RealGM Top 100 List #78

[Doctor MJ]

LG, Not saying that Hawkins is in my top 5 for his 1st NBA year either (he's in my 10 behind some guys who were all voted in long ago), just saying I think that the evidence is certainly muddy enough that I'm pretty hesitant to label Hawkins a "numbers guy who doesn't really help the team".

I agree he's not "a numbers guy who doesn't really help the team." The issue, I thought, was whether this was an all-star peak (agree) or a high all-nba/MVP-level peak. Based on limited film and my research I lean heavily toward the former.

Now, again, if we want to give him more credit pre injury, or even pre-ABA, I'm not against that. I just don't feel comfortable doing it based on what I know (ignorance is a bit of an issue here).

Well first and foremost: I love the in/our stats you do, but unless I see something really major, it doesn't become a major factor for me. From our dialog I'm left feeling inconclusive about the whole thing.

But we're also not talking about Connie's peak really but what went down in the NBA, and the possibly damning stuff you mentioned wasn't even Connie's NBA peak. What I keep reiterating: People have gotten this impression that Connie had a Walton type longevity, instead what we're seeing is an admittedly brief peak followed by a half-decade or so of clearly all-star level play. That's a level of longevity I've already personally voted in with other players more than once.

I will also admit to feeling a bit of "rah rah Connie" right now. We're talking about holding his lack of longevity against him, and understandably so, but whose fault is that lack of longevity? Why, the NBA's of course, for colluding to ban him for no legit reason, for which they were forced to pay him a 7-figure settlement in a time where a $250K salary was considered off the charts.

[Doctor MJ]

Hawkins being voted in is one of the worst calls IMO. I remember reading about his defense once and to put it mildly he wasn't good at it. there are much more deserving players than two years of Amare Stoudemire. freakin Zelmo Beaty put up 22/15 on huge efficiency in the early ABA so give me a break. Hawk was a poor defender, had a short peak, his team impact was apparently weak and that ABA wasn't even close to NBA yet.

edit: oh and WS argument from Doc MJ is pretty disappointing... next thing you know you'll start using HCA

Dude, you just called me out for being shoddy while making a judgement on a guy admittedly because "read about his defense once". If you don't mind doubling your cumulative life effort on the subject, read Stern's quotes below.

Re: Zelmo. Zelmo's a lightning rod for that argument, but look: Zelmo didn't just improve in the ABA he improved to kind of crazy levels that other players did not. When he joins the ABA, Rick Barry is still in the league. Barry at that point is putting up numbers that are right in the ballpark of what he did in the NBA earlier and later in his career. It's not reasonable to look at Zelmo like he's somehow a typical story.

that I'm pretty hesitant to label Hawkins a "numbers guy who doesn't really help the team".

great... but how valuable can you be when you're improving a team all the way to -1.5 SRS ? and you didn't really respond to Elgee's numbers.

I explained why I treat the numbers as I do in the part leading up to the line you quoted from me. If you've got a specific criticism with what I've written, say it.

[penbeast0]

Assuming the FRO got in last time (sorry drza, forgot to check it) . . .

VOTE
Billups – penbeast0
Greer – therealbig3, lukekarts, Dr Mufasa, ElGee
Hawkins – DoctorMJ, ronnymac2, DavidStern
Shawn Kemp – JordansBulls
Jerry Lucas – Laimbeer
Price -- drza

NOMINATE
Marion – penbeast0, lukekarts
Deron Williams – Dr Mufasa, ronnymac2
Nance -- therealbig3
Sharman – DoctorMJ, DavidStern, ElGee
Daugherty – JordansBulls
Mel Daniels – Laimbeer
Hagan – drza

[bastillon]

Dude, you just called me out for being shoddy while making a judgement on a guy admittedly because "read about his defense once". If you don't mind doubling your cumulative life effort on the subject, read Stern's quotes below.

now you just took that out of context. it wasn't the substance of my post certainly. Hawk got a lot of factors going against him: incredibly short longetivity basically lasting 2 years, suspect impact in/out, ABA years being unacceptable given the quality of that league, poor defensive impact. the SRS improvement was only that big because they were -8 before he joined the team and you didn't mention it in your post. that's unfair.

Re: Zelmo. Zelmo's a lightning rod for that argument, but look: Zelmo didn't just improve in the ABA he improved to kind of crazy levels that other players did not. When he joins the ABA, Rick Barry is still in the league. Barry at that point is putting up numbers that are right in the ballpark of what he did in the NBA earlier and later in his career. It's not reasonable to look at Zelmo like he's somehow a typical story.

Zelmo is a better example than Barry because ABA wasn't that poor in terms of guards (NBA didn't have great guards either) its deficiency was seen quite well in big men talent. Zelmo Beaty was a below average NBA center who made 2 all-star appearances after all the great centers went to the east (Russ, Wilt, Unseld, Reed, Bellamy, Luke Jackson). he was fighting with Darrall Imhoff at the time and split all-star selections (2 for Beaty, 1 for Imhoff in 66-68). no awards to speak of before 66. now a guy comes in, joins the ABA and makes 2nd all-ABA teams while his stats go up across the board. sorry I'm hesitant to suspect inflated stats from Hawkins.

I explained why I treat the numbers as I do in the part leading up to the line you quoted from me. If you've got a specific criticism with what I've written, say it.

no you didn't. you explained why the SRS jump was legit (-8 SRS, that you ignored), but you didn't comment on Elgee's data which is clearly inconsistent with the arguments you were proposing.

[bastillon]

Post on Price a while back:

viewtopic.php?p=28883557#p28883557

The numbers and all that stuff are nice but as a PG it's his skill-set I like most. One of the best pick and roll players ever, very dynamic off the dribble, could create his own shot with ease, a much better passer/playmaker than his assists suggest (due to team he played on as well as decreased minutes after knee injury), historic shooting ability...an upper middle class man's Nash (lol), right down to the defense part. Based on how good he was in his prime, I don't think it's ridiculous to say he was as good or better than some PGs listed in the top 40 (would make all-NBA teams over them in some years). Durability though of course is the big issue with him. Everything from watching him to his skill-set to some of the numbers suggest he was top 5-7 offensive PG in his prime to me.

fantastic posts in that thread.

[Doctor MJ]

So I'll say up front:

LG's posts are excellent. He makes some strong points. For some of them I had what I think good points on the other side of the argument, but there's also a point where I'm just not willing to change my opinion that quickly based on certain factors.

One of those is the in/out stats he make even though I love what he's doing. With +/- in general, what I look for primarily are the guy who score really well by it. It takes quite a lot for me to really use it against a player. People've seen me use it against Melo, but that's because it's been 8 years of +/- data without any sign of stardom, and because there are other things that point to the same conclusion.

With in/out necessarily we're dealing with a far less refined and far smaller sample size. So when I see Oscar having huge numbers there, it's really reassuring and it helps me feel confident in his status as an all-timer despite the middling team success (although that didn't actually help him much on my GOAT list, partly because, as I say, I'm cautious).

I look at what LG's saying about Connie, and it's just not enough for it to really sway me given what else I know.

Dude, you just called me out for being shoddy while making a judgement on a guy admittedly because "read about his defense once". If you don't mind doubling your cumulative life effort on the subject, read Stern's quotes below.

now you just took that out of context. it wasn't the substance of my post certainly. Hawk got a lot of factors going against him: incredibly short longetivity basically lasting 2 years, suspect impact in/out, ABA years being unacceptable given the quality of that league, poor defensive impact. the SRS improvement was only that big because they were -8 before he joined the team and you didn't mention it in your post. that's unfair.

Of course a separated your quote from context. When you make a statement like that, it's hella-salient. It should not be possible for you to say something like that while stating vehement criticisms of someone else.

I also want to rail against "incredibly short longetivity basically lasting 2 years" one more time given what you've written. Connie was very clearly not someone with a longevity of 2 years. As I've point out again and again, he had 5 solid years in the NBA 4 of which he was named all-star for. Add in 2 years in the ABA, and he's got all-star longevity up there with many players already in this league, and also happens to have a peak that's without question far beyond what we expect in a guy being considered this late in the project.

Re: Zelmo. Zelmo's a lightning rod for that argument, but look: Zelmo didn't just improve in the ABA he improved to kind of crazy levels that other players did not. When he joins the ABA, Rick Barry is still in the league. Barry at that point is putting up numbers that are right in the ballpark of what he did in the NBA earlier and later in his career. It's not reasonable to look at Zelmo like he's somehow a typical story.

Zelmo is a better example than Barry because ABA wasn't that poor in terms of guards (NBA didn't have great guards either) its deficiency was seen quite well in big men talent. Zelmo Beaty was a below average NBA center who made 2 all-star appearances after all the great centers went to the east (Russ, Wilt, Unseld, Reed, Bellamy, Luke Jackson). he was fighting with Darrall Imhoff at the time and split all-star selections (2 for Beaty, 1 for Imhoff in 66-68). no awards to speak of before 66. now a guy comes in, joins the ABA and makes 2nd all-ABA teams while his stats go up across the board. sorry I'm hesitant to suspect inflated stats from Hawkins.

Um, wait a minute. We're supposed to ignore the fact that Connie, a proto-Erving/Jordan, did as well as the similarly-sized Barry, because a shortage of big men made the league easy for Zelmo?

Also, saying Zelmo was below average in the NBA is silly. Here were the PER leaders among big men in Zelmo's last year in the NBA:

1. Wilt 21.9
2. Reed 21.4
3. Zelmo 19.4

Now, I'm not saying Zelmo was a top 3 big man because there's more to the game than stats...but your whole argument is talking about Zelmo's stats, and when it came to the stats Zelmo was most certainly not below average in the NBA.

[bastillon]

what happened to you Doc ? first using WS, now PER ?
I did not critize you based on what I read about Hawk. I critized you based on how you were trying to evaluate his game (by freakin seasons of WS over 7.0! what kind of a criterion is that? did you just make that up ?) so stop jumping on me because of what I read and start making arguments we're all accustomed to see from you and not go down to the methodology level from JB.

which of these players was worse than Zelmo Beaty: Reed, Chamberlain, Russell, Unseld, Thurmond, Luke Jackson, Bellamy, Imhoff, Embry. he might have a chance against Embry and Imhoff, but that's it. he made 2 all-star teams in the NBA, a true star. he was what he was, an undersized, poor rebounding big who made some impact offensively but none otherwise. then went to the ABA and dominated.

is there any reason you're ignoring Hawk's in/out ?

and yeah, Hawk's peak lasted 2 years. he also had couple all-star years, but he's being voted mainly for his 2 year peak (one of which came in the ABA).

[Doctor MJ]

what happened to you Doc ? first using WS, now PER ?
I did not critize you based on what I read about Hawk. I critized you based on how you were trying to evaluate his game (by freakin seasons of WS over 7.0! what kind of a criterion is that? did you just make that up ?) so stop jumping on me because of what I read and start making arguments we're all accustomed to see from you and not go down to the methodology level from JB.

bast, you're bewilderment is just bizarre. I've always used the statistical tools at my disposal.

Your inability to see why me being able to make the same criticism back at you with more validity is relevant to the conversation is, well, amusing.

And when you say I'm jumping on you bast, re-read this conversation. You're the one jumping on me. You're the one attacking my established position, you're the one using emoticon and emotional expressions to imply I'm committing some great sin. You are the one causing commotion.

You're essentially yelling "Hey, wait, I'm not the one on trial here!" in the middle of a cocktail party.

Re: WS over 7.0. Okay let me address this. You see what I'm doing as cherry picking, but that's not a relevant criticism from my perspective. From my point of view: If people are rejecting Hawkins using the rationale "horrendous longevity!", and I can find data that says in his 5th, 6th, 7th best years he was still up there with other players already voted in, then I blown a huge hole in that rationale simply by showing that things are not so clear cut.

If you watch for it you'll see again and again that my arguments are typically calls toward caution. I'm not saying Hawkins had great longevity, or that it can't be used against him, but people need to understand precisely what that longevity is and make sure that they don't swallow it qualitatively while giving other similar players a pass .

which of these players was worse than Zelmo Beaty: Reed, Chamberlain, Russell, Unseld, Thurmond, Luke Jackson, Bellamy, Imhoff, Embry. he might have a chance against Embry and Imhoff, but that's it. he made 2 all-star teams in the NBA, a true star. he was what he was, an undersized, poor rebounding big who made some impact offensively but none otherwise. then went to the ABA and dominated.

Ah, I should clarify. Do I consider Beaty better than average on that list? No, and I wasn't thinking about like that, so good point.

On the other hand, more than half of that list is already voted in in this project. I don't understand how at all reasonable to call Zelmo a below average center as a way of saying "anyone can thrive in the ABA" and thereby damn Hawkins, when literally if he were average on that list he'd rank already be voted in and thus be ranked ahead of Hawkins.

I'll also note that in my RPOY lists, I've actually got Zelmo making my Top 10 twice in the NBA. So when you say "below average" in the NBA it just doesn't resonate with me. This was a star NBA player. End of story.

is there any reason you're ignoring Hawk's in/out ?

Ugh, there you go again. I JUST answered this in the last post, and you come back saying I didn't answer it at all. If there's a specific thing I didn't address that's fine, but I expect people to put in their own due diligence when they have dialog with me.

[bastillon]

bast, you're bewilderment is just bizarre. I've always used the statistical tools at my disposal.

okay, it's a clear misunderstanding on both parts, then. I didn't wanna jump out on you and emoticons have to be taken with a grain of salt. but making up a 7 WS argument was just a poor one, I would've expected a much better justification of your opinion. I wouldn't bother responding at all if someone else did that, but with high standard there comes a certain amount of expectations and credibility. number of seasons over 7 WS means literally nothing, the same with career WS and PER. it's not just cherry picking, you're simply judging an ancient player by incomplete boxscore stats, estimations and there's not even a video evidence to support any of your points. we're on the verge of basketball-referencing every player and this is a bad sign.

Hawk was a great offensive player for a very short period of time, then he was an all-star for couple more years. that doesn't really qualify him as better than guys on board.

Zelmo Beaty wasn't an NBA star. I've just made a research regarding him for ATL purposes. I can create a thread once upon a time, but he clearly he left a lot to be desired and didn't particularly excell at anything before joining the ABA. it's not like he was the only guy who became a lot better in that league. surely he wasn't a top10 player in any way, shape or form in any year.

and no, you didn't answer why you ignored in/out. you generalized refering to +/- and didn't give a specific reason why you're dismissing it as an evidence here.

[Doctor MJ]

okay, it's a clear misunderstanding on both parts, then.

Probably.

it's not just cherry picking, you're simply judging an ancient player by incomplete boxscore stats, estimations and there's not even a video evidence to support any of your points. we're on the verge of basketball-referencing every player and this is a bad sign.

I'm not voting for Connie because he managed to break 7 Win Shares X number of time, I'm using the stat to make clear to people that this notion that he had a Walton-like longevity is incorrect. There's a pretty big difference there.

Zelmo Beaty wasn't an NBA star. I've just made a research regarding him for ATL purposes. I can create a thread once upon a time, but he clearly he left a lot to be desired and didn't particularly excell at anything before joining the ABA. it's not like he was the only guy who became a lot better in that league. surely he wasn't a top10 player in any way, shape or form in any year.

Dude, there was only around 10 teams in the league back then, Zelmo was often his team's #1 scoring option, and in one case he was the #1 option on a team with the 2nd best record in the league. Be honest with yourself here: Have you really done Top 10 lists for all these years? I think you're going to find it's pretty dang hard to find 10 players who were unquestionably above Zelmo every year.

and no, you didn't answer why you ignored in/out. you generalized refering to +/- and didn't give a specific reason why you're dismissing it as an evidence here.

Okay. When I say what I say about in/out & +/-, when I say I'm cautious, that means that I use other things to come to my initial conclusions about a player, and then factor in the +/- stuff. So with Connie I've already spoken a ton on what I see on the guy, and it's hard for that to be overridden.

Also with regards to LG, his data tells him Connie's impact wasn't huge, but the Suns were a team re-arranged itself around Connie and much better things happened. LG would say that his data overrules the overall team interpretation, but I don't find it so clear cut. When things get better, I look to assign credit not simply in isolation but holistically to the people making it happen.

In the ABA there was also clear and massive team impact. Connie's reputation as a team player is superb, which also says quite good things, and I'll be honest that when I see a volume scorer be so willing to adjust for the team I give them some benefit of the doubt.

[bastillon]

fair enough. I'm still opposing that arbitrary 7 WS you brought up but I see the rationale behind your post. I'm of the opinion that Connie's NBA impact should be considered as more important here and I'm not impressed by those ABA years at all. I'd put a couple guys at least ahead of him.

[ElGee]

Interesting discussion here on Hawkins -- I think the key thing with him is that he has his own Walton issue: the Expulsion. I'm going to hedge pretty hard here and give him some minor boost, assuming that he'd have at least a few good years when he otherwise wasn't playing in the mid 60s. How to handle the peak -- a lot of this debate -- and the overall injury is also a fuzzy picture here, so I do not begrudge those voting in Hawk (or thinking he should go even higher). I have him at No. 84 right now...

Since people are throwing out fringe top 100 candidates for the home stretch, I'll mention a guy who really impressed me on film and in researching him for the RPOY - Gus Johnson. I've only been able to do 2 seasons of his in/out data (a few more coming hopefully), but they jibe with what I see on the court

-a valuable team player
-an excellent rebounder (value)
-an excellent defender (by reputation -- and he was incredibly strong and versatile and athletic)

In 1968, I have 21 of his 22 missed games (with the mystery game either a 5-point win or 5-point loss) and Baltimore was -3.9 without him and +0.8 with him. (+4.7 net)

In 1969, as I've mentioned, the Bullets were +5.5 MOV team before his season-ending injury and just +1.9 after (+3.9 net).

What is encouraging about these large-sample value numbers to me is:

(a) They occur in 2 totally different settings. The 68 team he's basically a lead veteran next to the young Earl Monroe. The 69 team everyone is a year more developed and Unseld is on the team (winning league MVP, infamously)...a much more balanced team. Gus still shows value numbers

(b) They occur after his first major injury.

Consider the overall body of work:

His rookie year, 6th in MVP voting (joined a fairly congruent roster and they went from -3.6 to -1.6 SRS (not bad for a rookie). They went from 7th in rebounding (5145) to 3rd (5460). Even factoring in their estimated pace increase (using FGA's) it's still a clear increase in rebounding.
In 1965, an all-star and 2nd team all-nba
In 1966, 2nd team all-nba despite missing 38 games with the aforementioned injury
In 70 and 71, along with solid PS performances (statistically, at least), he is again all-nba 2nd team and all-defensive team both years.

I have Gus right around the top 100 gatekeeper range right now - please take a closer look.

PS Fun reputation-base fact: The 4-tme all-nbers not voted on our list yet:
Haywood
Westphal
Price
Mullin
Maravich
Gus Johnson
Heinsohn
Carmelo
Amare
Richmond
Yao
Slater Martin
Lucas
Tim Hardaway

All these players at least warrant examination IMO at this point in the project (most are in my top 100 or top 110).

[bastillon]

Gus Johnson was a fantastic player by my eye test.

[Doctor MJ]

PS Fun reputation-base fact: The 4-tme all-nbers not voted on our list yet:
Haywood
Westphal
Price
Mullin
Maravich
Gus Johnson
Heinsohn
Carmelo
Amare
Richmond
Yao
Slater Martin
Lucas
Tim Hardaway

I suppose this shows I'm a little obsessed, but I shuddered when I saw Melo's name on that list. I remembering screaming in frustration when he made his first All-NBA team of a glaringly superior Garnett.

Good list to consider, I'll definitely think more on Gus Johnson. Mullin's already been on my mind, and I should think more about Richmond.

[penbeast0]

Interesting discussion here on Hawkins -- I think the key thing with him is that he has his own Walton issue: the Expulsion. I'm going to hedge pretty hard here and give him some minor boost, assuming that he'd have at least a few good years when he otherwise wasn't playing in the mid 60s. How to handle the peak -- a lot of this debate -- and the overall injury is also a fuzzy picture here, so I do not begrudge those voting in Hawk (or thinking he should go even higher). I have him at No. 84 right now...

Since people are throwing out fringe top 100 candidates for the home stretch, I'll mention a guy who really impressed me on film and in researching him for the RPOY - Gus Johnson. I've only been able to do 2 seasons of his in/out data (a few more coming hopefully), but they jibe with what I see on the court

-a valuable team player
-an excellent rebounder (value)
-an excellent defender (by reputation -- and he was incredibly strong and versatile and athletic)

In 1968, I have 21 of his 22 missed games (with the mystery game either a 5-point win or 5-point loss) and Baltimore was -3.9 without him and +0.8 with him. (+4.7 net)

In 1969, as I've mentioned, the Bullets were +5.5 MOV team before his season-ending injury and just +1.9 after (+3.9 net).

What is encouraging about these large-sample value numbers to me is:

(a) They occur in 2 totally different settings. The 68 team he's basically a lead veteran next to the young Earl Monroe. The 69 team everyone is a year more developed and Unseld is on the team (winning league MVP, infamously)...a much more balanced team. Gus still shows value numbers

(b) They occur after his first major injury.

Consider the overall body of work:

His rookie year, 6th in MVP voting (joined a fairly congruent roster and they went from -3.6 to -1.6 SRS (not bad for a rookie). They went from 7th in rebounding (5145) to 3rd (5460). Even factoring in their estimated pace increase (using FGA's) it's still a clear increase in rebounding.
In 1965, an all-star and 2nd team all-nba
In 1966, 2nd team all-nba despite missing 38 games with the aforementioned injury
In 70 and 71, along with solid PS performances (statistically, at least), he is again all-nba 2nd team and all-defensive team both years.

I have Gus right around the top 100 gatekeeper range right now - please take a closer look.

PS Fun reputation-base fact: The 4-tme all-nbers not voted on our list yet:
Haywood
Westphal
Price
Mullin
Maravich
Gus Johnson
Heinsohn
Carmelo
Amare
Richmond
Yao
Slater Martin
Lucas
Tim Hardaway

All these players at least warrant examination IMO at this point in the project (most are in my top 100 or top 110).

Only issue with Gus is health, otherwise he's a Shawn Marion type; my mental picture of him is a lot like that of Yao Ming . . . . when he's out there he is one of the top talents in the league but you just couldn't count on him staying healthy. That's how you get those large in/out numbers.

[ronnymac2]

What are thoughts on Calvin Murphy?

I don't know where he ranks, haven't seen enough of him but he put up one of the best game 7 performances I've seen against Spurs in the '81 WCF. Reminded me a lot of Isiah scoring wise based on what I've seen. Have no clue what his PG skills were like though.

Calvin Murphy . . . Think minature Jason Terry in terms of PG skills, really a 2 guard in a PG body though he worked hard to make himself solid there. Superquick, very few guys could stay with him and he didn't need much room to get off his shot with a very quick release. Defensive liability at 5-11 in the era of big guards and no 3 point line . . . I'd have loved to see him play today.

Thanks guys, appreciate the helpful information.

42 points in a game 7 to get to the Finals is a beastly performance if there ever was one. I kind of want to watch that game now.

Hmmm...interesting comparison to Jet. Terry's a pretty damn good player.