RealGM Top 100 List #52

[john248]

English. Great all around game: solid as a man defender, solid passing though not a super playmaker, good scorer, good teammate. Consistent player.

[trex_8063]

Jersey sales? Really?

Bits of evidence, nothing more. You're missing the point if that's all you got from that.

[Moonbeam]

OK, I'm going to play devil's advocate on something that occurred to me while reading The Rivalry: Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor.

So many (even most???) here would argue that volume scoring in and of itself is not a significant achievement or a worthwhile goal for a player (paging Doc). But the following passage from that book (which is a very interesting read, btw) had me wondering otherwise:

“.....Fans specifically came to see him [Baylor]. When he was on military duty and playing sporadically, they called the box office before games to ask if he would be appearing. The Lakers front office had run figures calculating Baylor’s ability to sell tickets, and they determined that in games when he did not play, the Lakers drew an average of 2,000 fewer fans. That amounted to approximately $6,000 per game, or $200,000 over the course of a season….” (p.206-207)

To some degree, similar is still true today. Casual fans don't come to see (and new fans are generally not attracted to the game by) an excellent defense (maybe anchored by someone like Mutombo) holding opponents to 70 pts in a grind 'em down defensive victory......they come to see big scores and big scorers. They come to see explosiveness, dazzling 1-on-1 play, some flash, some showmanship; maybe see a couple moves that make them laugh and shake their heads while they say "did you see that?!?" to their peers.

It's that kind of stuff that the casual fan typically wants to see; it's that kind of stuff that is more apt to attract new fans to the game. And thus it is that type of play (and that type of player) which has been primarily responsible for propelling the global popularity of this game to the levels we currently enjoy.

The top 10 selling jerseys of the last decade (as of 2013) were (and I'll bold some that appear a bit out of place, at least that high, based on the overall quality of player and/or how long ago it was that they were in their primes):
1. Lebron James
2. Kobe Bryant (probably North America only; wouldn't be surprised if he's #1 globally)
3. Dwyane Wade
4. Carmelo Anthony---last year Melo jersey sales out-numbered Bron jersey sales
5. Allen Iverson
6. Derrick Rose
7. Kevin Garnett
8. Kevin Durant
9. Shaquille O'Neal
10. Chris Paul

Top 10 this year:
1. Lebron
2. Durant
3. Kobe
4. Derrick Rose
5. Steph Curry
6. Carmelo Anthony
7. DWade
8. CP3
9. Kyrie Irving
10. James Harden

Notice the high tendency toward scorers, and particularly perimeter scorers.
So idk.....again, I'll just play devil's advocate and put the question out there: are we sure there's not intrinsic value in scoring? While it strictly speaking may not always contribute directly to winning as much as previously believed, it seems clear it does contribute directly to increased revenues, which may lead to more recruiting options; and may also contribute to the on-going rise in global popularity===>====>larger/better player pool.

EDIT: A couple other historic examples of players whose all-time status appears inflated by lay-fans, apparently based on the fact that they scored and played with flare: Pete Maravich and Earl Monroe. Neither is a name that is exactly synonymous with team success (particularly so with Maravich), and yet many casual fans would have one or both in their top 50 all-time. EDIT2: Not saying they're right (far from it). Just siting those as further examples that casual fans are drawn in by that type of player.

Interesting post. I'm particularly interested a point related to recruiting. I think there has been (and to some degree still is) a perception among many (most?) players that volume scoring is valuable, and that it is an important role to fill. Not to mention that having somebody who can draw double teams and be counted on for a bucket in tight games and in the playoffs is valuable for the greater good of the offense, even if it comes at the cost of poor efficiency (as demonstrated by your breakdown of Iverson's offensive impact). Not only that, I think having a reliable scorer can allow other players to focus more on their particular strengths if team build and chemistry is right (e.g. Horace Grant and Scottie Pippen in Chicago, though they were also very good outside of playing with Jordan).

[Doctor MJ]

OK, I'm going to play devil's advocate on something that occurred to me while reading The Rivalry: Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor.

So many (even most???) here would argue that volume scoring in and of itself is not a significant achievement or a worthwhile goal for a player (paging Doc). But the following passage from that book (which is a very interesting read, btw) had me wondering otherwise:

“.....Fans specifically came to see him [Baylor]. When he was on military duty and playing sporadically, they called the box office before games to ask if he would be appearing. The Lakers front office had run figures calculating Baylor’s ability to sell tickets, and they determined that in games when he did not play, the Lakers drew an average of 2,000 fewer fans. That amounted to approximately $6,000 per game, or $200,000 over the course of a season….” (p.206-207)

To some degree, similar is still true today. Casual fans don't come to see (and new fans are generally not attracted to the game by) an excellent defense (maybe anchored by someone like Mutombo) holding opponents to 70 pts in a grind 'em down defensive victory......they come to see big scores and big scorers. They come to see explosiveness, dazzling 1-on-1 play, some flash, some showmanship; maybe see a couple moves that make them laugh and shake their heads while they say "did you see that?!?" to their peers.

It's that kind of stuff that the casual fan typically wants to see; it's that kind of stuff that is more apt to attract new fans to the game. And thus it is that type of play (and that type of player) which has been primarily responsible for propelling the global popularity of this game to the levels we currently enjoy.

The top 10 selling jerseys of the last decade (as of 2013) were (and I'll bold some that appear a bit out of place, at least that high, based on the overall quality of player and/or how long ago it was that they were in their primes):
1. Lebron James
2. Kobe Bryant (probably North America only; wouldn't be surprised if he's #1 globally)
3. Dwyane Wade
4. Carmelo Anthony---last year Melo jersey sales out-numbered Bron jersey sales
5. Allen Iverson
6. Derrick Rose
7. Kevin Garnett
8. Kevin Durant
9. Shaquille O'Neal
10. Chris Paul

Top 10 this year:
1. Lebron
2. Durant
3. Kobe
4. Derrick Rose
5. Steph Curry
6. Carmelo Anthony
7. DWade
8. CP3
9. Kyrie Irving
10. James Harden

Notice the high tendency toward scorers, and particularly perimeter scorers.
So idk.....again, I'll just play devil's advocate and put the question out there: are we sure there's not intrinsic value in scoring? While it strictly speaking may not always contribute directly to winning as much as previously believed, it seems clear it does contribute directly to increased revenues, which may lead to more recruiting options; and may also contribute to the on-going rise in global popularity===>====>larger/better player pool.

EDIT: A couple other historic examples of players whose all-time status appears inflated by lay-fans, apparently based on the fact that they scored and played with flare: Pete Maravich and Earl Monroe. Neither is a name that is exactly synonymous with team success (particularly so with Maravich), and yet many casual fans would have one or both in their top 50 all-time. EDIT2: Not saying they're right (far from it). Just siting those as further examples that casual fans are drawn in by that type of player.

Well I'm not going to tell you how you have to do your rankings, but to me this stuff is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I get it, but it makes no more sense to factor it in than to try to factor in the effect of a guy being good-looking.

I'll also say that while certain guys of old who played on bad teams have some glamour to them, it's not like they all do. No casual fan has heard of Walt Bellamy or Dan Issel - the latter wasn't even on bad teams. On the whole if you score a lot on a bad team, you get criticized, and all the more so nowadays.

Meanwhile Ben Wallace became an icon, and he can't score a lick.

To me what's really going on is that people want to see the guys they think are great, and if you score points on a team that wins you'll be seen as a big deal.

So we get a guy like Melo. He could have easily been on crappy teams his whole career, and were that the case his brand would have died. Instead he was on teams that were just good enough to keep attention on him and it helped foster his "nearlly LeBron" narrative in a way that no non-volume scorer would have benefitted from.

[Doctor MJ]

Looks like the Cowens tiebreaker came first.

[trex_8063]

Well I'm not going to tell you how you have to do your rankings, but to me this stuff is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I get it, but it makes no more sense to factor it in than to try to factor in the effect of a guy being good-looking.

I'll also say that while certain guys of old who played on bad teams have some glamour to them, it's not like they all do. No casual fan has heard of Walt Bellamy or Dan Issel - the latter wasn't even on bad teams. On the whole if you score a lot on a bad team, you get criticized, and all the more so nowadays.

Meanwhile Ben Wallace became an icon, and he can't score a lick.

To me what's really going on is that people want to see the guys they think are great, and if you score points on a team that wins you'll be seen as a big deal.

So we get a guy like Melo. He could have easily been on crappy teams his whole career, and were that the case his brand would have died. Instead he was on teams that were just good enough to keep attention on him and it helped foster his "nearlly LeBron" narrative in a way that no non-volume scorer would have benefitted from.

Interesting you mention "good looking" as a comparable feature and then bring up Ben Wallace. Not that I think he was good looking, but I do think it was partly his appearance (the awesome retro 'Fro) that drove his popularity (that, and being arguably the best player on a contender).

I mentioned not only the ability to score, but also flash, style, explosiveness, dazzling 1-on-1 (I emphasized this further in a subsequent post). The flashiest/most stylish thing about Wallace was his hair. But we'll not have multitudes of kids on playgrounds around the world trying to emulate Big Ben's moves (because he didn't have any). He made some impressive swats, but otherwise was a "bring your lunch-pail to work" kind of player.

The notion of flash, style, dazzling 1-on-1 also applies to your comments regarding Bellamy or Issel (or really, nearly all big men); those attributes just don't lend themselves very well to low-post play. I specifically mentioned toward the end of the post you quoted "perimeter players" appear to be more iconic in the public eye.

The media and local market play roles in this, no doubt, but the point I'm making is that while we could argue they weren't always the "best" players, or didn't have the "most impact", or whatever.......it's the Cousy's, Baylor's, Chamberlain's, Monroe's and Maravich's, Nique's, Iverson's, and Melo's that have driven the popularity of this game forward more than the Russell's, Unseld's, Mutombo's, Duncan's.

And popularity, contributing to larger and larger player pools over time, is probably the biggest driving force in improving the quality of play in the NBA over the decades (or certainly over the last four decades, at least).

[Texas Chuck]

This popularity conversation is interesting and I think there is something to it. Look at even some pretty average players like Jason "White Chocolate" Williams who were very influential with kids. Does that whole "And 1" scene really take off if Williams doesn't demonstrate it can be done within the NBA setting?


And guys like Lebron and Durant ensure that every single game they ever play in is a sell-out even in markets that really struggle with attendance. We know Magic and Bird and Mike transformed the entire Association. I think some of that probably should be factored in.

Does Steve Nash really win b2b MVP's(and nearly a 3rd in a row) without the whole SSOL entertaining style with Matrix and STAT finishing lobs and shooters bombing away from everywhere. Note I'm not saying Nash wasn't a worthy choice, but I absolutely think style impacted the voting. People want entertaining basketball and when you can bring the most entertaining style in the league and win doing it like Nash and the Suns it matters.

And of course we must take the case of Yao Ming. Talk about having significant influence....

[trex_8063]

So I feel like we've been in a non-official English/Iverson for about the last 12 hours, though I'm not sure anyone realizes. Is that the case?

[Clyde Frazier]

So I feel like we've been in a non-official English/Iverson for about the last 12 hours, though I'm not sure anyone realizes. Is that the case?

Should be Cowens / Iverson. Notanoob got in his vote for cowens (post #60) ~20 min before john248 for English (post #61).

[trex_8063]

So I feel like we've been in a non-official English/Iverson for about the last 12 hours, though I'm not sure anyone realizes. Is that the case?

Should be Cowens / Iverson. Notanoob got in his vote for cowens (post #60) ~20 min before john248 for English (post #61).

Oops, I missed that; you're right. OK, so we've been in a non-official Cowens/Iverson run-off for about 13 hours now, I guess?......

[Owly]

One thing Cowens has is he's the last guy from from the "Leading their club in all 5 box score per game accumulative stats club". At least if no-one has joined it recently.

Garnett, Pippen, McGrady and Erving (ABA) are the others. LeBron (last I checked) had done it with totals but not per game stats. Cowens is (iirc) somewhat dubious depending on how many games you have to have played for the team to qualify as team leader and how many decimal places you're willing to go to, or if you just count as joint leader after 1. But I've seen two sources cite either Cowens specifically or a number of players that makes it appear to count Cowens. So he's got that. Though he probably did it least convincingly (followed by McGrady).

My personal preference is Cowens but the numbers go so much in favour of Iverson that, even with intangiables, non-boxscore D, portability/ease of fit etc I can't vote for him (but don't feel comfortable going the other way). Hmmm. So if this is a runoff I guess I abstain.

[Clyde Frazier]

Cowens in the game 7 clincher of the 74 finals

On offense, the muscular Cowens used his superior speed and quickness to take the slower Jabbar out on the floor and drive by him, taking advantage of Kareem's relative lack of lateral quickness.

The high-leaping, aggressive Cowens won the opening jump over Jabbar and tapped it it to Havlicek, who fed a cutting Chaney perfectly for a layup that set an immediate, positive tone in the contest for the Celtics.

As time ran out in the first period, Dave bombed a 25-footer from the right side at the buzzer that went straight in to give Boston a 22-20 lead.

The Celtics lengthened the lead late in the half as their defense stymied Jabbar and Robertson. Dave triggered the vaunted Celtic fast break with a defensive rebound and airborne outlet pass that led to a 16-footer by Don Nelson.

Shortly afterward, Cowens nailed consecutive foul line jumpers that gave the visitors a 53-40 intermission edge. Their defensive strategy, cooked up between games six and seven by Celtic patriarch Red Auerbach, Heinsohn and the legendary Bob Cousy, was working almost to perfection.

Robertson, who had played for Cousy in Cincinnati before their falling out led to the Big O's trade to Milwaukee, was hounded into perhaps the worst playoff game of his career at a very inopportune time.

If nothing else, the all-court pressure put on by the quicker Celtics rushed the Bucks and took vital seconds off the shot clock, forcing hurried decisions and field goal tries. With veteran leader and playmaker Robertson flustered, the Buck offense floundered.

As a result, scoring machine Jabbar was amazingly held without a single point in the entire second stanza and for half of the third period. This was a major drought when one realizes that Kareem came into game seven averaging his number per outing in the 1974 playoffs (33).

- - - - -

Paul then hung in the air as he looked to shoot a short jumper over the looming 7-2 Buck center. But at the last second, he double-clutched and instead tossed a beautifully improvised short alley-oop pass to Cowens past Jabbar. Dave caught the ball in the air on the right side of the lane and cleverly kissed it in off glass before Kareem could recover.

That was the final nail in the Milwaukee coffin.

- - - - -

But the game seven MVP was definitely Big Red. The final box score showed Cowens with game-high totals of 28 points and 14 rebounds, compared to 26 and 13 for Jabbar.

Cowens in the game 6 clincher of the 76 finals

With the outcome very much in doubt as Boston clung to a slim lead with over six minutes remaining, someone needed to step up. The tiring Celtics did not want to play a seventh game against the yonger, healthier Suns, when Bosotn would have all the pressure to win.

It was Cowens who took over and scored seven points in a clutch 9-4 Celtic spurt that clinched the crown.

Despite being plagued with five fouls, the redhead gambled and came up with the biggest play of the game. As Adams drove along the right side of the lane, Dave dangerously reached in and poked the ball away from the Rookie of the Year, lunging to tip the loose sphere away from Adams.

He then snatched up the loose ball and dribbled, or more accurately roared, 80 feet upcourt at top speed on a 2 on 1 fast break, a runaway red-headed center locomotive.

As he approached the basket, the Celtic center crossed over to the right side and gave a slight head fake to freeze defender Heard. Dave then laid in a twisting backhanded layup over his shoulder while being fouled. He cashed in the free throw to give Boston a 71-67 lead and a huge momentum swing.

- - - - -

After the final buzzer sounded, a tired Cowens hugged retiring teammate Nelson as they strode off the court as champions for the last time. For Nellie, it was a satisfying fifth ring after being released by the Lakers over a decade earlier.

With White struggling and Hondo hurt, it was clearly the clutch late offensive burst from Cowens that capped banner number 13. His aggressive, all-out defense also led to a drought of over five minutes without a basket for the Suns down the stretch.

Even though Dave scored 21 points in the decisive win, paced the defense and led all players in rebounds during the series while averaging 20.5 ppg, teammate JoJo White (21.7 ppg) was named Finals MVP.

Yet in true Cowens fashion, Dave probably didn't care that much, as long as Boston won. He was simply about winning, an undersized center who won on great athleticism (strength, speed, quickness and jumping ability), high basketball intelligence, skill, and a burning desire as bright as his red mane.

"There is no player with greater desire than Dave Cowens," said CBS commentator and fiery Hall of Famer Rick Barry during the 1976 Finals.

http://www.celticsblog.com/2014/11/3/71 ... for-boston

[penbeast0]

Well, assuming we have an Iverson/Cowens tiebreaker, it's still tied at 4-4 with a half hour left before 5PM. Can't say this one is about efficiency as it was the main weakness of both players. I have to go with the high caliber defender and team leader over the high scoring headcase here; there's a reason the Celtics sucked even with Havlicek then became consistent title contenders again when they drafted Cowens. Big Red was hypercompetitive, a pure team guy, and a winner.

Vote: Dave Cowens

[john248]

Jersey sales? Really?

Bits of evidence, nothing more. You're missing the point if that's all you got from that.

It is when you're trying to relate jersey sales to the value of scoring, pretty much boiling it down to a popularity contest, and then throwing in statements like recruiting and global effect. The league has largely gone away from ISO scoring. But if you do have a player who's both great at scoring and playmaking, then you really do have a special player. No one here will complain about Jordan, Shaq, LeBron, Durant, Kareem, Oscar, and others from putting up 30 PPG. AI was league average or slightly worse as a scorer and did it at huge volume. This doesn't mean he didn't have value, but it does mean he wasn't as valuable as perceived which is why something like jersey sales don't mean as much. Personally, it's why I see him as roughly a top 60 guy...though I did have a window of Chris Mullin and AI up. It made me think twice.

In any case, I don't see AI having any affect on recruiting at the NBA level and give global popularity credit more to the Dream Teams than anything else.

[Joao Saraiva]

Well, assuming we have an Iverson/Cowens tiebreaker, it's still tied at 4-4 with a half hour left before 5PM. Can't say this one is about efficiency as it was the main weakness of both players. I have to go with the high caliber defender and team leader over the high scoring headcase here; there's a reason the Celtics sucked even with Havlicek then became consistent title contenders again when they drafted Cowens. Big Red was hypercompetitive, a pure team guy, and a winner.

Vote: Dave Cowens

Come on. Iverson was a good defender too. He just never had the chance to be drafted to a team full of talent like Cowens.

You can't say Iverson didn't put 100% effort, that's absolutely not true. About being a winner... yes when you play in great teams it's easier to be seen as a winner. Taking that cast of Philadelphia to the NBA finals is a win the way I see it.

[Joao Saraiva]

People want to talk about efficiency a lot when it comes to Iverson... how about Cowens?

Cowens doesn't even average above 50%ts and he was a C. That's terrible. Also AI was a much better volume scorer and a guard, so the gap in ts% is gigantic.

I also think people are underestimating Iverson's D: he was a 100% effort guy, a good gambler and he was also major in the fastbreak after his gambles. His man to man D was also good, he moved his feet quickly and bothered the offensive player a lot. Per position Cowens might have a bit of an edge over Iverson, but it's not that big. On the other end of the floor Iverson has a gigantic edge over Cowens.

The way I see it should be time for AI to get in.

[Moonbeam]

This is a tough choice. Both guys have their flaws (as does everyone at this point), and trex has done a great job reframing the Iverson dialogue by highlighting his impact on Philadelphia's offense. Cowens was by no means efficient either. Here is how they fare in Score+, PosScore+ and TeamScore+:

Iverson:

Code: Select all

Year  Score+  PosScore+  TeamScore+
1997  -1.332   -1.273    -0.322
1998   0.643    0.436     1.178
1999  -0.255   -0.052     0.938
2000  -1.967   -2.205    -0.378
2001   0.028   -0.562    -0.005
2002  -2.504   -2.847    -1.429
2003  -1.348   -1.383    -1.412
2004  -2.729   -2.401    -1.935
2005   0.174    0.594     0.291
2006   0.577    1.202     0.399
2007  -0.064   -0.394    -0.140
2008   1.460    1.378     0.565
2009  -2.085   -1.420    -1.139
2010  -1.254   -0.977    -0.845


Cowens:

Code: Select all

Year  Score+  PosScore+  TeamScore+
1971  -1.214   -1.232    -0.874
1972   0.147    0.048     0.317
1973  -0.769   -1.209    -0.415
1974  -1.155   -1.608    -1.116
1975   0.284    0.010     0.281
1976   0.187   -0.192     0.653
1977  -1.021   -1.713    -0.223
1978   0.713    0.031     1.081
1979  -0.535   -1.140    -0.561
1980  -2.327   -3.087    -3.105
1983  -1.452   -1.644    -1.615


Neither looks particularly good, but there doesn't appear to be a big gap there. Iverson clearly has an edge in playmaking, though Cowens was a good passer in his own right. I think Cowens has a notable edge on defense, and he contributed meaningfully to two title teams. That said, his career was quite short.

Tough call. I'll have to read more before casting a vote.

[penbeast0]

Iverson was NOT a great defender. He was quick, but frequently rested on defense and gambled a lot and not always well. His man to man defense was not good against either PGs or SGs; he got posted, shot over, and bullied at times.

He was a volume scorer and a competent passer when he chose; moving beyond that is pretty questionable.

Well, it's closing in on the end of the window and Cowens is leading 5 votes to 4. I tried to leave it open so mine wouldn't be the deciding vote but it looks like Dave Cowens wins this.

[Basketballefan]

People want to talk about efficiency a lot when it comes to Iverson... how about Cowens?

Cowens doesn't even average above 50%ts and he was a C. That's terrible. Also AI was a much better volume scorer and a guard, so the gap in ts% is gigantic.

I also think people are underestimating Iverson's D: he was a 100% effort guy, a good gambler and he was also major in the fastbreak after his gambles. His man to man D was also good, he moved his feet quickly and bothered the offensive player a lot. Per position Cowens might have a bit of an edge over Iverson, but it's not that big. On the other end of the floor Iverson has a gigantic edge over Cowens.

The way I see it should be time for AI to get in.

I'm not even bothering anymore ima just keep voting until he gets in. The project is bound to come with confirmation bias.

[Doctor MJ]

Well I'm not going to tell you how you have to do your rankings, but to me this stuff is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I get it, but it makes no more sense to factor it in than to try to factor in the effect of a guy being good-looking.

I'll also say that while certain guys of old who played on bad teams have some glamour to them, it's not like they all do. No casual fan has heard of Walt Bellamy or Dan Issel - the latter wasn't even on bad teams. On the whole if you score a lot on a bad team, you get criticized, and all the more so nowadays.

Meanwhile Ben Wallace became an icon, and he can't score a lick.

To me what's really going on is that people want to see the guys they think are great, and if you score points on a team that wins you'll be seen as a big deal.

So we get a guy like Melo. He could have easily been on crappy teams his whole career, and were that the case his brand would have died. Instead he was on teams that were just good enough to keep attention on him and it helped foster his "nearlly LeBron" narrative in a way that no non-volume scorer would have benefitted from.

Interesting you mention "good looking" as a comparable feature and then bring up Ben Wallace. Not that I think he was good looking, but I do think it was partly his appearance (the awesome retro 'Fro) that drove his popularity (that, and being arguably the best player on a contender).

I mentioned not only the ability to score, but also flash, style, explosiveness, dazzling 1-on-1 (I emphasized this further in a subsequent post). The flashiest/most stylish thing about Wallace was his hair. But we'll not have multitudes of kids on playgrounds around the world trying to emulate Big Ben's moves (because he didn't have any). He made some impressive swats, but otherwise was a "bring your lunch-pail to work" kind of player.

The notion of flash, style, dazzling 1-on-1 also applies to your comments regarding Bellamy or Issel (or really, nearly all big men); those attributes just don't lend themselves very well to low-post play. I specifically mentioned toward the end of the post you quoted "perimeter players" appear to be more iconic in the public eye.

The media and local market play roles in this, no doubt, but the point I'm making is that while we could argue they weren't always the "best" players, or didn't have the "most impact", or whatever.......it's the Cousy's, Baylor's, Chamberlain's, Monroe's and Maravich's, Nique's, Iverson's, and Melo's that have driven the popularity of this game forward more than the Russell's, Unseld's, Mutombo's, Duncan's.

And popularity, contributing to larger and larger player pools over time, is probably the biggest driving force in improving the quality of play in the NBA over the decades (or certainly over the last four decades, at least).

Great call. Yes, part of Wallace becoming an icon is how he looks. I don't actually have a problem putting that in the category of "good-looking", but it's really more about the fact that his hair was unique at the time among stars and harkened back to a prior era that made him catch on like he did.

(Disclosure I guess, I look like a white ABA ballplayer, and it's not a coincidence. Einstein hair with a beard. So yeah, I think Wallace's look is something we need much, much more of. )

This is the type of thing I have no problem factoring in when considering the Hall of Fame, which is more about sociology than anything else, but wouldn't factor into my GOAT list.

So yeah, Wallace had several things going for him and is proof that you can get "there" without scoring...but scoring of course helps.

To your further stuff, yeah, popularity can have some very positive ramifications.

Of course, there's also the matter that if the kids emulate stupid basketball, stupidity goes viral.