RealGM Top 100 List #39

[ElGee]

vote: can I get a count?
nominate: Alonzo Mourning

Speaking to the names brought up we are going to encounter in the next month or two:

Rodman
In/Out:
93 (22g) +8.0 to 0.7
95 (33g) +1.2 to 6.5
96 (18g) +3.0 to 12.9
97 (27g) +2.8 to 11.7

SIO for those 100 games: +5.8

Like Ben Wallace, my issue with Rodman is he can't really be the best or second best player on a team. It's essentially impossible to win that way, save something like 04 Det or 96 Kentucky in build. The flip side, of course, is that I'm trying to win/build good teams and he's an awesome piece to that puzzle...and he does help weaker teams too, it's just that scoring is the most important aspect of basketball. It's overrated by most, but you need players who will generate offense and Dennis was never a big plus on that side (nor was Wallace). Have him at 70 right now.

Bobby Jones
A little like Rodman in what he brings - an awesome piece to a team but not a No. 1 or No. 2 type player. He's not on my board right now but I'll certainly try and look at him in more detail for a top-75 spot. This was a player who garnered short-list MVP love at the height of the ABA.

Arizin
Half of years are eliminated by no shot clock. I still like Arizin conceptually without having much a feel for him. I'd actually like to hear more about him from our resident researchers. Still, longevity and era are probably going to keep him off my radar for a while.

McAdoo
Right around 50 right now for me. Great 3-year peak. Definitely some longevity issues with Mac, and I don't think people should get overly carried away with offense bc he was a PF playing center, which IMO helps his offense while hurting his defense. He did a lot for Buffalo and had some monster performances though.

Zo
In/Out
94 (22g) +9.0 to 2.2
96 (12g) +11.0 to 3.0
97 (16g) +0.8 to 5.7
98 (24g) +1.7 to 5.4

SIO for those 74 games: +4.7

I would *vote* for Zo very soon if he were on the board and it actually counted. I have him right with Elvin Hayes at the glut of big men we've had sitting there for what seems like forever. I have him 13 spots ahead of Willis Reed.

Unseld
Very overrated to me. He won, hands down, the worst MVP in the history of the league at a time when voters were looking for something intangible (Russelly). Then he won a fairly bogus Finals MVP as some sort of career nod over a guy everyone hated, Elvin Hayes, who was clearly better. If he played his whole career at pre-knee injury levels, he wouldn't be on my board yet. As it is, I'm not sure if I'll vote for him in this project.

Gasol
2005 (26g) -1.2 to 1.9
2007 (23g) -1.8 to -5.6
2010 (17g) 4.01 to 5.6

Have him right next to Cousy around 60. Webber vs. Gasol is an interesting one...

Manu
2005 (8g) -6.7 to 7.2
2006 (17g) 3.9 to 7.6
2009 (38g) 0.1 to 4.2

Ahead of Gasol right now...I just think he has a number of comparable years. Yes, I do think Manu Ginobili was a top-10 player for multiple seasons, and while I view some of his numbers with the perspective that he played fewer minutes, he's also done plenty fine when called upon for a bigger load. Maybe he couldn't sustain that for 10 years...but it also made his best years "look" weaker than they probably were.

English
Meh. Definitely a good scorer of the basketball. I have a hard time seeing differently than Glen Rice or Mitch Richmond types. Not that that prevents him from being in the top 100, but I haven't seen a good argument for his value. English is worth a closer look for me though...

Jerry Lucas
I think he'll be in play in this project, but not for a few months. I don't think he's in my top-70.

[drza]

Rodman
In/Out:
93 (22g) +8.0 to 0.7
95 (33g) +1.2 to 6.5
96 (18g) +3.0 to 12.9
97 (27g) +2.8 to 11.7

SIO for those 100 games: +5.8

Like Ben Wallace, my issue with Rodman is he can't really be the best or second best player on a team. It's essentially impossible to win that way, save something like 04 Det or 96 Kentucky in build. The flip side, of course, is that I'm trying to win/build good teams and he's an awesome piece to that puzzle...and he does help weaker teams too, it's just that scoring is the most important aspect of basketball. It's overrated by most, but you need players who will generate offense and Dennis was never a big plus on that side (nor was Wallace). Have him at 70 right now.

Not sure I agree with either of the two bolded statements above. I think there's a strong argument that Rodman was one of the two best players on the '90 Pistons, and I'm point-blank convinced that Wallace was the best player on the '04 Pistons (and no conceivable way he's out of the top-2). And frankly, though Russ was obviously the much better player, both Rodman and Wallace fit into his lineage of impacting from the defensive side of the ball.

Building on that, I've never seen anything remotely convincing that scoring is the most important aspect of basketball. That's another truism I've seen bandied about, but it's never been proven as far as I can tell.

[Fencer reregistered]

Fair as usual, your a pretty class dude
Again it wasn't me trying to be rude
but to keep up dialog is verse can become a bit fatiguing
I don't align with your results but I find them intriguing

lol. I'm sure it is. Don't wear yourself out, it's too good a shtick to abandon.

My contention is the Russell Celtics sacrificed for D
and it minimized the contributions of Sharman and Cous-ee
But without Cousy's offense, Russell could not evolve
and the Celtics don't win the first four titles,, maybe none of them at all
Cosuy gave up his offense, to let Russell play the D
That made the Celtics champions and should aid his legacy

Agree that offensive sacrifice was made, and this is an excellent thing to bring up.

Don't see the basis for saying Russell only evolved because he had Cousy. Honestly, the Celtics "evolved" around Russell far more than the other way around. His big shift came when Cousy retired and he became the team's quarterback, which actually means Russell could not fully evolve WITH Cousy's offense.

As far as where the nuance is: It there was a serious campaign to say that Cousy should be ranked well below more efficient but similarly accoladed stars like Schayes and Arizin, then I think you'd have not only a valid point, but perhaps the most important point.

But that isn't happening. The reality is that the vast majority of people ranked Cousy well ahead of those other guys despite not being in another league with accolades. That's happening because he was on the GOAT dynasty. And while sacrificing your game to fit in with clearly superior talent is something to be praised, the fact remains that when your strength is in the team's weakness and the team only gets better once you leave because they make their strengths even stronger, it's absolutely wrong to use those large number of titles as a reason to lift Cousy well up above those other guys. At most they should act like a tiebreaker.

I'm also suggesting that Cousy's impact on the course of the game was so massive it should be viewed as more than just a tiebreaker.

1. He was The One Most Visible Star of the game pre-shot-clock -- i.e., a Bird/Magic/Jordan role in popularizing the game.

2. Not all evolutions and improvements of the game have individual guys clearly associated with them as pathbreakers who showed the way. Thus, VERY few other players influenced others as much as Cousy did.

3. For good or ill, Cousy founded and was the driving force behind the player's union. Even if you agree with me that that's not important for our purposes here, it's a plausibility argument that he was the sort of person of whom it could be said ...

4. ... he was the most instrumental white player in helping African-Americans be comfortable (enough to get by) in the league, by a wide margin.

To remind you of my analysis on the last one, the Celtics were a huge part of showing that you needed African-Americans to win; that part is well-documented. Beyond that, when one's enough of a Celtics fan to listen to nuances of team history from the old days, it becomes clear that among white players, Cousy was the great leader in that regard. I'm not saying the others were racists (Tommy Heinsohn might have been a bit, but he was such a nice guy that I would be shocked if it were ever serious or nasty). Rather, I'm saying the one who directly reached out to support his teammates through the racial rough spots was Cousy. There are stories telling of that; also, that was his personality (e.g. because he was a labor-leader kind of guy, and also because he was a PG/quarterback type).

[penbeast0]

...
Unseld
Very overrated to me. He won, hands down, the worst MVP in the history of the league at a time when voters were looking for something intangible (Russelly). Then he won a fairly bogus Finals MVP as some sort of career nod over a guy everyone hated, Elvin Hayes, who was clearly better. If he played his whole career at pre-knee injury levels, he wouldn't be on my board yet. As it is, I'm not sure if I'll vote for him in this project.
...

I've heard and answered the comment about Unseld's MVP before in depth but here is the short version.

(a) It, like Nash's MVPs, was based on what he did for his team. He came to the Bullets who had been the worst team in the Eastern Conference and turned them around in one year to the best team in the league (.695 win % -- better than Russell and Celtics, Reed/Frazier Knicks, Wilt/Baylor/West Lakers!)despite losing one of their top two veteran stars, HOF F Gus Johnson, for more than half the year.

(b) Combine that with the fact that no one else impressed particularly. The guy with the biggest stat line was Elvin Hayes who went to the worst team in the West (much worse than the Bullets) and improved them to a .451 team (an impressive improvement but less unusual for a second year team with a new star to take a jump than a team led by a rookie and second year player to go worst to first). That and Hayes already had his coach complaining about him while Baltimore raved about Unseld. Of the league's other top players, Russell was in his last year and the Celtics slipped to 4th; Wilt joined Baylor and West and the trio couldn't do better than Wes and Earl Monroe; Oscar's Royals were a .500 team again; the main competition was Billy Cunningham who still had Hal Greer (2nd team All-NBA), Chet Walker, and Archie Clark and who finished behind the Bullets after being favored to win the conference.

So . . . while Wes's stats were not ridiculous 18/3/14 (though 18 rebounds a game is impressive now, it wasn't as earthshaking then when Wilt and Russ had been averaging 20+ for a decade), the narrative was strong and people loved his attitude and willingness to set picks, throw outlet passes, and do the dirty work -- like Willis Reed's MVP soon thereafter, Unseld got credit for "playing the game the right way." Look at the season and tell me that it was a ridiculous vote. I can see arguing for Hayes, Russell, or Cunningham, but it's far from the most ridiculous MVP ever -- it's the most logical result based on the regular season (of course if we include the playoffs it should go to Russell's last stand).

[penbeast0]

As for Alex English v. Mitch Richmond or Glen Rice . . . we are talking primarily about scorers and English had an extraordinarily consistent run of 8 straight seasons over 25ppg while the personnel around him changed and his role shifted between outside threat, primary post up guy, point forward, and general do it all scorer. Richmond and Rice each had 1 season over over 25ppg with next best years of 23.9 and 22.3 respectively . . . and neither were better defensively or in other areas such as playmaking/rebounding though Richmond's defense was equal to that of English (both above average, Rice not so good).

A better comp is Ray Allen who also played different roles (on ball scorer, off ball complementary player) with good consistency (.578ts% to English's .558 though that is rough equivalent to league improvement as coaches increased the 3 point shot); but again, Allen has only one season of over 25.1ppg (in a year he only played 55 games) so you have to give English the edge on explosiveness and from watching them, on defense. Allen's best argument is playoffs where he exploded in Milwaukee and Seattle although he only had 4 appearances in that stretch compared to 9 for English in Denver (Allen has had 3 in Boston as English had 1 in Milwaukee before going to Denver, they just were somewhat pedestrian with less than 15PER ratings). Allen should be considered soon, but after Alex English.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm also suggesting that Cousy's impact on the course of the game was so massive it should be viewed as more than just a tiebreaker.

1. He was The One Most Visible Star of the game pre-shot-clock -- i.e., a Bird/Magic/Jordan role in popularizing the game.

2. Not all evolutions and improvements of the game have individual guys clearly associated with them as pathbreakers who showed the way. Thus, VERY few other players influenced others as much as Cousy did.

3. For good or ill, Cousy founded and was the driving force behind the player's union. Even if you agree with me that that's not important for our purposes here, it's a plausibility argument that he was the sort of person of whom it could be said ...

4. ... he was the most instrumental white player in helping African-Americans be comfortable (enough to get by) in the league, by a wide margin.

To remind you of my analysis on the last one, the Celtics were a huge part of showing that you needed African-Americans to win; that part is well-documented. Beyond that, when one's enough of a Celtics fan to listen to nuances of team history from the old days, it becomes clear that among white players, Cousy was the great leader in that regard. I'm not saying the others were racists (Tommy Heinsohn might have been a bit, but he was such a nice guy that I would be shocked if it were ever serious or nasty). Rather, I'm saying the one who directly reached out to support his teammates through the racial rough spots was Cousy. There are stories telling of that; also, that was his personality (e.g. because he was a labor-leader kind of guy, and also because he was a PG/quarterback type).

Well those are different things though. There's giving the man credit for team success, and there's giving the man credit for influence. The former should be done, but in limited quantities. Totally up to the person if and how the latter should be done.

[Fencer reregistered]

I'm also suggesting that Cousy's impact on the course of the game was so massive it should be viewed as more than just a tiebreaker.

1. He was The One Most Visible Star of the game pre-shot-clock -- i.e., a Bird/Magic/Jordan role in popularizing the game.

2. Not all evolutions and improvements of the game have individual guys clearly associated with them as pathbreakers who showed the way. Thus, VERY few other players influenced others as much as Cousy did.

3. For good or ill, Cousy founded and was the driving force behind the player's union. Even if you agree with me that that's not important for our purposes here, it's a plausibility argument that he was the sort of person of whom it could be said ...

4. ... he was the most instrumental white player in helping African-Americans be comfortable (enough to get by) in the league, by a wide margin.

To remind you of my analysis on the last one, the Celtics were a huge part of showing that you needed African-Americans to win; that part is well-documented. Beyond that, when one's enough of a Celtics fan to listen to nuances of team history from the old days, it becomes clear that among white players, Cousy was the great leader in that regard. I'm not saying the others were racists (Tommy Heinsohn might have been a bit, but he was such a nice guy that I would be shocked if it were ever serious or nasty). Rather, I'm saying the one who directly reached out to support his teammates through the racial rough spots was Cousy. There are stories telling of that; also, that was his personality (e.g. because he was a labor-leader kind of guy, and also because he was a PG/quarterback type).

Well those are different things though. There's giving the man credit for team success, and there's giving the man credit for influence. The former should be done, but in limited quantities. Totally up to the person if and how the latter should be done.

Agreed. But I've been interpreting "impact" from the project's getgo to include that in my votes, where I've felt it applied. (E.g., I see Russell's impact of that kind being even a little higher than Cousy's, which was one of my reasons he had to go super-high on the list.)

[ElGee]

...
Unseld
Very overrated to me. He won, hands down, the worst MVP in the history of the league at a time when voters were looking for something intangible (Russelly). Then he won a fairly bogus Finals MVP as some sort of career nod over a guy everyone hated, Elvin Hayes, who was clearly better. If he played his whole career at pre-knee injury levels, he wouldn't be on my board yet. As it is, I'm not sure if I'll vote for him in this project.
...

I've heard and answered the comment about Unseld's MVP before in depth but here is the short version.

(a) It, like Nash's MVPs, was based on what he did for his team. He came to the Bullets who had been the worst team in the Eastern Conference and turned them around in one year to the best team in the league (.695 win % -- better than Russell and Celtics, Reed/Frazier Knicks, Wilt/Baylor/West Lakers!)despite losing one of their top two veteran stars, HOF F Gus Johnson, for more than half the year.

(b) Combine that with the fact that no one else impressed particularly. The guy with the biggest stat line was Elvin Hayes who went to the worst team in the West (much worse than the Bullets) and improved them to a .451 team (an impressive improvement but less unusual for a second year team with a new star to take a jump than a team led by a rookie and second year player to go worst to first). That and Hayes already had his coach complaining about him while Baltimore raved about Unseld. Of the league's other top players, Russell was in his last year and the Celtics slipped to 4th; Wilt joined Baylor and West and the trio couldn't do better than Wes and Earl Monroe; Oscar's Royals were a .500 team again; the main competition was Billy Cunningham who still had Hal Greer (2nd team All-NBA), Chet Walker, and Archie Clark and who finished behind the Bullets after being favored to win the conference.

So . . . while Wes's stats were not ridiculous 18/3/14 (though 18 rebounds a game is impressive now, it wasn't as earthshaking then when Wilt and Russ had been averaging 20+ for a decade), the narrative was strong and people loved his attitude and willingness to set picks, throw outlet passes, and do the dirty work -- like Willis Reed's MVP soon thereafter, Unseld got credit for "playing the game the right way." Look at the season and tell me that it was a ridiculous vote. I can see arguing for Hayes, Russell, or Cunningham, but it's far from the most ridiculous MVP ever -- it's the most logical result based on the regular season (of course if we include the playoffs it should go to Russell's last stand).

Hmmm. Gus Johnson did NOT miss more than half the year. He tore a ligament in his knee in Game 55 and the Bullets played +1.8 MOV basketball after his injury. (They were +5.5 before the injury.) And we've talked about this before -- Earl Monroe and Jack Marin were a year older and better. It'd be like giving James Harden MVP for the 2010 Thunder improvement. Except we're only talking about a +4 turnaround for Baltimore. :/

It was a totally ridiculous vote because it was narrative driven and there has never really been anything like it before or since. "Plays the game the right way." It's strange, frankly, to defend such a vote. Picks? Outlet passes? Look, I like Wes Unseld as a role player, but we are talking about the MVP of the league. To take such a stance would be like giving Dennis Rodman MVP of the league because he hustled and had great impact on the glass/defense. It's indefensible IMO. It's not a "valuable player" award it's THE MOST VALUABLE. Russell, West, Reed and Robertson were all clearly better IMO, which was reflected in the 1969 RPOY discussion/vote.

The year before, 1968, I'm missing 4 of Gus' outs but in the 18 I can find the Bullets were +1.1. In the other games, -5.6. Newspaper reports says stuff like "If we had Gus tonight, the game would have been totally different." Johnson also seemed to have this fantastic ability to blanket Oscar Robertson (twice in 1968). Talk about versatile...

As for Alex English v. Mitch Richmond or Glen Rice . . . we are talking primarily about scorers and English had an extraordinarily consistent run of 8 straight seasons over 25ppg while the personnel around him changed and his role shifted between outside threat, primary post up guy, point forward, and general do it all scorer. Richmond and Rice each had 1 season over over 25ppg with next best years of 23.9 and 22.3 respectively . . . and neither were better defensively or in other areas such as playmaking/rebounding though Richmond's defense was equal to that of English (both above average, Rice not so good).

A better comp is Ray Allen who also played different roles (on ball scorer, off ball complementary player) with good consistency (.578ts% to English's .558 though that is rough equivalent to league improvement as coaches increased the 3 point shot); but again, Allen has only one season of over 25.1ppg (in a year he only played 55 games) so you have to give English the edge on explosiveness and from watching them, on defense. Allen's best argument is playoffs where he exploded in Milwaukee and Seattle although he only had 4 appearances in that stretch compared to 9 for English in Denver (Allen has had 3 in Boston as English had 1 in Milwaukee before going to Denver, they just were somewhat pedestrian with less than 15PER ratings). Allen should be considered soon, but after Alex English.

I was looking for an argument of value, not merely the stats (of which I am aware). No. of seasons over some threshold don't even mean much statistically, especially when we consider that English's best pace-normalized season is (1986) 27.0 pts/75 on +2.1% TS%, while Rice's was (1997) 25.6 pts/75 on +6.9% TS and Richmond's (1997) was 26.5 pts/75 on +4.2% TS.

In other years, like 1984, English is 24.6 pts/75 on +2.7% TS, while Richmond had 1998 at 24.7 pts/75 on +4.5% TS and Rice had 1995 at 23.5 pts/75 on +4.3% TS.

Again, is there an argument/evidence that English provided really nice offensive value, even along the lines of Ray Allen or any other all-nba level wing?

[therealbig3]

My count:

Vote:

Howard-6 (penbeast0, ronnymac2, therealbig3, drza, Dr Mufasa, Fencer reregistered)

Wilkins-1 (JordansBulls)

Reed-1 (Laimbeer)



Nominate:

Cousy-3 (Fencer reregistered, JordansBulls, Laimbeer)

Moncrief-2 (penbeast0, ronnymac2)

KJ-2 (therealbig3, Dr Mufasa)

Mourning-2 (drza, ElGee)

[Fencer reregistered]

My count:

Vote:

Howard-6 (penbeast0, ronnymac2, therealbig3, drza, Dr Mufasa, Fencer reregistered)

Wilkins-1 (JordansBulls)

Reed-1 (Laimbeer)



Nominate:

Cousy-3 (Fencer reregistered, JordansBulls, Laimbeer)

Moncrief-2 (penbeast0, ronnymac2)

KJ-2 (therealbig3, Dr Mufasa)

Mourning-2 (drza, ElGee)

So ElGee is the one at this point with a nomination but no actual vote.

[Doctor MJ]

Deadline time, eh?

Well, I'll climb aboard the Howard wagon, and I'm not going to force a tie with Cousy. Still haven't had time to really decide on my next nominee really anyway.