RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #88 (Jeff Hornacek)

[penbeast0]

Bill Russell, Michael Jordan, LeBron James . . . these players had the best teams in the league in many/most of their championship runs. Other championship teams were barely .500 teams (the "It ain't over till the fat lady sings" Bullets) that got hot in the playoffs. Which one were Walton's Blazers?

They were a good team, one game under .600. They were not a favorite going into the playoffs as LA had finished 4 games above them in their own division and had Kareem. The Sixers and the Nuggets also had better records, Houston had an equal record, and Washington was only 1 game back. So, Walton didn't make them a super team or the best RS team in the league, he made them a contender. They did win, but it was never a sure thing. Walton gives you a one year window where you have one of the best players in the league (2nd in MVP voting, Kareem got more MVP votes than all the other players together, Pete Maravich was 3rd with more than half the total Walton garnered).

[trex_8063]

Wait how is Walton at 30%? I mean I think in general people are overvaluing replacement lvl players

How is noting they provide 0% to title probability overrating them? Did you read the linked article which sort of illustrates the methodology a bit?

Or can I just ask what number you think appropriate or were expecting for '77 Walton? 50%? More?
That just doesn't happen. Even 45% doesn't occur for any player......ever.

And it kinda makes sense when you stop and think about it. Look at league in '16 for example: you had Lebron, Curry, Durant, Kawhi, Harden, Westbrook (as well as lesser tier stars like Lillard, Gobert, a fantastic stand-out year for Draymond, etc).....

If you're thinking all the top-tier studs add something like 40-60% probability (and maybe 20-30% for the lesser tiered), well.....are you starting to see the issue? These guys mostly played on different teams, and there's only one title to go around.

Obviously CORP is far from an exact science, and s*** happens wrt to injuries [which is why I specifically factored post-season injuries into a DRAMATIC downgrade on Walton's '78 campaign]......but if you suddenly find yourself with a half-dozen teams that look like "sure things" based on the odds you're doling out to these various stars, that's your first clue that you're assuming one guy can add so much.

You can’t replace a player that actually opens that said window.

Buy all the role players you want the window will never be open.

You're saying you can't contend with a roster full of "role players" [based on context, I assume you're semantically grouping someone like Horace Grant under this umbrella]......but who ever suggested you should try?

You seem to be implying that you'll never contend with a "role player" [like Grant???] as your best player. Who ever suggested otherwise?
For myself, I explicitly stated you NEED players better than Grant [on your team with Grant] to contend.

When I suggest that peak Horace Grant might be good for +8% CORP value, you seem to be taking that to mean: throw Grant on to any team of replacement level guys and they'll automatically have an 8% chance of winning the title.
But that's NOT what I'm saying, because that's NOT how CORP or Monte Carlo method works.

In some "realities" where the support is poor, Grant wouln't raise the title odds even 1% [because they realistically have no chance of contending].
In other realities with fair-decent help, he maybe only raises it a few % [because they're still just fringe contenders at best, even with him].
In other realities with TERRIFIC support [note: "support" can include players actually BETTER than him], he----when being substituted for a replacement level player [remember: that's the whole premise of CORP]----may raise the odds by quite a lot: like taking them from being a fringe/unlikely contender to being the title-favorite.

Don't think that latter suggestion is realistic? Imagine the first 3peat Bulls.

Now imagine them WITHOUT Horace Grant, and where he's replaced by a replacement level player (note: "replacement level" is sub-average). How many titles do they win in that span now?

I mean, they still have the best player on the planet. But then: they'd already HAD the best player on the planet from '88-'90......they still went 0 for 3 on titles [didn't even make the finals, in fact]. (Arguably had the best player in '87, too [0 for 4??])
THOSE OTHER GUYS (like Grant) RAISE THE PROBABILITY, getting them over the hump (that hump Jordan couldn't drag them over all by himself).

Personally, I think they might still win 1, in '91. The East just wasn't that tough that year; they didn't have to face any REALLY tough teams en route to the finals. The best they faced was a fading Piston squad, who they totally obliterated. Jordan was arguably at his peak [which is arguably the GOAT peak], and Pippen was solidly into his prime by '91, plus a great coach......even with crap depth otherwise I'm thinking they probably could have made it thru any of those teams.
Of course, without Grant it's possible they were no longer the #1 seed in the East, which would change their potential match-ups. And fwiw, they never had to face Boston that year. Still.....I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

And then in the finals they were a bit fortunate in that Worthy was injured. So they may still have been able to overcome Magic and the Lakers (they did beat them fairly convincingly, as it was).

In '92 though? I mean they barely got by Ewing and the Knicks even with Grant. I suspect they don't get by them without him. And even if they did: they had to face a really tough Cavs team and an excellent Blazer team to prevail [both 6-game series's even with Grant: the Cleveland one in particular VERY close]. I don't think they get it done if he's replaced by a sub-average player.

In '93? Again, I could see them falling to NY in the ECF, or to Phoenix in the finals. I don't see them getting thru both without Grant.


Imagine it! Taking away Grant turns a 3-peat dynasty team into a 1-title [or potentially even 0-title??] merely very good team.
Because in some instances a player like Grant DOES open the window. Without him [or more specifically: replacing him with a below league-average player], the '91-'93 Bulls are likely just very good fringe/semi-contending teams......they're close, but distinctly short of dynasty-level dominant.
But WITH him, they become the title favorite. Their probability goes from "slim" [with the possible exception of '91--->which is as much a function of the opposition in front of them that particular year as it is on their quality], to "thru the roof" (or about as "thru the roof" as any team ever is outside of the '71 Bucks, '96-'97 Bulls, and '15-'19 Warriors).

What happens if you essentially let a decade go by not getting any closer than when you first started, then repeating the process again. A player like Walton supersedes that.
.

That is a valid consideration, which I already acknowledged.
As a partial counter-point: the superstar also draws more resources ($) away from what's available to build with [and in Walton's case, continues to do so even as he's sitting out entire seasons with injury].

[trex_8063]

Thru post #22:

Jeff Hornacek - 2 (penbeast0, sansterre)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Billy Cunningham - 1 (Odinn21)
Nikola Jokic - 1 (Dutchball97)
Dan Issel - 1 (trex_8063)
Dave DeBusschere - 1 (Cavsfansince84)
Dennis Johnson - 1 (Hal14)


About 21 hours left for this one.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Hal14]

Condorcet votes:

1) Dennis Johnson
2) Bill Walton
3) Dave DeBusschere
4) Dan Issel
5) Billy Cunningham
6) Jeff Hornacek
7) Nikola Jokic

[trex_8063]

Condorcet votes:

1) Dennis Johnson
2) Bill Walton
3) Dave DeBusschere
4) Dan Issel
5) Billy Cunningham
6) Jeff Hornacek
7) Nikola Jokic

Could you please edit this to include Melo and Hawkins? As they've been voted for in the last few threads I would anticipate them being there again.

[falcolombardi]

Wait how is Walton at 30%? I mean I think in general people are overvaluing replacement lvl players

How is noting they provide 0% to title probability overrating them? Did you read the linked article which sort of illustrates the methodology a bit?

Or can I just ask what number you think appropriate or were expecting for '77 Walton? 50%? More?
That just doesn't happen. Even 45% doesn't occur for any player......ever.

And it kinda makes sense when you stop and think about it. Look at league in '16 for example: you had Lebron, Curry, Durant, Kawhi, Harden, Westbrook (as well as lesser tier stars like Lillard, Gobert, a fantastic stand-out year for Draymond, etc).....

If you're thinking all the top-tier studs add something like 40-60% probability (and maybe 20-30% for the lesser tiered), well.....are you starting to see the issue? These guys mostly played on different teams, and there's only one title to go around.

Obviously CORP is far from an exact science, and s*** happens wrt to injuries [which is why I specifically factored post-season injuries into a DRAMATIC downgrade on Walton's '78 campaign]......but if you suddenly find yourself with a half-dozen teams that look like "sure things" based on the odds you're doling out to these various stars, that's your first clue that you're assuming one guy can add so much.

You can’t replace a player that actually opens that said window.

Buy all the role players you want the window will never be open.

You're saying you can't contend with a roster full of "role players" [based on context, I assume you're semantically grouping someone like Horace Grant under this umbrella]......but who ever suggested you should try?

You seem to be implying that you'll never contend with a "role player" [like Grant???] as your best player. Who ever suggested otherwise?
For myself, I explicitly stated you NEED players better than Grant [on your team with Grant] to contend.

When I suggest that peak Horace Grant might be good for +8% CORP value, you seem to be taking that to mean: throw Grant on to any team of replacement level guys and they'll automatically have an 8% chance of winning the title.
But that's NOT what I'm saying, because that's NOT how CORP or Monte Carlo method works.

In some "realities" where the support is poor, Grant wouln't raise the title odds even 1% [because they realistically have no chance of contending].
In other realities with fair-decent help, he maybe only raises it a few % [because they're still just fringe contenders at best, even with him].
In other realities with TERRIFIC support [note: "support" can include players actually BETTER than him], he----when being substituted for a replacement level player [remember: that's the whole premise of CORP]----may raise the odds by quite a lot: like taking them from being a fringe/unlikely contender to being the title-favorite.

Don't think that latter suggestion is realistic? Imagine the first 3peat Bulls.

Now imagine them WITHOUT Horace Grant, and where he's replaced by a replacement level player (note: "replacement level" is sub-average). How many titles do they win in that span now?

I mean, they still have the best player on the planet. But then: they'd already HAD the best player on the planet from '88-'90......they still went 0 for 3 on titles [didn't even make the finals, in fact]. (Arguably had the best player in '87, too [0 for 4??])
THOSE OTHER GUYS (like Grant) RAISE THE PROBABILITY, getting them over the hump (that hump Jordan couldn't drag them over all by himself).

Personally, I think they might still win 1, in '91. The East just wasn't that tough that year; they didn't have to face any REALLY tough teams en route to the finals. The best they faced was a fading Piston squad, who they totally obliterated. Jordan was arguably at his peak [which is arguably the GOAT peak], and Pippen was solidly into his prime by '91, plus a great coach......even with crap depth otherwise I'm thinking they probably could have made it thru any of those teams.
Of course, without Grant it's possible they were no longer the #1 seed in the East, which would change their potential match-ups. And fwiw, they never had to face Boston that year. Still.....I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

And then in the finals they were a bit fortunate in that Worthy was injured. So they may still have been able to overcome Magic and the Lakers (they did beat them fairly convincingly, as it was).

In '92 though? I mean they barely got by Ewing and the Knicks even with Grant. I suspect they don't get by them without him. And even if they did: they had to face a really tough Cavs team and an excellent Blazer team to prevail [both 6-game series's even with Grant: the Cleveland one in particular VERY close]. I don't think they get it done if he's replaced by a sub-average player.

In '93? Again, I could see them falling to NY in the ECF, or to Phoenix in the finals. I don't see them getting thru both without Grant.


Imagine it! Taking away Grant turns a 3-peat dynasty team into a 1-title [or potentially even 0-title??] merely very good team.
Because in some instances a player like Grant DOES open the window. Without him [or more specifically: replacing him with a below league-average player], the '91-'93 Bulls are likely just very good fringe/semi-contending teams......they're close, but distinctly short of dynasty-level dominant.
But WITH him, they become the title favorite. Their probability goes from "slim" [with the possible exception of '91--->which is as much a function of the opposition in front of them that particular year as it is on their quality], to "thru the roof" (or about as "thru the roof" as any team ever is outside of the '71 Bucks, '96-'97 Bulls, and '15-'19 Warriors).

What happens if you essentially let a decade go by not getting any closer than when you first started, then repeating the process again. A player like Walton supersedes that.
.

That is a valid consideration, which I already acknowledged.
As a partial counter-point: the superstar also draws more resources ($) away from what's available to build with [and in Walton's case, continues to do so even as he's sitting out entire seasons with injury].

another way to ilustrate this is replacing grant with walton in the bulls

with him on the bulls, the 1991 chicago team becomes the best squad ever most likely

in 1992 he gets injured and the bulls may lose against knicks (very likely)

in 1993 they likely dont beat suns

just like that a 3-peat became a 1-peat (a incredible one off to be sure tho)

[Doctor MJ]

Repeating vote.

Alright...

1. Connie Hawkins
2. Bill Walton
3. Nikola Jokic

Other preferences in order:

Spoiler:

Nikola Jokic
Billy Cunningham
Tiny Archibald
James Worthy
Dave DeBusschere
Horace Grant
Dennis Johnson
Terry Porter
Jeff Hornacek
Jerry Lucas
Dan Issel
Walt Bellamy
Gus Williams
Carmelo Anthony

Hawk love letter:

I think there's never been anyone like him, before or since. I'm dying to see more footage of him, because honestly I think he's got a bunch of moves that we don't have names for.

The roots of Hawkins becoming what he became are a story not of some kind of inevitable success through sheer talent, but of a guy with great talent getting bounced around and picking up stuff as he went.

Hawkins was a star in each of the following places:
1. The Schoolyard
2. Golden Age NYC High School Basketball
3. ABL
4. Harlem Globetrotters
5. ABA
6. NBA

All 6 of these things are a big deal, though I'll note that I'd consider (1) and (4) the best for understanding how Hawkins became what he became where (5) and (6) represent the proof in the pudding.

To speak on (1), the thing to understand is that play in the school yard all day is what the "good" Black boys did in this era. You were either playing basketball, or you were getting involved in gangs, pimping, and eventually drugs. So if you had basketball talent, this is where your family wanted you. Stay on the court, where it's safe.

And from the perspective of these Black kids, when they played (white) kids from other places, they just always got the sense that those white kids were far less experienced, because they were doing a lot of things other than playing basketball.

So, while Hawkins was dominating the incredibly high quality ball of NYC back then too, the Schoolyard was always where he developed his game. Just trying different things.

Others noted that while Hawkins lacked confidence in general, and was a poor reader and a poor student, he was an extremely quick learner when he saw someone else do something on the basketball court. When an opponent did something with the ball against Hawkins, Hawkins seemed to instantly have a new tool.

It's also important to note that in the Schoolyard, Hawkins didn't start out as The Man. He learned to play by fitting in around others who were older and better. We're talking about a kid who was playing against NBA pros (in the NBA off-season) before he was a High School star, so when he was playing those games, he wasn't just going in as the star. He learned to fit in. He learned how to be an aware passer before he learned to be a scorer.

About (3), so as many of you know, Hawkins was banned from college due to point shaving scandal (he later won a lawsuit clearing his name), so he ended up getting an opportunity in Abe Saperstein's ABL, which had various former NBA pros and a 3-point line. In the lone full season of that league, Hawkins would win MVP.

This is obviously impressive for a guy basically straight out of high school - and speaks both to his talent and how much experience he'd already had beyond just playing against other high schoolers - but I'd also argue that if not for the existence of the ABL, there's a good chance Hawkins would have died on the vine. He didn't have any other great skills other than basketball, so most likely he'd have ended up like many of his other peers still in Brooklyn which was being taken over by a see of heroin.

But his performance in the ABL, led to an invitation to join Saperstein's flagship product: The Harlem Globetrotters.

And as fortune would have it, Sweetwater Clifton - former New York Ren, Globetrotters, NBA all-star - played in the ABL that year with Hawkins, and re-joined the Globetrotters at the same time as Hawkins. And he told Hawkins basically, "You don't realize what kind of things you can do with those big hands!"

He mentored Hawkins on the ways you can use your ability to easily palm a hand. More flexibility when driving, more ways to protect the ball when you're guarded, myriad tricky passes, and the ability to rebound with just one hand so you can use your other arm (ahem, elbow) to fend of opponents.

I've noted before that big hands seem to be a Harlem Globetrotter thing. Beginning with the team's first clown - Goose Tatum - along through Clifton, Meadowlark Lemon, along with Wilt Chamberlain, Hawkins, and others - the Globetrotters seemed to look for guys with big hands in a way that the NBA has literally never done. I've also seen it noted that a particular Globetrotter was held back by his hand size despite being naturally very comedic.

There's a kind of trickery you can do with hands like this that lends itself well to comedy through basketball actions, and this raises the question of whether these Globetrotters were much better at certain basketball skills than NBA players.

There the answer is yes with an asterisk. Most of the tricks the Globetrotters did, while they required great skill, were not designed to hold up against actual defenders, and this was a source of frustration for Hawkins who felt that he was becoming soft due to not playing in a real competitive league, which I'd say was true.

At the same time, he'd still go back to NYC and play in the Schoolyard testing out techniques. Basically, he mined stuff out from the Globetrotters, and the stuff he found could work against actual defenders, he made a part of his repertoire. And this is how he became truly unique.

As we look at Hawkins ABA & NBA years, one of the things to understand is that both when he joined Pittsburgh in the ABA and Phoenix in the NBA, the teams did not immediately re-shape their offenses around Hawkins, and between these ramp up times, Hawkins increasing tendency toward injury, and a tendency for Hawkins to get down on himself, when we look at his yearly stats, it has to be noted that there was far more variance over the course of the season in team and Hawkins-specific performance than you'd expect not simply as a modern observer, but as a contemporary observer. Hawkins wasn't the absolute rock that you'd expect from a Jerry West, and this certainly doesn't help his Top 100 case.

But what this context also means is that when you look at Hawkins' yearly stats those first few years, as impressive as they look, know that they underrate what he was doing at his best.

I've noted before that in his first year in the ABA, Hawkins led the league in PPG despite being 3rd on his team in FGA. He did this by also leading the league in TS%, and do so while also leading the team in APG, RPG, and almost certainly BPG & SPM had they had that data (but interestingly he did not lead his team in TOs, and was 11th on his team in terms of TOs per minute). To lead a team to the title like this is amazing, but it does give rise to the question: Why were other guys shooting more than Hawkins?

The answer seems to be that these guys were just flat out bad chuckers who the coach couldn't get to pass the ball even though he'd sometimes bench them just to ensure the ball went to Hawkins, but apparently the team couldn't get anyone better mid-season (neither would last that much longer in the ABA).

Now, I tend to read stuff that focuses on Hawkins' perspective rather than the perspective Chico Vaughn, so bias is a concern. But my conclusion is that even in a young ABA that wasn't what it would later become, the Pittsburgh Pipers had no business winning a title given the lack of team play. But what was the case is that when Hawkins played the pivot, the offense hummed with Hawkins both scoring incredibly well and passing incredibly well.

Hawkins suffered the defining injury of his career midway through his second ABA season, and most don't think he was ever as good again, yet still he ended up blowing away the NBA once he got going.

What precipitated him getting going? Mid-way through the season, Phoenix Suns GM Jerry Colangelo fired coach Red Kerr, took over as coach, and had the team play with Hawkins in the high post as the guy the offense would run through. Prior to that point, Hawkins had been positioned in the corner while team captain Gail Goodrich dribbled, dribbled, dribble, and then shot. Goodrich, it should be noted seems to have had a good attitude and was willing to play in an offense with Hawkins as the focus, but when left to his own devices, he tended to just iso.

A few more anecdotes in Hawkins first year in the NBA:

1. After the Suns beat the Celtics in Boston, Bill Russell - who had retired the previous year - came over and gushed "You can do things with the ball I've never seen before!". (Hawkins responded "If you'd have been out there, you'd have blocked half my shots". Russell then said "I don't think so".)

2. Hawkins drew rave reviews as the best passer in the league. Was he better than Oscar? I'm not prepared to say that, but what I can say is that Hawkins was doing things Oscar could not. One described play involved Hawkins having the ball in the high post and making two quick passing fakes in opposite directions (which he could do because had had the ball palmed), and then casually dribbling through the now open lane to the basket.

3. Another anecdote: Apparently Hawkins could dribble through press defense unaided. When a team pressed the Suns, they'd pass the ball to Hawkins, and get out of the way, while he dribbled his way through opponents. If this seems unrealistic for a player generally, I'd note that this skill was a major thing before the shot clock, and the team most famous for this ability was the Globetrotters back in their still-competitive days in the '40s. Against the Mikan-led Lakers, the Globetrotters famously gave the ball to master-dribbler Marques Haynes, and he dribbled what remained of the 4th quarter away so that his team could take the last shot.

While the shot clock rendered this specific ability moot, the Globetrotters used it as part of their act, and so this was something the Globetrotter players actually practiced, and Hawkins honed the ability there.

So I'd say the most amazing thing isn't that someone could do this, but that Hawkins at 6'8" could do this.

4. I'd note that Wilt said that Hawkins was the only guy in the world who could play "all three positions" - by which he meant guard, forward, and center.

I should also note that Hawkins's quickness and agility was tied to his lithe fame, so when Hawkins played center, he took a severe beating that made it hard for him to sustain that kind of play over a season.

I'll also note that Hawkins was a guy who got very little training in formal defense. With his long arms and quickness he could get blocks and steals, but he struggled beyond that.

5. Some people hated his "clown antics". Some refs in particular. I think this makes sense because the Globetrotters - while they may be clowns - spend their games making their opponents look like fools. What happens when you do that to someone who isn't paid to take it? Animosity.

6. Among players, Elvin Hayes in particular apparently expressed hostility toward Hawkins, and this led to a showdown in the very last game of the '69-70 season which Hawkin's Suns needed to make the playoffs. The Suns were down 19 points at half time, and in the second half Hawkins & Hayes matched up. Hawkins led the team back to a victory with a 44/20/8 night on 30 FGA, and was said to have had 5 blocks & 5 steals in the 3rd quarter alone. Multiple of those blocks came on Hayes who went for 23/18/2 on 25 FGA.

7. In the playoffs, the Suns would fight hard before losing in 7 to the West/Wilt led Lakers, with some making the comment that it was essentially "the Lakers vs Connie Hawkins".

After that year, Hawkins would still have great runs, but injuries took more of a toll. The general feeling was that his body was much older than his age suggested having played 250 Globetrotter games per year while others his age were playing 25 college games per year, to say nothing about all that time on the Schoolyard.

In the end, with Hawkins, I think it's very hard to know how to rank him and so I completely understand those who won't have him in the Top 100. More than anything else, I hope others can just appreciate how singular he was, and how significant on a level beyond simple career impact.

But I do think he warrants a place above Bill Walton, who is my #3 pick here. Love, love, love Walton, but as much as Hawkins had longevity issues, I'd say Walton had them worse, and I'm not comfortable saying that Walton was clearly the better player best vs best. I think Walton was amazing like this, and he certainly has the defensive edge overall, but in some ways I feel like you could look at Walton on offense as a poor man's Hawkins.

Part of what I'm saying here is that I believe that the pivot-and-cut offense that Jack Ramsay instituted for Walton in Portland is not some completely new thing, but rather something that was huge and never really made it to the NBA. Once the basketball world saw Mikan & Kurland, pivot-and-cut passing didn't seem as useful as just pass to low post and score. And when that paradigm got challenged, it got challenged by perimeter-oriented offenses that in today's game are dominant.

I would submit that we've never really seen the potential for a pivot-and-cut offense in the modern NBA until Nikola Jokic, and I might make a comparison between Jokic & Hawkins. And on that front, note that I have Jokic below Walton. Through the end of last season, I didn't think Jokic had done enough to surpass Walton, but with this season, well, things are changing.

I will note, with regards to context, I consider Jokic to be more of "random genius" than Hawkins. I think Hawkins became what he did because he was shaped by unique context and had specific, rare physical gifts. Jokic seems like he was born like this.

Alright, beyond Hawk I've got Walton & Jokic on my ballot.

So first, what that means is that I'm clearly right now siding on peak/prime over longevity relative to some other folks. As I always say, I'm not going to tell you that your longevity weighting is wrong - I think that's up to personal philosophy.

I will say on Walton I've had him all over my ballots through the years and really don't know where to put him...but I do think that he deserves to be higher than Jokic through '19-20. I understand that you can argue that Jokic should win based on a longevity edge, but Jokic is obviously weak there as well, and Walton being a key part of a championship team 7 years after the first really cements that indelible impression I have of him.

If you just think Jokic through last year was better than Walton, I get that, but I'd not feel comfortable saying that because Walton was the best defender on the planet.

On Jokic over other guys, the first guy I want to mention is someone I've not even been listing out because he hasn't had traction: Draymond Green. When I look at current players not in, those two are the next ones on my list and to be honest I expected to have Green ahead of Jokic.

If I felt strongly about Green over Jokic, I'd be arguing for that now, but I'm not. I can see arguments both ways, but Green really doesn't have much of a longevity edge, and as special as Green was at his best, I do think Jokic was more special by a smidge even before this year.

Next guy: Billy Cunningham. I think Cunningham is a strong candidate, but I definitely see him as less indelible than Hawk or Walton.

Looks like Horace Grant is getting a lot of momentum, and he's another guy I love so I'm not looking to argue against really, but clearly his argument over these other guys is longevity, and I struggle to talk about Grant as a big longevity guy.

On Tiny Archibald - I'm really convinced at this point that he was an absolute killer at his best. He feels like he should be easily a Top 100 guy for me, and I rank him above some guys already on the list, but obviously there are still guys left out there that I like even better.

On James Worthy - I don't really feel like I have a precise compelling case for Worthy, but I don't think we should forget about him. I see him as a guy who proved himself to be versatile while still capable of being a good alpha when needed.

[DCasey91]

89. Walton
I’ve said my piece on Walton. Insanely high peak because he was that great (way higher then anyone else left). Sports in totality reward what a player achieved irrespective of how long they played the game. The value argument has now gone in to different sectors with him and not with any other player, for me that isn’t fair (have to cross compare every player then to make it so). I don’t buy the Grant argument making the Bulls the best team in the 90’s. The engine was obviously MJ, the window started and ended with him. If you take into consideration contract value of a year in the 90’s he’d be up over $100 mill compared to today. We don’t need a value analysis to say it might be overvalued. He won.
I mean in an eco overall impact data equation it’d take you months of heavy research to even quantify capital outcomes. It isn’t just a contract at all.
You knock Walton on his longevity that’s fair, but for me I don’t downplay his peak, and bringing up contract value, has that been put into the equation for everybody else? No. In summary I’m rewarding his such high peak as sports in general do.

90.Dumars
Intergral part of back to back championship wins, which doesn’t happen often, capping it of with a finals MVP. Very very solid career as a legitimate two-way player.

91.Lucas
Really, really good player for his time. 7x All Star, ROY, Great FG/TS add. 5x All NBA. Watching him he does look to have a ‘modernized game’.

92.Green 93.Debusschere 94.Webber 95.Anthony 96.Archibald 97.Cunningham 98.Hawkins 99.Kemp
100.Jokic

[penbeast0]

Glad to see Jerry Lucas get a mention, he's always a hot button topic here. All the numbers look amazing . . . until you get to WOWY and team winning %. How did a team with Oscar and Lucas consistently come up meh?

[Cavsfansince84]

Glad to see Jerry Lucas get a mention, he's always a hot button topic here. All the numbers look amazing . . . until you get to WOWY and team winning %. How did a team with Oscar and Lucas consistently come up meh?

That's the one question I have about him and his impact which led me to think his defense must have been a legitimate liability and his rebounding may not be quite as good as the numbers suggest which is why I dropped him down like 5-6 spots after having him on my ballot for a bit.

[Owly]

Glad to see Jerry Lucas get a mention, he's always a hot button topic here. All the numbers look amazing . . . until you get to WOWY and team winning %. How did a team with Oscar and Lucas consistently come up meh?

I'll note on Robertson too that his WOWY looks amazing.

Re Lucas another ding, less so for me as I weight it less but I'm aware others weight it much more is playoffs. He has his years that are solid, especially later career but two stinkers in Cincinatti bring his box composites to circa playoff league average in the playoffs.

In terms of the "amazing"ness of Lucas's numbers I think a bit of that is playing circa 44mpg for 4 years. And there can be real value to that if you're really good or your backup is really bad etc. If it comes with a big cost on D though (and that seems plausible) ... Well in any case rate production-wise the Reference metrics seem to prefer, say, Bailey Howell.

[Odinn21]

Glad to see Jerry Lucas get a mention, he's always a hot button topic here. All the numbers look amazing . . . until you get to WOWY and team winning %. How did a team with Oscar and Lucas consistently come up meh?

That's the one question I have about him and his impact which led me to think his defense must have been a legitimate liability and his rebounding may not be quite as good as the numbers suggest which is why I dropped him down like 5-6 spots after having him on my ballot for a bit.

Jerry Lucas one of poster boys how box numbers can overrate the sh.t out of a player.
He was a true defensive liability. I mean I’m talking about Starbury level liability, arguably even worse.

If Lucas was a neutral (let alone positive) impact player, the Knicks wouldn’t lose out that much of quality when Lucas basically replaced Reed and Frazier an overall team depth were getting better.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Carmelo Anthony
Vote 2 - Billy Cunningham
Vote 3 - Bernard King

Issel > Webber > Tiny > Worthy > DeBusschere > Terry Porter > Bellamy > Jerry Lucas > Gus Williams > Hornacek > Dennis Johnson > Hawkins > Jokic > Walton

Below are players already voted in in Melo’s VORP and Win Shares range. I left out older players who had some seasons before VORP was calculated since it's cumulative:

VORP
Rasheed Wallace 38.36
Dwight Howard 38.28
Alex English 38.25
Kevin Johnson 37.27
Carmelo Anthony 35.6
Giannis Antetokounmpo 34.59
Kevin McHale 34.29
Dikembe Mutombo 34
Sidney Moncrief 33.15
Horace Grant 33.05
Chris Bosh 31.14
Tony Parker 30.13
Alonzo Mourning 27.60
Dennis Rodman 21.02

Win Shares
Hal Greer 102.65
Russell Westbrook 102.58
Carmelo Anthony 102.3
Alex English 100.68
Grant Hill 99.93
Allen Iverson 98.97
Tracy McGrady 97.27
Ben Wallace 93.51
Kevin Johnson 92.77
Sam Jones 92.29
Bob Cousy 91.11
Dennis Rodman 89.83
Alonzo Mourning 89.74
Damian Lillard 89.39
Bob McAdoo 89.08
Dave Cowens 86.32
Anthony Davis 86.05
Kawhi Leonard 82.56
Isiah Thomas 80.69
Giannis Antetokounmpo 72.56

Peak carmelo developed into one of the best offensive players in the league. The “iso melo” stigma really became an outdated narrative as you saw all he really needed was a decent PG rotation to keep the ball moving (a little different, but billups certainly got the best out of him in denver). He became one of the better off the ball players in 12-13, actually shooting more efficiently and on higher volume than durant in catch and shoot situations. His transition to a great 3 pt shooter also opened up his game, and he stepped into transition 3s about as well as anyone in the league.

He’s obviously known for his great post up and face up game, but not acknowledged as much for being a great offensive rebounder for his position. He had a deceptively quick second jump and soft touch around the rim for put backs. He also possessed a unique rolling spin move to the hoop i’m not sure anyone else in the league has. The one thing he was really average at is finishing at the rim, and i’d say that partially has to do with him not being able to take advantage of the way the game is called these days. He wasn’t a freak show athlete like lebron, and he doesn’t have those long strides like durant / harden where they know the angles and draw fouls as easily as they do.

I then look at someone like dominique, who was voted in at #73, and I don't think carmelo should fall too far behind. Let's look at their first 11 seasons. You can change the years, but my point remains the same.

https://stathead.com/tiny/Vr6aD

They’re very comparable in most areas, and carmelo actually comes out as the better postseason performer, something wilkins was well criticized for, but still managed to get voted in much earlier. Melo also has a clear edge in relative scoring efficiency. I noted trex's argument in past threads about nique consistently carrying offenses with not much support. It's a valid point, although a good portion of melo's prime was wasted on poor PG play, which was the key to unlocking his best performance.

I'd also point out that while melo's transition to a role player was a bit rocky, he didn't call it quits like iverson when asked to come off the bench. You could make the argument that he was scapegoated in houston (to be clear, no conspiracy theories here about him getting blackballed -- that was just dumb). There's some revisionist history there as he literally came off the bench for HOU, so he did what they asked. Then last year in portland he did exactly what you'd want from a role player in year 17: 38.5% from 3 on 3.9 attempts per game, posting a positive net rating and on/off along with being a great teammate.

As I noted earlier, melo's best years came when he had decent PG play around him. Knicks management largely failed him in this regard post 2013. In 12-13, a merely average PG rotation of felton, kidd and prigioni was quite beneficial to him. In 13-14 felton was out of shape and kidd retired. After that:

14-15: Shane Larkin, Langston Galloway, 37 yr old Prigioni, 33 yr old Calderon

15-16: Langston Galloway, rookie Jerian Grant, 34 yr old Calderon — this PG rotation was so poor that Carmelo ended up leading the team in APG and just about equaled Calderon in AST%

16-17: Rose, Jennings, rookie Ron Baker

Jennings was really the one penetrate and dish PG the knicks had in those 3 seasons.  He even seemed to buy in to the fact that he can’t shoot and really got everyone involved.  Of course, he had rose starting in front of him, so his time on the floor with melo was limited.  He was used more in bench lineups that actually thrived, relatively speaking.

In an era where dynamic PG play is paramount, knicks management abhorrently ignored the position.  I don’t think you can find such ineptitude in a front office with playoff aspirations outside of the cousins-era kings.  

Then we get to the clutch play.  82games.com looked at shot data from 04-09 in the reg season + 04-08 in the post season.  Carmelo was 6th in the league in game winners, but #1 in the league by far in FG% on game winners at 48.1%:

http://82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm

By 2011, he already had enough game winners to choose from to create a top 10 for his career:

Watch on YouTube

For clutch data from 2000-2012, carmelo was 7th in the league in FG%, and 50% of his FGs were assisted, which is interesting to note for being criticized for holding the ball too long.

http://bit.ly/1wnySdJ

[I’d obviously prefer eFG% or TS% for these figures, but they weren’t available here]

Carmelo gets a decent amount of flack for his playoff resume, and I think it’s a little overstated, so I’d like to provide some context for each season.  It also seems to get pushed aside that making the playoffs 10 seasons in a row is no big deal or something, especially when the majority of them came out west.  Below is carmelo’s team SRS rank and the opponent’s SRS rank that he lost to in the playoffs.

CARMELO SRS RANK / OPPONENT SRS RANK

04 - 11th / 2nd
05 - 10th / 1st (eventual NBA champion spurs)
06 - 15th / 9th
07 - 9th / 1st (eventual NBA champion spurs)
08 - 11th / 2nd
09 - 8th / 3rd (eventual NBA champion lakers)
10 - 8th / 3rd
11 - 15th / 6th
12 - 11th / 4th (eventual NBA champion heat)
13 - 7th / 9th

Aside from 2013, the team he lost to has always been favored in SRS, with 4 of the 10 series losses coming to the eventual NBA champs.  To me, this doesn’t reflect a player who’s come up short when he’s been expected to go farther in the playoffs.  You can make the argument that if he was a better player, he may have been favored in more series, but that only goes so far.  

It’s clear that he hasn’t been as fortunate as some other players as far as who he’s played with.  Some more details on his recent playoff loses:

'09 - This run to the WCF almost gets glossed over at times.  Nuggets were 2 wins away from the finals, losing to the eventual NBA champion lakers, who were just flat out the better team. He had some great performances during that run.

'11 -  Billups gets hurt in game 1 against boston (out for rest of series), then amare gets hurt in game 2 only playing 17 min.  First 2 games are decided by 2 and 3 points respectively.  

Tony douglas forced to play PG for the rest of the series, basically putting it out of reach.

'12 - Disastrous # of injuries.  Tyson chandler finishes off a DPOY season, and of course gets the flu as soon as the playoffs start.  Lin doesn’t come back for the playoffs, shumpert and douglas only play 1 game a piece, baron davis eventually goes down, and the knicks are only left with 33 yr old mike bibby to run the point, who already had 1 foot in retirement.

'13 - First time since carmelo came to the knicks that they really looked like a team who could make a run to the finals.  PG play was always an issue prior to this season, and felton came up big in the 1st round against boston.  Ball movement flowing with kidd and prigioni as well.  Then in the 2nd round against indiana, chandler again doesn’t look himself, which would later be revealed that he had an “undisclosed illness” during the series.  I think there’s a good chance they beat the pacers with a healthy chandler, and who knows what happens from there.

As for defense, the last few seasons specifically he hasn’t been the same player physically. I’ve never claimed him to be a plus defender, even in his prime.  I’m now reminded of some data i gathered in the 2014 project that i haven’t added here:

While not perfect, take a look at how the below SFs have performed against carmelo vs. their career averages.  Sure, camrelo may not have been guarding them the whole time, but it's a large enough sample size to at least uncover any red flags.

(TS% or eFG% not available for head to head data)

Durant - 27.9 PPG on 43/41/87 (career 27.3 PPG on 48/38/88)

LeBron - 25.9 PPG on 49/27/70 (career 27.4 PPG on 50/34/75)

Gay - 18.6 PPG on 44/22/72 (career 18.4 PPG on 45/34/79)

George - 15.1 PPG on 45/34/77 (career 15.3 PPG on 43/36/83)

Pierce - 23.1 PPG on 50/41/80 (career 20.9 PPG on 45/37/81)

Granger - 16.6 PPG on 45/39/88 (career 16.8 PPG on 43/38/85)

Caron Butler - 12.4 PPG on 43/38/84 (career 14.5 PPG on 43/34/85)

McGrady - 19.6 PPG on 45/44/82 (career 19.6 PPG on 44/34/75)

Deng - 17.1 PPG on 45/36/83 (career 16.9 PPG on 46/33/77)

Josh Howard - 12.7 PPG on 44/31/79 (career 14.3 PPG on 45/33/77)

Richard Jefferson - 14.2 PPG on  51/43/66 (career 14 PPG on 47/38/77)

Stephen Jackson - 17.4 PPG on 35/33/86 (career 15.1 PPG on 41/33/80)

Of the 12 players, 6 scored the same or less than their career averages against carmelo.  Those that scored more were only by marginal amounts.  Efficiency ranges from lower to somewhat higher.  No red flags here.

That’s 11 seasons of data. It doesn’t paint the picture of an egregious defender.

Here are the best players carmelo’s played with in his prime: andre miller (first few seasons of carmelo's career), kenyon martin (often injured), post 30s iverson, camby (often injured), JR smith, nene (often injured), billups, afflalo, amare (often injured), tyson chandler (often injured), kidd in his last season, in shape felton and porzingis' rookie/soph year.  

Outside of iverson, that’s a collection of good players, but nothing that screams "consistent second option", or even "consistent first option" if you want to push carmelo down a notch.  Porzingis and carmelo actually had great chemistry until rose came along, but their timelines unfortunately didn't match up.  Fit is clearly important, too, and while iverson and carmelo never had "problems" with each other, it wasn't working.  It’s not an accident that carmelo’s best seasons came with billups running the show in 2009 and a knicks team in 2013 which focused heavily on keeping the ball moving and quick decision making.

When he made it to OKC with westbrook and george it was just too little too late. Not denying the growing pains, but he was in year 15 and not the same player since his knee surgery. Took him time to adjust his game as he's now done in portland.

[penbeast0]

Jerry Lucas one of poster boys how box numbers can overrate the sh.t out of a player.
He was a true defensive liability. I mean I’m talking about Starbury level liability, arguably even worse.

If Lucas was a neutral (let alone positive) impact player, the Knicks wouldn’t lose out that much of quality when Lucas basically replaced Reed and Frazier an overall team depth were getting better.

I will say that watching him with the Knicks, his defense seemed better than Dan Issel's who is also on people's radar with great stats but lesser impact. Not a rim protector but good court awareness and did a reasonable job of using angles and drawing charges.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #34:

Jeff Hornacek - 2 (penbeast0, sansterre)
Bill Walton - 2 (DCasey91, HeartBreakKid)
Billy Cunningham - 1 (Odinn21)
Nikola Jokic - 1 (Dutchball97)
Connie Hawkins - 1 (Doctor MJ)
Dan Issel - 1 (trex_8063)
Carmelo Anthony - 1 (Clyde Frazier)
Dave DeBusschere - 1 (Cavsfansince84)
Dennis Johnson - 1 (Hal14)


11 votes [best turnout in awhile], requires 6 for majority. The bottom 7 are first eliminated, which transfers one to Walton and ghosts the other six.....

Walton - 3
Hornacek - 2
(ghosted) - 6

So Walton becomes a non-majority default winner which has to be validated against the last eliminated [Hornacek]....

Walton trails Hornacek 5-6 in Condorcet, so his default victory is NOT upheld; but as a default victor, we'll give him his chance to comeback in a runoff.
So we're looking for potential NEW runoff votes from the existing voter panel.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[HeartBreakKid]

So close! After voting for Walton for 30 threads I can almost taste the gold!

[trex_8063]

.

Glad to see Jerry Lucas get a mention, he's always a hot button topic here. All the numbers look amazing . . . until you get to WOWY and team winning %. How did a team with Oscar and Lucas consistently come up meh?

That's the one question I have about him and his impact which led me to think his defense must have been a legitimate liability and his rebounding may not be quite as good as the numbers suggest which is why I dropped him down like 5-6 spots after having him on my ballot for a bit.

Jerry Lucas one of poster boys how box numbers can overrate the sh.t out of a player.
He was a true defensive liability. I mean I’m talking about Starbury level liability, arguably even worse.

If Lucas was a neutral (let alone positive) impact player, the Knicks wouldn’t lose out that much of quality when Lucas basically replaced Reed and Frazier an overall team depth were getting better.

Not saying you're wrong, but what are you basing this assessment of his defense on?

Speaking for myself, I've only got <3 games of eye-test on him. I have 1.5 games viewed when I was working on my Game Log project [put on hiatus when this project started]--->half a game from '66 [while with Cincinatti], plus a quarter of another game and three-quarters of third game [both from '70, with the SFW]; otherwise I believe I've seen one playoff game from his Knick days.

While doing the game-logs I didn't really get a chance to fully scrutinize his defense [to many other things I'm focusing on], though generally I recall thinking his defense was "meh". Perhaps not terrible, but not good.

That said, his WOWYR [which I've been critical of as a metric, fwiw] is among the worst ever among notable "stars". This, combined with.....
*the lack of higher-end success while teamed with Oscar [and which seems to entirely caused by their poor team defense]
**and his habit of not consistently boxing out, but rather "chasing" rebounds [this is both something I observed AND is by his own admission in interview].

.....does make me think he may have been a significant liability on defense, too.
But just wondering if you had something more than that to go on.


btw, I'm glad to see the Bailey Howell mention [though I won't be supporting him within this project]. But I do think he's in a similar tier all-time as Jerry Lucas, even if he never gets that credit in the mainstream.

Lucas's rate of scoring was actually pretty pedestrian in his career: his pts/100 is typically at league average, or just marginally below. His scoring numbers sometimes look big because he was playing well above 40 mpg.
His efficiency is outstanding however, and he does have a floor-stretching benefit.
And his rebounding rates are excellent [though the "chasing" thing still a consideration where this is concerned].

Howell's scoring rates, otoh, are fairly consistently above league average [occassionally by a pretty solid margin], AND his efficiency is even more outstanding than Lucas's [he has TWO seasons above +9.6% rTS (peaking at +10.36%), and SEVEN consecutive years > +6%]; and he too stretches the floor a bit.
His assist rates are similar. His rebounding rates are less, though still at least adequate/decent.

To my eye, Howell didn't look too bad defensively [have 2.3 games logged with him playing].
Granted all of this is on smaller mpg than Lucas; though on the flip-side he also played one more season than Lucas.

On the whole, they feel very comparable to me. For whatever reason, Lucas simply obtained a much greater narrative, though.

[trex_8063]

.

Fantastic post on Melo.

There's no question Carmelo Anthony has been overrated by the media throughout much of his career [as most high volume scorers tend to be]. But I often feel the blow-back [on this forum] against that mainstream perception is a bit over the top. imo, he clearly has a place somewhere on this list.

And from a consistency standpoint, I'll again note other wings who are largely just scorers ONLY [without adding too much value in any other ways] whom we've already voted in:

Dominique Wilkins (#73)
Alex English (#68)
Paul Arizin (#60)
Sam Jones (#56)
Adrian Dantley (#55)
George Gervin (#37!)

And yet are we [in some cases, the same people who strongly advocated for one or more of the above] going to push Melo out of the top 100 entirely?

And for whatever it's worth, I'd note that Melo [prior to the start of this current season (which is ineligible)] was:
*Ahead of all of them in career rebounds.
**Ahaed of all of them except English in career assists.
***Ahead of all of them except Nique and Gervin in career points.
****Ahead of English and Jones in career rs [and total (rs + ps)] Win Shares.
*****Ahead of English and Wilkins in career playoff VORP (and at least not terribly far behind both English and Gervin in career rs VORP).

[Odinn21]

About Lucas’ defensive performances, I had many postseason games of the Royals in the ‘60s. In the full series I had, all the Celtics series + ‘65 Sixers series, he was quite inconsistent. He was like he had his memory wiped and learning from the scratch what he should’ve been doing. His spatial awareness was always quite bad early in the game, especially in the 1st quarters. Even when the team went hot, they could not capitalise on those performances. The only time they managed to do that was game 2 against the Celtics in 1966. Games like game 3 against the Sixers in 1967 or game 5 against the Celtics in 1964 were significantly more common. If you look at 1st q and game MoV numbers, you’d see that especially when the Royals lost, they lost directly in the 1st q and the reason was Lucas. Also I’m quite critical of his lateral movement, along with his inconsistencies with spatial awareness.

I know talking about a player’s inconsistencies throughout a game is kind of weird but that was the case with Lucas.

[trex_8063]

About Lucas’ defensive performances, I had many postseason games of the Royals in the ‘60s. In the full series I had, all the Celtics series + ‘65 Sixers series, he was quite inconsistent..

When you say "had", do you mean to say you have/had those games on video? If so, would it be possible to share? Would be super SUPER interested in logging them [and watching them in general] once I'm able to get back to the game logging project.