points to wins, so x number of points = 1 win. But that scale is constant each year.
First; we should clear out how wrong you are by WS formula because it's interesting that you're so confident in such wrong thing.
OWS - Calculate points produced for each player. In 2008-09, James had an estimated 2345.9 points produced. - Calculate offensive possessions for each player. James had an estimated 1928.1 offensive possessions in 2008-09. - Calculate marginal offense for each player. Marginal offense is equal to (points produced) - 0.92 * (league points per possession) * (offensive possessions). For James this is 2345.9 - 0.92 * 1.083 * 1928.1 = 424.8. Note that this formula may produce a negative result for some players. - Calculate marginal points per win. Marginal points per win reduces to 0.32 * (league points per game) * ((team pace) / (league pace)). For the 2008-09 Cavaliers this is 0.32 * 100.0 * (88.7 / 91.7) = 30.95. - Credit Offensive Win Shares to the players. Offensive Win Shares are credited using the following formula: (marginal offense) / (marginal points per win). James gets credit for 424.8 / 30.95 = 13.73 Offensive Win Shares.
DWS - Calculate the Defensive Rating for each player. James's Defensive Rating in 2008-09 was 99.1. - Calculate marginal defense for each player. Marginal defense is equal to (player minutes played / team minutes played) * (team defensive possessions) * (1.08 * (league points per possession) - ((Defensive Rating) / 100)). For James this is (3054 / 19780) * 7341 * ((1.08 * 1.083) - (99.1 / 100)) = 202.5. Note that this formula may produce a negative result for some players. - Calculate marginal points per win. Marginal points per win reduces to 0.32 * (league points per game) * ((team pace) / (league pace)). For the 2008-09 Cavaliers this is 0.32 * 100.0 * (88.7 / 91.7) = 30.95. - Credit Defensive Win Shares to the players. Defensive Win Shares are credited using the following formula: (marginal defense) / (marginal points per win). James gets credit for 202.5 / 30.95 = 6.54 Defensive Win Shares.
There's nothing about W numbers in WS calculation. It's interesting that someone would insist on such flat out wrong thing. WS is additive on MoV (+/-) numbers as you can see. Not wins. There's absolutely nothing about W in WS formula.
Second; no, WS scale is not constant for each team, let alone each year. Here's another example; Shawn Marion had 23.6 per, 4.8 bpm and 0.214 ws/48 in 2005-06 season. The Suns had 56.1 ws total. Paul Pierce had 23.6 per, 4.8 bpm and 0.178 ws/48 in 2005-06 season. The Celtics had 38.2 ws total.
Another example; Dirk Nowitzki had 25.6 per, 7.2 bpm and 0.249 ws/48 in 2002-03 season. The Mavs had 63.2 ws total. Kobe Bryant had 26.2 per, 7.1 bpm and 0.210 ws/48 in 2002-03 season. The Lakers had 48.1 ws total.
Another example; Shawn Marion had 21.0 per, 4.1 bpm and 0.196 ws/48 in 2000-01 season. The Suns had 47.8 ws total. Paul Pierce had 22.3 per, 4.4 bpm and 0.160 ws/48 in 2000-01 season. The Celtics had 36.8 ws total.
(I also made sure the examples are in 90% of each other's minutes total to eliminate impact of play time)
Was Pierce worse than Marion because he couldn't get his team to match Marion's team ws total? The same for Bryant vs. Nowitzki.
BTW, WS has a correlation with projected W numbers since their process are similar; Dallas Mavericks in 2010-11 season 57 wins / 53.0 projected wins / 52.7 win share total There are many examples like that. There are some teams won more close games and become overachievers in MoV sense and also the vice versa. Also an example of that; Milwaukee Bucks in 1985-86 season 57 wins / 62.3 projected wins / 62.6 win share total
The Celtics from '63 playoffs to '67 playoffs outscored their opponents by 6980-6726 over 61 games, making their projected win rate 51.4 on 82 game pace. The Celtics from '85 playoffs to '88 playoffs outscored their opponents by 8796-8563 over 79 games, making their projected win rate 48.6 on 82 game pace.
As for statistical evidence of the '80s Celtics having it tougher than the '60s Celtics; The Celtics didn't have any easy 1st round matchups by default thanks to the format in the '60s and if we look at how well they did after the 1st rounds in '85-'88 time frame; they were on a 45.9 xW pace.
I showed that the Celtics in the '60s were more superior than their opponents compared to the Celtics in the '80s. Anything can be said for Jones being #2 player on a very successful team also can be said for McHale. It's not McHale's fault that the Celtics in the '60s had easier opponents.
Also let's put McHale's ws/48 and Jones' ws/48 into perspective.
Spoiler:
Jones had 0.206 ws/48 from '63 playoffs to '67 playoffs. McHale had 0.177 ws/48 from '85 playoffs to '88 playoffs.
If we look at xW rates, McHale is at a disadvantage of 5.7% by design. If we adjust for it; McHale's ws/48 goes from 0.177 to 0.187. But there's also play time to consider. Jones played 2229 minutes in 61 games, 36.54 mpg McHale played 3095 minutes in 77 games, 40.19 mpg. So, by ws/48 design, McHale is 10% disadvantage. If we also adjust for it; McHale's ws/48 goes from 0.187 to 0.206.
As you can see, if we look at statistical disadvantages that McHale has and calculate for them, he's on par with Sam Jones. Here's another thing that puts them right next to each other; The Celtics in playoffs from '63 to '67; 39.0 ws total, Jones 9.4 ws (24.10%). The Celtics in playoffs from '85 to '88; 47.0 ws total, McHale 11.4 ws (24.26%).
The only difference there is, the Celtics ended up with more titles in the '60s compared to the '80s because they had it tougher in the '80s.
Opponents of the Celtics from '63 playoffs to '67 playoffs*; 2.55 SRS, 2.4 NRtg, 3.5 (of 9) average SRS/NRtg rank The Celtics were 6.47 SRS, 6.0 NRtg, 1.2 average rank team in that time frame. That's 3.9 SRS and 3.6 NRtg superiority over their opponents.
Opponents of the Celtics from '85 playoffs to '88 playoffs**; 4.74 SRS, 4.8 NRtg, 3.9 (of 23) average SRS/NRtg rank The Celtics were 7.06 SRS, 7.1 NRtg, 2.0 average rank team in that time frame. That's 2.3 SRS and 2.3 NRtg superiority over their opponents.
*: The only time the Celtics played a 5+ SRS team, they lost. ('67 Sixers) **: After 1st rounds. Also they played a 6+ SRS team three teams. They went 1-2 in those series.
And yes, the competition was less, but they won every year and with bigger margins.
So you recognize that the Celtics had worse competition but say but for bigger margins? This is like saying 1989 Pistons were better than 1988 or 1990 versions because they won with bigger margins over easier opponents.
The Celtics won because guys 2-4 were better than Wilt, Oscar, West/Baylor.
Indeed.
And their #2 guy was Jones more than anyone else. At least part of the reason they were better was because of Jones. He wasn’t the 5th starter these years; he helped get championships.
Yes, Jones helped the Celtics get championships. But with the way you use this, it sounds like you're making Kobe Bryant during the threepeat out of Sam Jones. I mean for all we could care, this could've been Hal Greer instead of Sam Jones. Or Sam Jones just simply be playing for a different team and he wouldn't have a chance at winning so many titles. I just don't see the point of using team success argument if it can easily be threaten with a simple team swap scenario in the same era. Or players like Kevin McHale or Ray Allen who helped their teams win titles but not that many titles are at a disadvantage by default in your approach? Do you mostly boil it down to number of titles?
I think I should call it on my part right now because I think I provided more than enough to show your WS interpretation is not accurate and there's not much to talk about for me right now. Cheers.
The issue with per75 numbers; 36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins? The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine. Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
Odinn21 wrote: An a team's total ws acts logarithmic, not linear.
DQuinn1575 wrote:And win shares is additive,
Odinn21 wrote: WS is additive on MoV (+/-) numbers as you can see
So you know now that it is not logarithmic, but additive, which is what I was trying to tell you, but you learned by reading it yourself. At least you learned.
DQuinn1575 wrote: And win shares is additive, but it’s additive on wins, not points. But it scales points to wins
Odinn21 wrote: There's absolutely nothing about W in WS formula..... Calculate marginal points per win..... Win Shares are credited using the following formula: (marginal offense) / (marginal points per win).
Dividing by marginal points by win scales points to wins. The scale is in wins - it translates points to an approximate win total.
You're so intent on being right you didn't even read what you wrote, let alone me. Thanks.
DQuinn1575 wrote:You're so intent on being right you didn't even read what you wrote, let alone me. Thanks.
Such irony... WS/48 numbers act logarithmic because the way MoV based numbers are used in WS formula are not linear. The formula is right in your face, and you still insist on instead of looking and understanding that, you act like you're the one with the correct knowledge. I also pointed out how WS numbers correlate with xW numbers which are calculated directly from powers of points scored and points allowed. This is just a joke... You're yet to point out how I am wrong mathematically when I did that to your argument with pages.
Win Shares are credited using the following formula: (marginal offense) / (marginal points per win).
MoV: Margin of Victory... And you really thought that this was the thing to point out? It's literally MoV in slightly different words. MoV goes in negative way too you know.
The issue with per75 numbers; 36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins? The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine. Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
Totally agree - if Sam Jones was on Detroit he would have no championships. But here's where I struggle, and you can maybe help me in my thinking.
Let's say Russell is just slightly below Jordan. And Let's say Jordan = 5.0 championships, Pippen 0.8, Grant 0.2 and Russell = 4.9 rings (numbers are for illustration, you can change them to whatever values, as long as Russell isnt higher than Jordan, based on fact the group ranked Jordan higher)
So Russell teammates = 6.1 rings (11 - 4.9) And Havlicek is 2nd best, lower than Pippen, and gets some of his value post Russell, for kicks call him 0.6 in the Russell era.
That makes Russell's teammates = 5.5 (6.1 - 0.6)
Now split them up however you think is appropriate - my only opinion is that the next value in total belongs to Sam Jones. And my problem is that however I assign credit for what he accomplished gets him a higher value than anyone else left.
Now if we say it's almost all Russell, then we would have to put him #1. And you can give Jordan more value than his championships. but we still have this big value of championships for his teammates.
Now we can say championships don't matter, but then we have cases for Billups, Gasol, Ginobili, McHale, at least part of which is based on playoff and championship performance. And English, Dantley, etc. who are lowered due to that.
DQuinn1575 wrote:You're so intent on being right you didn't even read what you wrote, let alone me. Thanks.
Such irony... WS/48 numbers act logarithmic because the way MoV based numbers are used in WS formula are not linear. The formula is right in your face, and you still insist on instead of looking and understanding that, you act like you're the one with the correct knowledge. I also pointed out how WS numbers correlate with xW numbers which are calculated directly from powers of points scored and points allowed. This is just a joke... You're yet to point out how I am wrong mathematically when I did that to your argument with pages.
Win Shares are credited using the following formula: (marginal offense) / (marginal points per win).
MoV: Margin of Victory... And you really thought that this was the thing to point out? It's literally MoV in slightly different words. MoV goes in negative way too you know.
The whole theory is that margin of victory is a proxy for wins. And win shares is converting points (or runs in the original baseball theory) to wins. And yes, you are right in that converting points to wins there is not a one to one relationship; it is scaled in wins (or approximate wins if you will) and not points, due to the fact that points are not linear to wins. So if you are looking at it in terms of points, you are correct, it is not additive. It is additive in wins.
Pau Gasol - 2 (trex_8063, penbeast0) Manu Ginobili - 1 (Dutchball97) Ray Allen - 1 (Odinn21) Kevin McHale - 1 (Hal14) Dave Cowens - 1 (Cavsfansince84) Dwight Howard - 1 (Joao Saraiva) Sam Jones - 1 (DQuinn1575) Bob Cousy - 1 (euroleague)
Maybe around 19-20 hours left for this one. Don’t leave it to the last minute.
I dont have a 3rd place vote in - Ill stay with McHale, who I had last time, for now.
I'm trying to wait until the second day so that I don't disrupt the voting more than necessary by adding in new names.
That said, I think people are holding T-Mac's garbage teammates against him with the "how good could he have been if he couldn't make it past the second round?" argument. I would vote T-Mac the *instant* he was being nominated.
That said . . .
1. Pau Gasol - His peak was never super-great, but he was very good for a very long time. He integrated extremely well with the ball-dominant Bryant, proving that he could be very good for weak teams and strong teams alike. That he was pretty good at everything (scoring, rebounding, passing and defense) meant that he blended really will with most roster combinations.
2. Ray Allen - He's pretty much Pau, except his one strength (floor spacing/distance shooting) is better than any of Pau's individual strengths. Allen had a long career and led a lot of strong offenses. His WOWYR is crazy low, which makes me a little concerned, but there's still a lot to like here.
3. Manu Ginobili - per minute he's certainly better than the other two. But that's the problem; everything has to be taken with a grain of salt when your minutes per game is so low. If this was pure BPM, he'd be my #1 vote by a good margin. I'm simply concerned that BPM overstates his value because his actual playtime was unusually low. Still really good, and I wouldn't sad to see him get in here.
As for Dwight Howard . . . I have deep appreciation for Howard's skill as a defender, rebounder and scorer. But I am super-scared off by his bad assist/turnover numbers. BPM v2 really hates them, and so has Howard surprisingly low given his incredible strengths. I may be too low on him.
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."
"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
1. Dwight Howard Beast of a rebounder (13th all time and 11th for offensive, 6 time rebounding leader) and defender (3 straight DPOY, surprisingly low 5 time All Defense), Dwight peaked as an MVP candidate (38th all time in MVP shares). I doubt there's anyone who actually doubts Dwight's massive defensive impact in his prime, but it's pretty cool that there was an academic paper written to illustrate how he and other bigs like him were were able to captain league-leading defenses year in and year out: https://docplayer.net/4267600-The-dwight-effect-a-new-ensemble-of-interior-defense-analytics-for-the-nba.html
Pretty good read. It was eye-opening for me, at a time before tracking data became all the rage.
On offense, Dwight had everything you'd want in a garbage man big. All-world athleticism and decent offensive awareness that allowed him to set hard screens, roll hard, clean up the boards and catch lobs. He has an elite career 60% TS even though he had that phase where he tried to be Shaq. Perhaps if he were paired with an elite playmaker like a Nash, CP3 or LeBron in his prime, his offensive value would've been far higher.
2. Kevin McHale
3. Looking at Ray Allen, Pau Gasol, Paul Pierce and a bunch of others.
Vote 1 - Ray Allen Vote 2 - Pau Gasol Vote 3 - Dwight Howard
McHale > Cowens > Ginobili > Sam Jones > Cousy for me
Allen put together one of the more complete and consistent careers in league history. He was a productive player for each of his 18 seasons, widely considered a top 5 shooter of all time, top 10 at worst. His best combo of volume and efficiency came in 05-06 when he put up 33.9 pts per 100 on 59% TS/118 ORtg (+5.4 rTS).
In his prime you could count on solid volume, elite efficiency, 3 level scoring and adequate playmaking/defense for a SG. From 99-04 his rTS ranged from +5 to a whopping +9.2. He would seamlessly transition into a lesser albeit crucial off ball role on the celtics, and extend his career with the heat with continued success.
His game tying 3 in game 6 of the 2013 finals required savant-level footwork. That was all muscle memory and a testament to the work he put into this game. He's certainly deserving of a spot in the top 50.
Pau Gasol - 3 (trex_8063, sansterre, penbeast0) Ray Allen - 2 (Clyde Frazier, Odinn21) Dwight Howard - 2 (Baski, Joao Saraiva) Manu Ginobili - 1 (Dutchball97) Kevin McHale - 1 (Hal14) Dave Cowens - 1 (Cavsfansince84) Sam Jones - 1 (DQuinn1575) Bob Cousy - 1 (euroleague)
12 votes, requires 7 for a majority. We'll start by eliminating those bottom five. That transfers two to Pau, the other three are ghosted....
Pau - 5 Allen - 2 Howard - 2 (ghosted) - 3
So Pau is a default winner, which I'll have to validate via Condorcet against Allen and Howard [he doesn't have to beat them both; he just can't lose to one of them for the default win to be upheld]......
Pau leads Howard 6-2 [with four unknowns]; so it's already a guarantee he cannot lose to Howard even if all four came back in favour of Dwight.
Pau leads Allen 5-2 [with five unknowns], so I'll need to hear from at least one of those unknowns before we move on. The unknowns here are: DQuinn1575, euroleague, Hal14, Baski, and Joao Saraiva.
Please let me know ASAP your pick between Allen and Pau, guys.
Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.
Ambrose wrote:.
Baski wrote:.
bidofo wrote:.
Blackmill wrote:.
Cavsfansince84 wrote:.
Clyde Frazier wrote:.
Doctor MJ wrote:.
DQuinn1575 wrote:.
Dr Positivity wrote:.
drza wrote:.
Dutchball97 wrote:.
Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.
eminence wrote:.
euroleague wrote:.
Franco wrote:.
Gregoire wrote:.
Hal14 wrote:.
HeartBreakKid wrote:.
Hornet Mania wrote:.
iggymcfrack wrote:.
Jaivl wrote:.
Joao Saraiva wrote:.
Joey Wheeler wrote:.
Jordan Syndrome wrote:.
LA Bird wrote:.
lebron3-14-3 wrote:.
limbo wrote:.
Magic Is Magic wrote:.
Matzer wrote:.
Moonbeam wrote:.
Odinn21 wrote:.
Owly wrote:.
O_6 wrote:.
PaulieWal wrote:.
penbeast0 wrote:.
PistolPeteJR wrote:.
RSCD3_ wrote:.
[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]
Senior wrote:.
SeniorWalker wrote:.
SHAQ32 wrote:.
Texas Chuck wrote:.
Tim Lehrbach wrote:.
TrueLAfan wrote:.
Whopper_Sr wrote:.
ZeppelinPage wrote:.
2klegend wrote:.
70sFan wrote:.
876Stephen wrote:.
90sAllDecade 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 wrote:Well, I looked at some players via "Title Shares" [as defined by proportion of team's playoff WS during a title year, expressed same as how MVP shares are expressed]; was expecting it to paint Sam Jones in a slightly less flattering way, but to "his credit", it does not.
Jones is very near the top. In fact, the ONLY players who beat him in Title Shares are: *George Mikan (*assumed he would lead, if we had WS going back to the beginning of his career [particularly all the way to his NBL years]; otherwise he also trails Jones) Michael Jordan Bill Russell
That's it.....in all 74 years of pro ball history in North America. Jones is ahead of Magic, Lebron, Kareem, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Bird (way ahead of Bird, actually).......which actually makes a considerable statement on how useful this is as a metric, imo.
fwiw, I don't think anyone is saying Sam Jones wasn't the second-best player for a number of those Celtic title teams. What we're suggesting is that if Sam Jones had played his career for the Pistons [for example], he likely doesn't have a single title to speak of. Thus, some of us are preaching caution about overly lauding him for basically being a right place/right time kind of guy.
He's still an excellent, and very historically relevant player; no one's trying to say otherwise.
See, this is one of the big issues I have with the criticism that Jones seems to get here and prob elsewhere. When do people ever bring that up about guys like Pippen or even Billups or really quite a few other guys. The fact of the matter is that Jones proved himself beyond all reasonable doubt in the playoffs as a big time scorer and big game performer. I brought up in my post that a huge part of the Celtics dynasty was their ability to win those decisive game 5's and game 7's and Jones averaged 32.5ppg in the ones they played from 62-66(6 or 7 total). So quite simply, I think Jones deserves a huge amount of credit for playing on so many title teams. I can understand sort of disregarding his role on the 68-69 teams and the 59-61 teams but from 62-66 he was a huge part. Without him no I don't think those teams win all those titles. I don't think just any all star or near nba type guard gets them all of those wins. The margin of victory so many of those years was razor thin and Jones was so consistently good in those runs and big games that he needs to be lauded for it. Not diminished in any way, shape or form by saying he doesn't win rings on other teams imo. He was a big time player.
Cavsfansince84 wrote: See, this is one of the big issues I have with the criticism that Jones seems to get here and prob elsewhere. When do people ever bring that up about guys like Pippen or even Billups or really quite a few other guys. The fact of the matter is that Jones proved himself beyond all reasonable doubt in the playoffs as a big time scorer and big game performer. I brought up in my post that a huge part of the Celtics dynasty was their ability to win those decisive game 5's and game 7's and Jones averaged 32.5ppg in the ones they played from 62-66(6 or 7 total). So quite simply, I think Jones deserves a huge amount of credit for playing on so many title teams. I can understand sort of disregarding his role on the 68-69 teams and the 59-61 teams but from 62-66 he was a huge part. Without him no I don't think those teams win all those titles. I don't think just any all star or near nba type guard gets them all of those wins. The margin of victory so many of those years was razor thin and Jones was so consistently good in those runs and big games that he needs to be lauded for it. Not diminished in any way, shape or form by saying he doesn't win rings on other teams imo. He was a big time player.
trex_8063 wrote:He's still an excellent, and very historically relevant player; no one's trying to say otherwise.
It's all a matter of degrees. To what degree is it appropriate to laud him for those titles? Certainly it's debatable. Some of us feel it is simply placing too much emphasis on rings to consider him here; that's all. We're not trying to "diminish him" just for its own sake, or out of some malicious intent.
Let me put it to you this way: do you disagree with the statement regarding placement on the Pistons? Does he [likely] go without a title there? If you agree.....idk, I feel that sort of illustrates the point some of us are driving at. Because I don't think he'd be getting a second glance at this stage [much less votes] if he didn't have a ring for each finger.
Yes, Sam Jones was an excellent player. Yes, he performed well at crucial moments, and contributed significantly to multiple of titles. And..... Yes, he had historically lofty help to win those titles.
ALL of those statements are true. It's not a mutually exclusive [either you're with us or you're against us] thing.
Some posters----(many of the same posters who now are furrowing brows at what is essentially ring-counting [not saying YOU are specifically, btw; that is more wrt to "title shares" as measured by WS or similar being discussed recently.....but will reply about that in separate post])----advised during the early threads of this project to tempering any notions of "11 rings!" [or reasonable facsimile of same] by acknowledging Bill Russell had [mostly] pretty good and deep supporting casts (as well as a great coach).
Without that help, Bill Russell likely doesn't win 11 rings. Sure, he'd still get SOME pretty much anywhere he went.....he was just too dominant to not win some [and probably several].
The flip-side of the coin is Jones wouldn't have near as many WS in title-winning seasons [if ANY at all] were he not Bill Russell's teammate. We're acknowledging this for both guys. May seem ironic or two-faced because it involves seeming ["seeming" is the operative word here] to denigrate one in order the prop up the other.......while then "seeming" to flip the paradigm when talking about the opposite guy.
But in BOTH instances all we're actually doing is tempering the degree to which TEAM accomplishments are used in player evaluation.
"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
I think Sam Jones is deserving of traction for sure, but right now it's just too much. I mean why Hal Greer is not considered if Sam Jones can be in the mix? To me, that's just too much winning bias.
Greer's peak and prime are on par with Jones', arguably better. His overall longevity is definitely better. https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2039322 There was this thread about Greer vs. Jones couple of weeks ago and none was the clear in general perception.
Greer was the better defender, the better playmaker. There's a slight edge in scoring efficiency going for Jones but I don't think it's big enough.
Odinn21 wrote:Regular season efficiency comparison; Sam Jones from 1961-62 to 1967-68; +477.3 ts add (+75.0 per 82 games) Hal Greer from 1960-61 to 1969-70; +701.5 ts add (+73.4 per 82 games)
There is significant difference in efficiency in playoffs though.
I don't think it's big enough. Greer from '61 to '70; .510 ts in regular seasons and .491 ts in playoffs Jones from '62 to '68; .509 ts in regular seasons and .513 ts in playoffs If we match Jones' time frame for Greer, from '62 to '68; .510 ts in regular seasons and .499 ts in playoffs I just don't see enough gap to make it significant as you put it. There's a gap, it's indeed there. But 1.4% is not a particularly big deal.
Other than number of titles which is environment related, what exactly puts Sam Jones over Hal Greer for sure that Sam Jones has a big (as it can get at this point) traction right now and Greer has none?
I just keep coming back to this about winning bias in general;
I just don't see the point of using team success argument if it can easily be threaten with a simple team swap scenario in the same era.
The issue with per75 numbers; 36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins? The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine. Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
It's all a matter of degrees. To what degree is it appropriate to laud him for those titles? Certainly it's debatable. Some of us feel it is simply placing too much emphasis on rings to consider him here; that's all. We're not trying to "diminish him" just for its own sake, or out of some malicious intent.
Let me put it to you this way: do you disagree with the statement regarding placement on the Pistons? Does he [likely] go without a title there? If you agree.....idk, I feel that sort of illustrates the point some of us are driving at. Because I don't think he'd be getting a second glance at this stage [much less votes] if he didn't have a ring for each finger.
Yes, Sam Jones was an excellent player. Yes, he performed well at crucial moments, and contributed significantly to multiple of titles. And..... Yes, he had historically lofty help to win those titles.
ALL of those statements are true. It's not a mutually exclusive [either you're with us or you're against us] thing.
Posters----(some of the same posters who are here sort of furrowing brows at what is essentially counting rings [not saying YOU are specifically, btw, that is more wrt to "title shares" as measured by WS.....will reply about that in separate post])----advised back during the early threads tempering any statements of "11 rings!" [or reasonable facsimile of same] by acknowledging Bill Russell had [mostly] some pretty good and deep supporting casts (as well as a great coach). Without that help, Bill Russell likely doesn't win 11 rings.......but he'd still get SOME, pretty much anywhere he went. He was just too dominant to not win some [and probably several].
The flip-side of the coin is Jones wouldn't have near as many WS in title-winning seasons [if ANY at all] were he not Bill Russell's teammate. We're acknowledging this for both guys. May seem ironic or two-faced because it involves seeming ["seeming" is the operative word here] to denigrate one in order the prop up the other.......while then "seeming" to flip the paradigm when talking about the opposite guy.
But in BOTH instances all we're actually doing is tempering the degree to which TEAM accomplishments are used in player evaluation.
All I'm saying is he deserves credit for being a #2 on roughly 5 title teams. Without any sort of ands, ifs or buts added to it. Much like how Pippen gets credit for being a #2 on 6 title teams(which tbh I think you could make a decent case for Grant in 1-2 of those seasons). I think his rs resume is also pretty solid as well. Of course people will disagree on where he ranks and on what criteria they like to use but I'm just saying from a legacy pov being a big part of the greatest dynasty in nba history deserves some major props. Not just because of the rings but what goes into defending titles year after year. That's an aspect where he proved himself and which we know without a doubt is hard to do. Teams implode, guys get tired of dealing with eachother and all that. So that to me says a lot about intangibles when guys gut it out year after year.
Cavsfansince84 wrote:All I'm saying is he deserves credit for being a #2 on roughly 5 title teams. Without any sort of ands, ifs or buts added to it.
Why not Tony Parker then? He was #2 in 2003 and 2007 titles, he was #3 in 2005 title. From 2012 to 2014, he was 1a/1b with Duncan and he was the #1 scoring option on a team that made conference finals, NBA Finals and eventually won the NBA Title.
The issue with per75 numbers; 36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins? The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine. Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
It's literally MoV in slightly different words. MoV goes in negative way too you know. 
