REDOING THE NBA HALL OF FAME (retired in 1965 or earlier)

[trex_8063]

My problem with the Heinsohn is important and Sear isn't argument is simple. There is about a 2.5 ppg difference between them (with Heinsohn's volume being inflated by the Celtics' pace) and a 100 point efficiency difference (with Heinsohn's efficiency arguably being hurt by the Celtics' pace).

That's a HUGE swing in Sears' favor. Against that I'm hearing that Heinsohn is important because he was able to play on the Celtics who won titles of which he was a rotation piece with some good playoffs and Sears played on lesser teams that didn't. The issue is that his playoff numbers overall are about what his regular season numbers would indicate so if his regular season numbers aren't that valuable, as I think, his playoff numbers average out to about the same. This whole "Heinsohn was part of the NBA story but Sear wasn't" comes across like arguing that Tony Parker wis more deserving of the HOF than Chris Paul despite it being clear that Paul was a better PG because their scoring volumes are similar and Paul's massive playmaking advantages didn't win championships while Parker did. It just comes across wrong.

This strikes me as a bit of a strawman, because the player gap between CP3/Parker is MUCH larger than any gap between Sears and Heinsohn.

[Owly]

Comparing Kenny Sears with Chris Paul seems insane to me.

I don't believe he's doing that (though Pen may correct me).

It's an analogy. Not a perfect one perhaps, but probably not profitable to focus on "is Kenny Sears Chris Paul?", but rather to stick to the meat of the comparison or the detail of why the analogy doesn't work for you.

[Dutchball97]

Comparing Kenny Sears with Chris Paul seems insane to me.

I don't believe he's doing that (though Pen may correct me).

It's an analogy. Not a perfect one perhaps, but probably not profitable to focus on "is Kenny Sears Chris Paul?", but rather to stick to the meat of the comparison or the detail of why the analogy doesn't work for you.

CP3 was a MVP level player at his peak and All-NBA level for most of his long career, besides individual acclaim Paul has led winning teams everywhere he's been. This includes making the play-offs just about every year with more than enough success even if he never made it to a final.

Kenny Sears wasn't even a perennial All-Star, let alone be one of the best players in the league or lead his team to significant succes at any time. I'd day Devin Booker is a better comparison. Impressive numbers at great efficiency but doesn't translate to many wins.

[trex_8063]

I'm struggling with choices like Max Zaslofsky vs Joe Fulks.
Fulks has the full narrative behind him, and the advantage of commonly being cited among the "greats" by virtue of being a pioneer of sorts. Zaslofsky actually had a longer pro career (though was younger), and remained relevant for longer as the league got more competitive. His ppg production wasn't far behind Fulks in '48 and '49, and his shooting efficiency was better while doing it, too. Fulks [being a PF] a more relevant rebounder, though; and again has the whole "best player on first title team" narrative.

So who deserves the higher mark?



Or how about Carl Braun vs Kenny Sears?
I'd be comfortable saying Sears peaked higher, though Braun had a MUCH longer productive career (even though he missed two years to military service). He had some pretty significant good years pre-shotclock, but then continued to have three All-Star seasons post-shotclock, and was a pretty significant piece of some of those same good offenses in NY, even as late as '60--->one of the few BAA guys who proved he could adapt and evolve sufficiently to remain relevant on into the 1960's (despite no doubt being past his physical prime).
And how does Frank Ramsey stack up against them? He arguably peaked not much [if any?] behind Sears somewhere around '58. Was consistently a pretty damn good playoff performer, decent defensive rep, was pretty consistent and durable throughout his career and key piece of multiple title teams into the mid-60s.
otoh, "contemporary perception" puts him behind just about everyone else, given he's the only guy we're considering who has ZERO All-Stars, ZERO All-NBAs, and ZERO MVP shares.

Help!

[penbeast0]

This strikes me as a bit of a strawman, because the player gap between CP3/Parker is MUCH larger than any gap between Sears and Heinsohn.

I'm far from sure I agree. Yes, Paul is a much better player than Kenny Sears ever dreamed of being, but Parker is a much better player than Heinsohn ever dreamed of being as well. Both Paul and Sears have injury issues, playoff droughts, etc. while Parker and Heinsohn score significant amounts of the points for great dynasties led by players much better than they are.


I tend to value efficiency in players whose primary role is scoring quite a bit; I've always been extremely skeptical of low efficiency high volume players and have gotten disbelieving responses over the years many times when I say players like Alex English and even Mark Aguirre are better than Dominique Wilkins or players like Chauncey Billups are more valuable than players like Allen Iverson. The Aguirre/Nique comp is another good analogy in a different way.

Finally, while Heinsohn's efficiency was almost certainly hurt by the Celtics' style, if you watch him play, he doesn't look like a guy that can scale up that well, relying on long hook shots and a lot of off balance runner stuff. You don't tend to see him square up into open space and shoot the jumper which makes me think Heinsohn will be inefficient at any pace. The flip side is that Heinsohn's value (and all those accolades -- not just for him but for many of the Celtic scorers though he's pretty much the only one of those who came in the Russell year or later who have no other real skills) is based on scoring lots of points. And you can't look at only the negative effect on efficiency, Heinsohn scored a lot more points in that run and gun style that he would in a more normally paced offense. So, no, I don't think playing in a different system helps Heinsohn much. What efficiency boost he would get would be countered by a drop in shots per minute.

[Dutchball97]

This strikes me as a bit of a strawman, because the player gap between CP3/Parker is MUCH larger than any gap between Sears and Heinsohn.

I'm far from sure I agree. Yes, Paul is a much better player than Kenny Sears ever dreamed of being, but Parker is a much better player than Heinsohn ever dreamed of being as well. Both Paul and Sears have injury issues, playoff droughts, etc. while Parker and Heinsohn score significant amounts of the points for great dynasties led by players much better than they are.


I tend to value efficiency in players whose primary role is scoring quite a bit; I've always been extremely skeptical of low efficiency high volume players and have gotten disbelieving responses over the years many times when I say players like Alex English and even Mark Aguirre are better than Dominique Wilkins or players like Chauncey Billups are more valuable than players like Allen Iverson. The Aguirre/Nique comp is another good analogy in a different way.

Finally, while Heinsohn's efficiency was almost certainly hurt by the Celtics' style, if you watch him play, he doesn't look like a guy that can scale up that well, relying on long hook shots and a lot of off balance runner stuff. You don't tend to see him square up into open space and shoot the jumper which makes me think Heinsohn will be inefficient at any pace. The flip side is that Heinsohn's value (and all those accolades -- not just for him but for many of the Celtic scorers though he's pretty much the only one of those who came in the Russell year or later who have no other real skills) is based on scoring lots of points. And you can't look at only the negative effect on efficiency, Heinsohn scored a lot more points in that run and gun style that he would in a more normally paced offense. So, no, I don't think playing in a different system helps Heinsohn much. What efficiency boost he would get would be countered by a drop in shots per minute.

You have a legit argument for not including Heinsohn based on your criteria but it sounds like you're putting in Sears just because you'd take him over Heinsohn.

[Doctor MJ]

If they gave Finals MVP from the start and Heinsohn won in 57 would it affect your votes?

Me? Well, I build stuff like that in. I don't give people actual quantified scores for winning a Finals MVP, but the fact a guy was key in a big moment that led to a title is meaningful to me.

[Doctor MJ]

My problem with the Heinsohn is important and Sear isn't argument is simple. There is about a 2.5 ppg difference between them (with Heinsohn's volume being inflated by the Celtics' pace) and a 100 point efficiency difference (with Heinsohn's efficiency arguably being hurt by the Celtics' pace).

That's a HUGE swing in Sears' favor. Against that I'm hearing that Heinsohn is important because he was able to play on the Celtics who won titles of which he was a rotation piece with some good playoffs and Sears played on lesser teams that didn't. The issue is that his playoff numbers overall are about what his regular season numbers would indicate so if his regular season numbers aren't that valuable, as I think, his playoff numbers average out to about the same. This whole "Heinsohn was part of the NBA story but Sear wasn't" comes across like arguing that Tony Parker wis more deserving of the HOF than Chris Paul despite it being clear that Paul was a better PG because their scoring volumes are similar and Paul's massive playmaking advantages didn't win championships while Parker did. It just comes across wrong.

IN answer to Dutchball97, there weren't clearly better guys than Mikkelsen and Pollard (though I didn't vote for Pollard). Sears is clearly better than Heinsohn (and probably so are a couple of other guys).

Well the question of Sears vs pretty much anybody is his bizarrely short prime. How to judge peak vs longevity? And what does it say about Sears that he fell off like he did.

Would love to hear how others see the Sears story.

His comments on the matter seem to be focused on frustration with the Knicks organization being unable to acquire their own Russell/Wilt, and that leading him to sign to another league.

But I think it's worth noting that his primacy clearly falls off before he signs to another team. Why the primacy fall off? Was that at the roots of why he was so frustrated, or was his attitude a problem first?

It's certainly fine to point out that perhaps if Heinsohn were in NY he'd have had the same attitude problems, and perhaps Sears in Boston is an angel. Still, I tend to hold it against guys when their attitude ends up being part of the reason why their career doesn't reach it's total potential.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm struggling with choices like Max Zaslofsky vs Joe Fulks.
Fulks has the full narrative behind him, and the advantage of commonly being cited among the "greats" by virtue of being a pioneer of sorts. Zaslofsky actually had a longer pro career (though was younger), and remained relevant for longer as the league got more competitive. His ppg production wasn't far behind Fulks in '48 and '49, and his shooting efficiency was better while doing it, too. Fulks [being a PF] a more relevant rebounder, though; and again has the whole "best player on first title team" narrative.

So who deserves the higher mark?



Or how about Carl Braun vs Kenny Sears?
I'd be comfortable saying Sears peaked higher, though Braun had a MUCH longer productive career (even though he missed two years to military service). He had some pretty significant good years pre-shotclock, but then continued to have three All-Star seasons post-shotclock, and was a pretty significant piece of some of those same good offenses in NY, even as late as '60--->one of the few BAA guys who proved he could adapt and evolve sufficiently to remain relevant on into the 1960's (despite no doubt being past his physical prime).
And how does Frank Ramsey stack up against them? He arguably peaked not much [if any?] behind Sears somewhere around '58. Was consistently a pretty damn good playoff performer, decent defensive rep, was pretty consistent and durable throughout his career and key piece of multiple title teams into the mid-60s.
otoh, "contemporary perception" puts him behind just about everyone else, given he's the only guy we're considering who has ZERO All-Stars, ZERO All-NBAs, and ZERO MVP shares.

Help!

Just my approach:

To me Zaslofsky's was a career without enough of a hook. If I'm going with trailblazer importance he doesn't sound out that much, when comparing him literally to '50s competition, he also doesn't stand out enough. Not crazy to favor him over Fulks, but Fulks has a specific argument for HOF-worthiness that Zaslofsky doesn't really have. As such, I've had Fulks ahead of him for the purpose of this project.

Braun vs Sears:

The most salient lens for me here is that Braun seems like his career would be something a franchise appreciates considerably more than Sears' career would be.

But what I'll say is that Sears' peak makes me seriously consider giving him the nod, whereas Braun doesn't really stack up to the other guys with good longevity.

In the end, don't think I'll be picking either.

[penbeast0]

Can everyone voting formally give me your picks? I have a few people who are still saying, "I have 6 that are sure things or close to it and another 6 that I'm considering."

[worldjbfree]

Can everyone voting formally give me your picks? I have a few people who are still saying, "I have 6 that are sure things or close to it and another 6 that I'm considering."

In a reverse of the initial round, I'm going high-and-tight:

Paul Arizin
Bob Pettit
Dolph Schayes
Bill Sharman

As tiebreakers are needed, I'll return to help out.

[Doctor MJ]

My 10, after on edit:

Joe Fulks - voted in last time, still think HOF enough
Arnie Risen - voted in last time, very much think he was worthy both times without hesitation
Bill Sharman - the O.G. OG? (Off-Guard) Strong yes.
Carl Braun - it's astonishing to think how many different cores he played well with. The true Mr. Knick.
Paul Arizin - has all the tools to be a star today. Strong yes.
Dolph Schayes - possibly Offensive Player of the '50s Decade. Strong yes.
Larry Foust - seems like a steady star from his day you could expect to build a contender with
Frank Ramsey - on the closest thing to an optimal team for the time, he was relied upon as an essential piece
Bob Pettit - King of the Class.
Tom Heinsohn - on the closest thing to an optimal team for the time, he was relied upon as an essential piece

Others I considered this time:
Clyde Lovellette - offensive-oriented big, never fully relied upon by great playoff teams
Maurice Stokes - HOF worthy talent, too short career, but I've struggled to truly decide against him
Gene Shue - exceptional, but seems more of a floor-raiser
Kenny Sears - HOF talent, too short career for reasons that seem related to personality

[Dr Positivity]

You can add Arnie Risen as my 10th vote

[penbeast0]

VOTING SO FAR (using trex’s tentative list)

Pettit (All)
Arizin (all)
Schayes (all)
Sharman (all)

6 Lovellette (Doctor MJ, 70sFan, Dutchball97, Dr. Positivity, trex_8063, penbeast0)
6 Heinsohn (Doctor MJ, 70sFan, Ryoga Hibiki, Dutchball97, Dr. Positivity, trex_8063)

5 Foust (Doctor MJ, 70sFan, Dutchball97, Dr. Positivity, penbeast0)

4 Risen (Dr Positivity; Doctor MJ, 70sFan, trex_8063)
4 Fulks (Doctor MJ, trex_8063, Dr. Positivity, penbeast0)

3 Braun (70sFan, trex_8063, penbeast0)
3 Ramsey (Doctor MJ, Dutchball97, Dr. Positivity)

---------------------------------------------------------------

2 Sears (70sFan, penbeast0)
2 Stokes (Dutchball97, penbeast0)

1 Shue (Dutchball97

[Doctor MJ]

Wait beast, you’re knocking Heinsohn for efficiency but voting for Braun? Why?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[penbeast0]

Braun v. Shue v. Ramsey v. Heinsohn. All similarly low efficiency shooters, Braun and Shue offer playmaking, Ramsey and Heinsohn offer playoff resumes.

Braun v. Shue -- similar player but Braun has a longer career (and appreciably more WS)

Ramsey v. Heinsohn -- Heinsohn has the edge as a regular season player, Ramsey steps up more in the playoffs, I'd give the edge to Ramsey.

Braun v. Ramsey. Braun again has the longer, earlier career (I penalize less for efficiency the farther back you go as the styles changed), Ramsey the playoff heroics. This one was almost a coin flip but I probably went for Braun because I get my back up about the "every rotation member on the Celtics should be in the HOF" theory when they won almost solely with defense and neither Ramsey nor Heinsohn had an above average defensive rep that I've found. I'd rather put in Tom Sanders and KC Jones (neither eligible yet of course).

[eminence]

Give me an hour or two and I'll have a vote in

[Doctor MJ]

beast got me thinking.

Voting in Braun, taking out Lovellette. Updating my post.

[eminence]

Official Votes:
Bob Pettit
Dolph Schayes
Bill Sharman
Paul Arizin
Tom Heinsohn
Frank Ramsey
Arnie Risen - Doc convinced me on this one
Carl Braun

[penbeast0]

VOTING SO FAR (using trex’s tentative list)

Pettit (All)
Arizin (all)
Schayes (all)
Sharman (all)


7 Heinsohn (Doctor MJ, 70sFan, Ryoga Hibiki, Dutchball97, Dr. Positivity, trex_8063, eminence)

5 Lovellette (70sFan, Dutchball97, Dr. Positivity, trex_8063, penbeast0)
5 Foust (Doctor MJ, 70sFan, Dutchball97, Dr. Positivity, penbeast0)
5 Braun (70sFan, trex_8063, penbeast0, Doctor MJ, eminence)
5 Risen (Dr Positivity; Doctor MJ, 70sFan, trex_8063, eminence)

4 Fulks (Doctor MJ, trex_8063, Dr. Positivity, penbeast0)
4 Ramsey (Doctor MJ, Dutchball97, Dr. Positivity, eminence)

---------------------------------------------------------------

2 Sears (70sFan, penbeast0)
2 Stokes (Dutchball97, penbeast0)

1 Shue (Dutchball97