REDOING THE NBA HALL OF FAME (retired in 1970 or earlier)

[Dutchball97]

It's a bit of a product of the 10 people every round rule. I think I should start filling out my list as well since I feel like some of the lower vote getters are better than some others.

[Doctor MJ]

So looking around at the votes so far and it seems like a Zaslofsky vs Costello comparison would be good to have.

It feels to me like people are processing this with Zaslofsky being about the best point guard of his day and Costello being an afterthought.

Thing is though, based on accolades, Zaslofsky's career disappears after age 26 and then circles the drain until retiring at 30. Meanwhile, Costello continues to be an all-star level guy through age 33, and of course is doing so in a much more advanced era. If you're favoring Zaslofsky then, what's your basis?

What I'll acknowledge up front is that I feel weird brushing off current-era guys because they "aren't good enough" and choosing instead guys from earlier eras that were literally made obsolete by guys worse than the current guys.

Of course I do understand a pull toward trailblazers who stood out in their time more than more modern guys, but Costello was born only 6 years after Zaslofsky. Had Zaslofsky been able to maintain until he was 33 (more akin to his own contemporary Carl Braun), and Costello only 26, then Zaslofsky's final all-star appearance would have been after Costello's, and they would have been seen as basically of the same era. Instead they are right now coming off as 2 generations removed precisely because Zaslofsky wasn't able to last and Costello was.

[Dutchball97]

Besides my initial 6 I will also be voting for 4 more guys. First of all I think it's worth throwing up another vote for Maurice Stokes. He might only have played 3 seasons but he had a pretty big impact on the league and I'd take him over someone like Fulks for both his level of play as well as his overall impact. My next two will be Nationals teammates Larry Costello and Red Kerr. I also see Tom Gola as a name who has a solid HoF case so I'll finish my list with him.

Official offical list (final draft V2.3)
Bill Russell
Bob Cousy
Cliff Hagan
Sam Jones
Jack Twyman
Richie Guerin
Maurice Stokes
Larry Costello
Red Kerr
Tom Gola

[Doctor MJ]

I'm going to give my tentative vote. I'll say up front at this time it has only 1st ballot guys. If Fulks gain traction, I'll bump someone off (undecided as to who) because to me that makes sense given my previous votes, but other than that I'd need to be persuaded:

In birth order, as I prefer to do:

Bob Cousy - clear lock, overrated but still an all-timer
Larry Costello - seems like an excellent all-around point guard not usurped by the next era
Cliff Hagan - clear lock, epic playoff performer who should have been given more primacy generally
Richie Guerin - had two teams swear by him for a long time
Red Kerr - Iron Man, champion, athlete beyond basketball who then gained height, quick mind, seems solid
Tom Gola - Mr. All-Around, feels like someone ahead of his time
Sam Jones - clear lock, and the shape of guards to come
Bill Russell - King of the Class, GOAT of the pre-3 era no question
Jack Twyman - really checks all the boxes
Rudy LaRusso - was not someone I was expecting to vote in, but fundamentally solid

I'll finish here by saying a bit on KC Jones and the candidacy of lesser Celtics, particularly Frank Ramsey.

I think the reassuring way to draw a line admitting Ramsey and not Jones is to focus on the offense. beast has pointed out that guards (at least in our modern lens) are more about offense than defense, and thus a point guard who really isn't all that great on offense no matter how you look gets hurt.

(Let me also acknowledge: beast didn't vote for either, and also didn't vote for Heinsohn. He's clearly taking a stand against hyperbolic accolades for satellite Celtics, and that makes sense.)

For myself, KC Jones was a legit candidate here just like Ramsey was the previous time around. He played a vital role on a great team and it's frankly quite easy to see why Auerbach loved him for that role. While he doesn't feel HOF-level to me, the fact is that with a threshold of 10 per half decade, Jones may well have gotten the nod from me had he retired by 1965 instead of Ramsey.

This is an odd thing to say given that I think we all feel a sense of frustration at the quality of the 1970 candidates in a way we didn't in the previous rounds. Am I saying the competition is harder this time than before? Yes. Yes I am. It didn't have that massive improvement I think we expected with the arrival of Russell's class (because Russell's true contemporary rivals are not eligible yet), but when I look at these candidates, I think the bottom threshold is stronger.

Costello was an all-star 6 times. LaRusso & Gola 5 times. Kerr only 3 times, but over the course of 8 years during which he was fundamentally solid the whole time. All of these guys seem largely to have their franchises basically swear by them. All of these guys basically seemed like they could do their thing in the playoffs against tough competition.

All of these guys played more and longer than KC Jones and have less gaps in their game than him.

If we look back at the last time, there were 2 1st ballot guys who didn't quite make the cut. Sears - who flamed out with what seemed to be some attitude problems, and Shue - who played on 5 teams, only gained traction on one and that one was a mediocre team where he was only briefly the best player. I also was skeptical on Lovellette who in the playoffs kept seeing his minutes cut in a way that Celtics like Heinsohn, Ramsey, and KC Jones did not.

I can make a good case for KC Jones over those guys. Harder to make the case over the competition right now.

[worldjbfree]

Now that we have the doc containing voting percentages, I'm maintaining the "high-and-tight" system of Round 2. My votes are:

Bob Cousy
Cliff Hagan
Sam Jones
Bill Russell

Happy to help with any tiebreaker voting if needed.

[eminence]

So looking around at the votes so far and it seems like a Zaslofsky vs Costello comparison would be good to have.

It feels to me like people are processing this with Zaslofsky being about the best point guard of his day and Costello being an afterthought.

Thing is though, based on accolades, Zaslofsky's career disappears after age 26 and then circles the drain until retiring at 30. Meanwhile, Costello continues to be an all-star level guy through age 33, and of course is doing so in a much more advanced era. If you're favoring Zaslofsky then, what's your basis?

What I'll acknowledge up front is that I feel weird brushing off current-era guys because they "aren't good enough" and choosing instead guys from earlier eras that were literally made obsolete by guys worse than the current guys.

Of course I do understand a pull toward trailblazers who stood out in their time more than more modern guys, but Costello was born only 6 years after Zaslofsky. Had Zaslofsky been able to maintain until he was 33 (more akin to his own contemporary Carl Braun), and Costello only 26, then Zaslofsky's final all-star appearance would have been after Costello's, and they would have been seen as basically of the same era. Instead they are right now coming off as 2 generations removed precisely because Zaslofsky wasn't able to last and Costello was.

I don't think you're giving their ages a fair shake. Costello's relevant career didn't start til he was 26 and Zaslofsky was the youngest 1st team All NBAer at 21 for almost 6 decades until LeBron came along (I will acknowledge that particular accomplishment comes from being in the weaker league). The point is Max started being really good way before Larry even sniffed the league. Overall Max had 6 years of prime and Costello had 7 by my count. '47-'52 for Zaslofsky and '58-'63 and '65 for Costello (and honestly '65 despite him being an Allstar feels super generous, 6th man come playoff time).

[penbeast0]

Voting so far:

Bill Russell (Dutchball97, Narigo, 70sFan, penbeast0, Kipper34, eminence, Dr. Positivity, trex_8063, Doctor MJ, worldjbfree)
Bob Cousy (Dutchball97, Narigo, 70sFan, penbeast0, Kipper34, eminence, Dr. Positivity, trex_8063, Doctor MJ, worldjbfree)
Cliff Hagan (Dutchball97, Narigo, 70sFan, penbeast0, Kipper34, eminence, Dr. Positivity, trex_8063, Doctor MJ, worldjbfree)
Sam Jones (Dutchball97, Narigo, 70sFan, penbeast0, Kipper34, eminence, Dr. Positivity, trex_8063, Doctor MJ, worldjbfree)

Jack Twyman (Dutchball97, Narigo, 70sFan, penbeast0, Kipper34, Dr. Positivity, trex_8063, Doctor MJ)
Richie Guerin (Dutchball97, 70sFan, penbeast0, Kipper34, Dr. Positivity, trex_8063, Doctor MJ)

Rudy LaRusso (70sFan, penbeast0, Kipper34, Dr. Positivity, trex_8063, Doctor MJ)
Larry Costello (70sFan, Kipper34, Dr. Positivity, Dutchball97, Doctor MJ)

Tom Gola (penbeast0, trex_8063, Dutchball97, Doctor MJ)
Red Kerr (Kipper34, trex_8063, Dutchball97, Doctor MJ)

Max Zaslofsky (eminence, Dr. Positivity, trex_8063)

Joe Fulks (eminence, Dr. Positivity)
Maurice Stokes (Durchball97, penbeast0)

Willie Naulls (70sFan)
KC Jones (Kipper34)
Al Cervi (eminence)

I think I am going to come off my vote for Naulls and vote for Stokes who I think deserves the HOF more than Zaslofsky, Cervi, or Fulks out of our repeat candidates.

[Doctor MJ]

So looking around at the votes so far and it seems like a Zaslofsky vs Costello comparison would be good to have.

It feels to me like people are processing this with Zaslofsky being about the best point guard of his day and Costello being an afterthought.

Thing is though, based on accolades, Zaslofsky's career disappears after age 26 and then circles the drain until retiring at 30. Meanwhile, Costello continues to be an all-star level guy through age 33, and of course is doing so in a much more advanced era. If you're favoring Zaslofsky then, what's your basis?

What I'll acknowledge up front is that I feel weird brushing off current-era guys because they "aren't good enough" and choosing instead guys from earlier eras that were literally made obsolete by guys worse than the current guys.

Of course I do understand a pull toward trailblazers who stood out in their time more than more modern guys, but Costello was born only 6 years after Zaslofsky. Had Zaslofsky been able to maintain until he was 33 (more akin to his own contemporary Carl Braun), and Costello only 26, then Zaslofsky's final all-star appearance would have been after Costello's, and they would have been seen as basically of the same era. Instead they are right now coming off as 2 generations removed precisely because Zaslofsky wasn't able to last and Costello was.

I don't think you're giving their ages a fair shake. Costello's relevant career didn't start til he was 26 and Zaslofsky was the youngest 1st team All NBAer at 21 for almost 6 decades until LeBron came along (I will acknowledge that particular accomplishment comes from being in the weaker league). The point is Max started being really good way before Larry even sniffed the league. Overall Max had 6 years of prime and Costello had 7 by my count. '47-'52 for Zaslofsky and '58-'63 and '65 for Costello (and honestly '65 despite him being an Allstar feels super generous, 6th man come playoff time).

I think it's fine to point out that Zaslofsky peaked young, but I don't really see it as an argument in and of itself. If you'd like to make an argument for why Zaslofsky being irrelevant before what we would nowadays call his prime years, go for it! You honestly might be able to sway me.

Regarding Costello's late start, let's talk it through.

Costello becomes an all-star immediately when he joins his 2nd team and has a great run with them for years, so what we're asking about is what happened before then.

Well:
1. He's drafted onto the Warriors. He would play for the for a little over a month before his rookie season ended and wouldn't play the next year (military service).
2. He'd come back his 3rd year to a team that was defending champs and had previously and would the next year run the best offense in the league. While the starting point guard (Jack George) was not the star of the team (Arizin & Johnston), he was an all-star, and I think it's pretty safe to say that the Warriors weren't really looking to make a change.
3. That's it. The next year he goes to Syracuse and becomes an all-star.

This is the type of analysis I do on these guys who don't immediately hit it big on their first team. If I see good reason why you don't have the team handed to you, and then you go to your next team in thrive, then I really don't see the point of knocking you for the late start for reasons other than longevity, and in the Zaslofsky comparison, Costello has a clear longevity edge regardless.

Re: Costello 6th man come playoff time. I don't think that's a fair generalization. Costello's MPG went up in the playoffs in all 6 years in Syracuse. It was different in Philadelphia, and you can make an argument based on that if you'd like, but generally when I'm knocking guys for doing worse against playoff competition, I'm not highlighting something that came on a new team after a guy's best years, I'm talking about something that seems to afflict him during what otherwise appears to be his best.

[Doctor MJ]

Tom Gola (penbeast0, trex_8063, Dutchball97, Doctor MJ)
Red Kerr (Kipper34, trex_8063, Dutchball97, Doctor MJ)
Max Zaslofsky (eminence, Dr. Positivity, trex_8063)

Beast is that 3 or 4 votes for Zaslofsky? The grouping makes it look like a 3 way tie, but the count seems to indicate that Gola/Kerr are Top 10 and Zaslofsky is just missing.

[eminence]

So looking around at the votes so far and it seems like a Zaslofsky vs Costello comparison would be good to have.

It feels to me like people are processing this with Zaslofsky being about the best point guard of his day and Costello being an afterthought.

Thing is though, based on accolades, Zaslofsky's career disappears after age 26 and then circles the drain until retiring at 30. Meanwhile, Costello continues to be an all-star level guy through age 33, and of course is doing so in a much more advanced era. If you're favoring Zaslofsky then, what's your basis?

What I'll acknowledge up front is that I feel weird brushing off current-era guys because they "aren't good enough" and choosing instead guys from earlier eras that were literally made obsolete by guys worse than the current guys.

Of course I do understand a pull toward trailblazers who stood out in their time more than more modern guys, but Costello was born only 6 years after Zaslofsky. Had Zaslofsky been able to maintain until he was 33 (more akin to his own contemporary Carl Braun), and Costello only 26, then Zaslofsky's final all-star appearance would have been after Costello's, and they would have been seen as basically of the same era. Instead they are right now coming off as 2 generations removed precisely because Zaslofsky wasn't able to last and Costello was.

I don't think you're giving their ages a fair shake. Costello's relevant career didn't start til he was 26 and Zaslofsky was the youngest 1st team All NBAer at 21 for almost 6 decades until LeBron came along (I will acknowledge that particular accomplishment comes from being in the weaker league). The point is Max started being really good way before Larry even sniffed the league. Overall Max had 6 years of prime and Costello had 7 by my count. '47-'52 for Zaslofsky and '58-'63 and '65 for Costello (and honestly '65 despite him being an Allstar feels super generous, 6th man come playoff time).

I think it's fine to point out that Zaslofsky peaked young, but I don't really see it as an argument in and of itself. If you'd like to make an argument for why Zaslofsky being irrelevant before what we would nowadays call his prime years, go for it! You honestly might be able to sway me.

Regarding Costello's late start, let's talk it through.

Costello becomes an all-star immediately when he joins his 2nd team and has a great run with them for years, so what we're asking about is what happened before then.

Well:
1. He's drafted onto the Warriors. He would play for the for a little over a month before his rookie season ended and wouldn't play the next year (military service).
2. He'd come back his 3rd year to a team that was defending champs and had previously and would the next year run the best offense in the league. While the starting point guard (Jack George) was not the star of the team (Arizin & Johnston), he was an all-star, and I think it's pretty safe to say that the Warriors weren't really looking to make a change.
3. That's it. The next year he goes to Syracuse and becomes an all-star.

This is the type of analysis I do on these guys who don't immediately hit it big on their first team. If I see good reason why you don't have the team handed to you, and then you go to your next team in thrive, then I really don't see the point of knocking you for the late start for reasons other than longevity, and in the Zaslofsky comparison, Costello has a clear longevity edge regardless.

Re: Costello 6th man come playoff time. I don't think that's a fair generalization. Costello's MPG went up in the playoffs in all 6 years in Syracuse. It was different in Philadelphia, and you can make an argument based on that if you'd like, but generally when I'm knocking guys for doing worse against playoff competition, I'm not highlighting something that came on a new team after a guy's best years, I'm talking about something that seems to afflict him during what otherwise appears to be his best.

The early years Costello perspective you have is a bit too hypothetical for a HOF argument for my tastes. The simple fact is Costello didn't do anything HOF relevant those seasons (I do have some sympathy for the service time argument for guys during that period). The 6th man comment was in reference to '65 and you mentioning him playing at an All-star level until he was 33. I don't really think that's true at all, I think he was Allstar level until 30 or maybe 31 (probably 30).

Overall I acknowledge Costello's longevity edge here, but I don't think it's a particularly impressive gap and it's mainly built on non-star level seasons (I actually think Zaslofsky has more Allstar level seasons '47-'52 vs '58-'62), and I give Zaslofsky the very clear edge at their best (multiple 1st teams including 2x in a unified league, multiple times lead offensive guy on a championship level team). Costello spent his relevant career as a 2nd/3rd guy behind Schayes/Greer.

Costello has a fine enough case to get in here (I'm considering adding him/Guerin to my ballot), but I have him very distinctly behind Zaslofsky.

[Owly]

Thing is though, based on accolades, Zaslofsky's career disappears after age 26 and then circles the drain until retiring at 30. Meanwhile, Costello continues to be an all-star level guy through age 33,
...
Zaslofsky wasn't able to last and Costello was.

A problem with this framing ...

Costello being able "to last" hides that he didn't get going until he's 26, where Zaslofsky starts out of the gate with a 9.6 WS season (better than any for Costello, in what is a Costello friendly measure regarding efficiency not volume) in a 61 game season at age 21.

Then too between semi-retirement, the Eastern League and injuries, Costello plays 4572 (major league, RS) minutes total in his age 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 seasons (3104 at 32 and 33 combined i.e. up to your point of reference).

You can still probably frame Costello as giving better longevity of quality but the age 33, age 26 thing seems to me to be misleading.

[edit: I see this is already being hammered out. Read it and responded before getting to thread end.]

[70sFan]

I think that late Costello years are underrated if anything. He was strong contributor to 1965-67 Sixers in RS, even if he missed most time in playoffs during title run.

[Dutchball97]

Any chance we'll be moving onto the 1975 thread soon? I reckon most people who want to vote did so by now.

[Owly]

I think that late Costello years are underrated if anything. He was strong contributor to 1965-67 Sixers in RS, even if he missed most time in playoffs during title run.

Oh I think he was probably really useful with Wilt given his shooting (and defense), and they got worse when he got injured and Wali took over (partly because .. you know ... meant more Melchionni or Goukas). But even if you really value that role-player possibility on a good team he misses majority of 67 and 68 RS (between them) basically the entire playoffs (and fwiw, since you go back to '65 was bad in those playoffs).

[Doctor MJ]

Thing is though, based on accolades, Zaslofsky's career disappears after age 26 and then circles the drain until retiring at 30. Meanwhile, Costello continues to be an all-star level guy through age 33,
...
Zaslofsky wasn't able to last and Costello was.

A problem with this framing ...

Costello being able "to last" hides that he didn't get going until he's 26, where Zaslofsky starts out of the gate with a 9.6 WS season (better than any for Costello, in what is a Costello friendly measure regarding efficiency not volume) in a 61 game season at age 21.

Then too between semi-retirement, the Eastern League and injuries, Costello plays 4572 (major league, RS) minutes total in his age 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 seasons (3104 at 32 and 33 combined i.e. up to your point of reference).

You can still probably frame Costello as giving better longevity of quality but the age 33, age 26 thing seems to me to be misleading.

I'm inclined to see it as one guy playing through a pretty normal aging progression with an understandably delayed start, and another guy falling to irrelevancy at an age where he should be peaking. My gut instinct whenever I see these early players peak in the '40s is to think that they were lucky to have faced inferior competition and didn't fare as well when that luck ran out.

Are there other possible explanations? Absolutely. Sure, injury being the obvious one.

As I've said, I'm still waiting to here a case.

Just to throw something out there, there's another name that has not been mentioned: Connie Simmons.

Simmons appears to have been the Finals MVP of the BAA's second championship (an accomplishment Zaslofsky never matched) as well as the Knicks' best player in their most impressive playoff run over Zaslofsky (where they took the Lakers to 7). He was the same age as Zaslofsky, and the Knicks kept him on longer than Zaslofsky.

I don't think it's at all clear that Zaslofsky is the better candidate than Simmons.

I say none of this to make the case for Simmons. I don't have a strong feeling here and am fine with people concluding that Zaslofsky is the one they want to champion over Simmons, or Fulks, or Feerick...but it is not the case that Zaslofsky is a massive stand out compared to other others from the time period who haven't made our Hall, and of course it's worth noting that none of Zaslofsky, Simmons, or Feerick made the actual Hall (Fulks did of course).

It might feel like a cheap shot to bring that stuff up and again, I'm not saying folks are crazy here, but in general the basketball world - including us - has had a pretty skeptical eye toward these "super early peak" guys, and so if that's something that seems specifically unfair to Zaslofsky, I think this is something worth explaining.

[Owly]

Thing is though, based on accolades, Zaslofsky's career disappears after age 26 and then circles the drain until retiring at 30. Meanwhile, Costello continues to be an all-star level guy through age 33,
...
Zaslofsky wasn't able to last and Costello was.

A problem with this framing ...

Costello being able "to last" hides that he didn't get going until he's 26, where Zaslofsky starts out of the gate with a 9.6 WS season (better than any for Costello, in what is a Costello friendly measure regarding efficiency not volume) in a 61 game season at age 21.

Then too between semi-retirement, the Eastern League and injuries, Costello plays 4572 (major league, RS) minutes total in his age 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 seasons (3104 at 32 and 33 combined i.e. up to your point of reference).

You can still probably frame Costello as giving better longevity of quality but the age 33, age 26 thing seems to me to be misleading.

I'm inclined to see it as one guy playing through a pretty normal aging progression with an understandably delayed start, and another guy falling to irrelevancy at an age where he should be peaking. My gut instinct whenever I see these early players peak in the '40s is to think that they were lucky to have faced inferior competition and didn't fare as well when that luck ran out.

Are there other possible explanations? Absolutely. Sure, injury being the obvious one.

As I've said, I'm still waiting to here a case.

Just to throw something out there, there's another name that has not been mentioned: Connie Simmons.

Simmons appears to have been the Finals MVP of the BAA's second championship (an accomplishment Zaslofsky never matched) as well as the Knicks' best player in their most impressive playoff run over Zaslofsky (where they took the Lakers to 7). He was the same age as Zaslofsky, and the Knicks kept him on longer than Zaslofsky.

I don't think it's at all clear that Zaslofsky is the better candidate than Simmons.

I say none of this to make the case for Simmons. I don't have a strong feeling here and am fine with people concluding that Zaslofsky is the one they want to champion over Simmons, or Fulks, or Feerick...but it is not the case that Zaslofsky is a massive stand out compared to other others from the time period who haven't made our Hall, and of course it's worth noting that none of Zaslofsky, Simmons, or Feerick made the actual Hall (Fulks did of course).

It might feel like a cheap shot to bring that stuff up and again, I'm not saying folks are crazy here, but in general the basketball world - including us - has had a pretty skeptical eye toward these "super early peak" guys, and so if that's something that seems specifically unfair to Zaslofsky, I think this is something worth explaining.

Simmons hasn't been totally unmentioned (thread 1, originally post 18, rebuilt in post 43). He's, maybe, a distant 3rd among 40s centers (Mikan, Risen) in an era when bigs put up numbers, that's if he's even that, probably not Otten's probably better ... played more time in better league, better accolades with MVP, more WS at peak ...

Zaslofsky and Feerick, unlike Simmons make the Silver anniversary shortlist, fwiw. And Simmons wasn't making 1st team all-league.

Actual Hall honestly often feels pretty arbitrary.

And I'm fine with cynicism across the board but then Zaslofsky has 4 years better than Fulks's 2nd best by WS. Fulks has one "dominant" and noteworthy in high scoring year (worse than Feerick's though) playing in a team culture that encouraged star scorers (idea apparently was it would drive gates) then ... lasts worse.

Not necessarily pushing for him in but versus Costello the framing just seemed misleading in terms of actual career value given. I think I find it harder than you to give Costello credit when he wasn't productive in the time he was on court early in career.

[Doctor MJ]

Not necessarily pushing for him in but versus Costello the framing just seemed misleading in terms of actual career value given. I think I find it harder than you to give Costello credit when he wasn't productive in the time he was on court early in career.

I did NOT give him credit. I analyzed what happened.

To use a modern example:

Many refused to believe that Nash was an MVP-level player when he went to Phoenix because he wasn't an MVP candidate before.

I use that as food for analysis and it leads us to understand why a player takes a leap forward in one place compared to another for reasons that are not fundamentally about normal aging growth.

What I don't do is go around giving Nash credit for a half dozen MVPs on the grounds that that in theory he could have been doing what he later did earlier.

I'm not crediting Costello with all-star seasons on the Warriors, I'm only pointing out what happened and why it's a pretty understandable thing that there's no particular reason to think meant he learned to play basketball when he got to Syracuse.

I've addressed why Costello got the delayed start and acknowledged that it hurts his longevity. I'm still waiting for anyone to go into this kind of depth to explain the far more noteworthy point of Zaslofsky peaking too early for reasons other than the competitions being weaker.

Folks, if something else needs to be factored in I"m not seeing, tell me what it is.

[eminence]

Been a long time since I read it, but "When Basketball was Jewish" might have some insight from Zaslofsky on the topic in it, I remember he was one of those interviewed.

[Owly]

Not necessarily pushing for him in but versus Costello the framing just seemed misleading in terms of actual career value given. I think I find it harder than you to give Costello credit when he wasn't productive in the time he was on court early in career.

I did NOT give him credit. I analyzed what happened.

It seemed like the initial phrasing as I initially quoted

Thing is though, based on accolades, Zaslofsky's career disappears after age 26 and then circles the drain until retiring at 30. Meanwhile, Costello continues to be an all-star level guy through age 33,
...
Zaslofsky wasn't able to last and Costello was.

was giving him credit for last[ing] beyond 26 in a way Zaslofsky didn't where the full picture show that he didn't get going until then

I'm struggling with what you are doing re Costello's early years, what we are to take from it ...

You're NOT giving him credit.

You are analyzing what happened.

What happened was that he didn't provide that much value whilst on court regardless of minutes whether he manages to unseat an incumbent in what is perhaps the worst year of their career (tbh he's 5th in minutes, he got a chance).

It's hard to know what to do with you thinking that "the Warriors weren't really looking to make a change" and George is an All-Star, when near half the league starters are all-stars, the cap per team means once real stars are on the team you'd just be plugging positional and team-based gaps, there's little evidence George is actually good and Costello plays enough anyway and is ... fine but far less then he becomes once he starts making shots (.365 from the field, .791 from the line the first two years, .445, .846 thereafter). Again it's a "what it's worth" thing but Warriors probably don't sell him (to a rival) if they see anything in him.

Yes it would be nice to know whether Zaslofsky's broken arm (January '53) messed him up but realistically we aren't going to know, you work with the career he gave you. He didn't peak as high as Fulks and Feerick but lasted a bit better into the better league era. (My gut would be no, he seems "okay" the next year at 27. But my gut is also I don't think you can necessarily expect to project modern player arcs onto guys in the 40s-50s where they come in at different ages, play crazy preseasons, do military service, ride the train to Sheboygan ...)

[Doctor MJ]

It's hard to know what to do with you thinking that "the Warriors weren't really looking to make a change" and George is an All-Star, when near half the league starters are all-stars, the cap per team means once real stars are on the team you'd just be plugging positional and team-based gaps, there's little evidence George is actually good and Costello plays enough anyway and is ... fine but far less then he becomes once he starts making shots (.365 from the field, .791 from the line the first two years, .445, .846 thereafter). Again it's a "what it's worth" thing but Warriors probably don't sell him (to a rival) if they see anything in him.

Yes it would be nice to know whether Zaslofsky's broken arm (January '53) messed him up but realistically we aren't going to know, you work with the career he gave you. He didn't peak as high as Fulks and Feerick but lasted a bit better into the better league era. (My gut would be no, he seems "okay" the next year at 27. But my gut is also I don't think you can necessarily expect to project modern player arcs onto guys in the 40s-50s where they come in at different ages, play crazy preseasons, do military service, ride the train to Sheboygan ...)

Right but we know the level of the league was growing and making some guys obsolete. With everyone of these guys I feel I have to look for evidence of the game passing them by. It's nothing personal. In fact, the more I looked at Braun, the more impressed I was.

Zaslofsky is a guy who hung on better than some - perhaps that means folks think that his adaptation was doing just fine and something else happened. I'm not insisting that there isn't another explanation, I just don't have anything I've seen that indicates this to me.

But I tell you want, I'm going to look more into him now. I'll see if I can find something that will sway me. I just don't understand the resistance I'm getting from people here. I feel like I'm just pointing to a thing we all know we have to do and are already doing, and it turns out no one is acknowledging it.