RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Paul Pierce)

[Doctor MJ]

Might it be that Cliff Hagan should rank higher than Arizin?

So, I like that Hagan's emerged as such a strong contender over time. I think it does make sense to ask whether Hagan could have set the world on fire with big numbers all season long if he were simply unleashed, but when it comes to achievement, I think there's a pretty basic bump you have to get over:

Based on regular season accolades, Hagan just isn't a guy getting much love. Only 6 all-star appearances to Arizin's 10 for example.

So, Hagan's almost certainly getting the nod over Arizin and a bunch of others based on his playoff performances. Makes sense, but I think we need to be very careful when looking at stats from the entire post-season to assert things like Hagan was the true MVP of the Hawks' chip. When we look at the finals, it really seems crystal clear that Pettit would have won that Finals MVP by a landslide and deservedly so.

Quibbles, not to say I disagree overall... or that I'd back Hagan here or whatever ...

All-star ... okay but
- not really a direct measure of players (see also "Yay, points")
- especially at that time when all teams needed representation so teams were functionally capped
- you believe in an S curve development right? Arzin posts his two highest WS totals (in shorter seasons) and establishes himself as a star in the league's early years.
Now for the Hagan specific comp maybe his first year stats might suggest he wouldn't be ready. Or that playing out of position didn't suit him. Or service rendered him more rusty than Arizin. It hurts, but it's hard to be sure what's going on.

I would quibble with asserting that it is "crystal clear" a player "deserved" FMVP "by a landslide" off the data we have. Maybe you've got those games, tabulated full box-scores and on-off and scouted closely ... I think I'd have left more wiggle room in the phrasing.

Even just fading back to the full title run (or chip), okay Pettit put in his seemingly (much) weaker performances versus the Pistons and the Pistons weren't good. Still Hagan was great and the Hawks win games 1 and 2 by 3 points each. If the Hawks lose both of those (taking the other results as a given or not) the Hawks are in a bad way (and unfortunately we likely don't get to see Pettit's finals, only that weak first series).

But if I were championing Hagan it would be as a good playoff performer overall, not on a single series.

Re: Yay, points! I mean, aren't points the basis for Hagan's candidacy? We're not talking about two drastically different players here. If you were to ask me the top two scoring perimeter players of the era, I think I'd say these two guys. I'm inclined to call Arizin the best scorer of the era, and to say that Hagan was generally considered the second best scorer on his own team within that era. Hagan's playoff spikes raise the question of whether he could have done much more, but just based on what he did, that was Pettit's team in the eyes of everyone at the time.

Re: all-stars functionally capped at the time. True statement but odd argument. In a league where there are 9 teams and 24 all-star spots, your typical team is getting at least 2 all-stars. So then, how is it not a reflection of Hagan's perceived longevity to look at all-star selections? If he ain't making that cutoff, that's actually a lower bar than it would be in today's game.

Note that I said "perceived". Fine to disagree with the selections, but the issue shouldn't be about it being too high of a bar when discussing players in this rare air.

Re: S-curve? Arizin early peak? Ah! Yes, I like talking S-curves to help people understand the maturation of fields and I'm happy to talk in these terms.

You're asking whether Arizin having his statistical peak in his 2nd year in the league might be a reflection of the NBA's S-curve growth. Great question, and absolutely something to consider as I would say there's clear evidence among Arizin's contemporaries. My answer would be:

Not primarily, and not dramatically, but it affects everyone in the era to some degree. Some relevant details:

1. We have to remember the context of Arizin's career getting broken up by military service. Arizin's best year came immediately before the service ('51-52), and he improved drastically from his first year back to his second year back ('54-55 -> '55-56).

2. We should keep in mind that Arizin's was a pretty obvious POY guy in that second year back, so if you're the best player in the world at the same time as you're falling victim to the S-curve, that's actually pretty impressive I think.

3. In both '55-56 and '56-57, the only guy who stood in the way of Arizin re-taking his TS Add crown from before the military was his teammate Neil Johnston. It's complicated to say what this says, but I'll say that Johnston really seemed to be fool's gold when it came to playoff basketball. Take a look at the team's playoff numbers compared to the regular season, and you'll the shift away from Johnston and toward Arizin. I'll also note again that Johnston's whole scoring game essentially didn't work against Bill Russell.

Over to Arizin-v-Hagan:

Re: Finals MVP wiggle room in phrasing. I think you give wise advice. I'm happy to give myself some wiggle room: What I said before was hyperbolic and I don't want to attempt to defend it as if being 100% confidence is something I possess. I don't.

But man, Pettit going for 50 (while Hagan goes for 15) in the Game 7 would clinch any typical previously-contested Finals MVP vote, would it not?

Re: full title run; Pistons. So, let me put it like this. If we divide the Hawks' championship year into the regular season and each playoff series, that means we get:

82 game regular season: Pettit seen as clear Hawks' MVP.
1st playoff series against the 33-39 Pistons in which they won 4-1: Hagan likely series MVP
2nd playoff series against the 49-23 Celtics in which they won 4-2: Pettit likely series MVP

I'm pretty confident contemporaries would have seen in the same, and from it draw the conclusion that Pettit was the MVP over the duration.

Of course, perhaps we'll get a fine-grain enough signal of impact that it will eventually sway me for Hagan here, but it's hard for me to imagine arguing against Batman in favor of his Robin when in the biggest game Robin seemed to disappear.

I'll hit one other thing here because a riposte against my post that comes to mind is this:

Doc, why are you trying to argue for Arizin over Hagan using Pettit as if both Pettit & Hagan couldn't be better than Arizin?

Okay so, it's true that possibly both could be better than Arizin, but please do keep in mind the relative dominance of the teams in question.

In '55-56, their title season, the Warriors had an SRS of 3.82.
In '57-58, their title season, the Hawks had an SRS of 0.82.

Over the course of the Hawks' 12 year run in St. Louis, their peak SRS was a 2.99 in '60-61 (featuring Pettit & Hagan).

Now of course, Hagan's whole thing is about rising in the playoffs and everything I've said here is regular season focused, so there's certainly an avenue for continuing to side with Hagan here, but what I want to make clear to folks is that this Warrior team - despite being something of a one-hit-wonder - wasn't a team that just squeaked through in the absence of Hawks-level threats. In that window of time, the Warriors had a real spike of peak that should be taken seriously as more than just a fluke.

Perhaps when Hagan was at his very, very best the Hawks were better than peak Warriors, but this wasn't something he was able to sustain even over the entirety of the two series of their champion run. Meanwhile in the Warrior championship run, Arizin's the rock constant the team holds on to as his co-star struggles.

I can't help but see Pettit & Arizin as north stars for their teams to rely upon in a way I don't see of Hagan - or Schayes for that matter, which relates to why I tend to see Pettit & Arizin (along with what-if of Alex Groza) as the best players to come along between Mikan & Russell .

[Doctor MJ]

It's worth noting that teammate Neil Johnston is known for hitting a brick wall when he played Bill Russell. Johnston's whole thing was an "unblockable" hook shot...but Russell blocked it. Johnston to me is pretty clearly a guy who would need to prove he could dominate with an entirely new set of tools to thrive in future eras, and I'm skeptical he could do it. Arizin on the other hand was doing stuff that you couldn't stop just by being bigger.

Random trivia some may not know, Johnston was Connie Hawkins first professional coach with the Pittsburgh Rens (after resigning from the Warriors after 2 seasons with Wilt).

On the brick wall thing ...

... I've come across different versions of this

From memory (so can't be sure or verify)
there's he got injured playing Russell
and or he crumpled to the floor getting blocked and was never the same again
or Russell solved him or neutered him (again maybe "and he's never the same again")

The way it's traditionally presented is more anecdotal than numerical which isn't to say Russell having his number necessarily isn't true, I'd just want to look at the numbers closer and look at the variance for such things before really concluding on the matter. At a very quick first glance I think he is shooting worse versus Russell era Boston.

So for reference here's a From Way Downtown article focused on Russell's success against Johnston and specifically focusing on the game of November 16, 1957.

In that game Russell would score a game high 28 points with 49 rebounds, while Johnston would score 4 points on 1-12 shooting.

Snippets from the article - note that I'm not endorsing what he said, I just think these are hit most noteworthy points, and while some of it doesn't really make sense - a regular season game in the middle of Russell's second year after he won the title is what changed everything? - the impact of the event is remarkable.

With no 24-second clock to worry about, the ball would eventually find its way into Mikan. Somehow number 99 would spot it through those fogged-over glasses, through which he could not possibly see, catch it in those huge hands, and, with elbows flying and huge bulk mowing down opponents, he would hook it in.

If the defense sagged too much on him, then Mikan would pass the ball to one of his big-and-mean forwards, Vern Mikkelsen or Jim Pollard, for a driving layup. For variety, the two-handed, set-shooting guards, Whitey Skoog and Frank “Pep” Saul, would pop a few in from 30 feet.

The style of play would come to an abrupt halt on the night of November 16, 1957, when the 1955-56 world-champion Philadelphia Warriors came to Boston Garden for a game against the 1956-57 world-champion Boston Celtics.

The Warriors are four games behind the Celtics in the Eastern Division, and Philadelphia coach George Senesky will concentrate on getting the ball to his center Neil Johnston, the league’s leading scorer with a 26 point-per-game mark. Senesky hopes the veteran Johnston will handle second-year man Bill Russell, his nemesis a year ago, and stop Boston’s 10-game winning streak.

...
Midway through the second period, the Celtics are ahead, 38-33, and the ball comes into Johnston. He hooks left—blocked and recovered by Russell—and the Celtics’ lanky center drives in for a dunk and is fouled.

...

Moments later, it is 45-36. This time, Johnston hooks right—blocked by Russell—over to Cousy, to Sharman, to Heinsohn for a layup. Johnston is completely flustered and must be replaced

So ended the low-post game. Enter the center playing the high post, near the foul line. So ended the driving forward; enter the corner jump shooter. The guards would have to jump shoot now, as the set shot was too easy to block. Opposing guards could now concentrate on stopping their own men, rather than helping out under the boards.

On that day, Russell would introduce the idea of the center defense, the blocked shot, the denial of the drive and layup, and the triggering of the fastbreak to unimaginable levels. It would ultimately lead to 11 world championships in 13 years.

He would introduce the unheard-of idea of winning on the road, he would later destroy the concept that the Celtics could not win once Bob Cousy retired, and he would always win the big one.

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

I'm going to end by launching a basic stat and then some context to point to why this sort of story rings true to me despite tall-telling of the story.

Russell vs Johnston games, Russell outscored Johnston 15.9 to 14.9.

Knowing nothing about these two guys that wouldn't seem weird, but when you remember that scoring was Johnston's reason for being and it was the furthers focus from Russell, it's very telling.

So yeah, I think it's pretty legit that Russell had huge impact on Johnston and similar players.

[Doctor MJ]

Hopefully Dwight wins here, I checked Draymond Green’s ranking in the 2020 RealGM 100 List; And he was 99th out of 100…

What has happened in 3 years that convinces you Draymond should be a top 50~ player instead of a fringe top 100 player? I am a bit salty about it but also very interested, would encourage to put down the Analytical aid and explain in basketball terms

So, this is a good question to ponder, and I appreciate you being open about salty feeling, because I can see that and it is a common thing. We are fanatics after all, so passion infuses the waters we swim in. Please try to stay positive, and I hope my response here feels something other than antagonistic.

First thing I'll say is that others are absolutely right when they say it's not the same group every time, and so we need to be careful to equate the ranked list for the actual worldview of basketball observer. Apparent trends can appear that don't really mean much.

Second thing I'll say is that when we see big shifts for a given player, it's worth looking for "champions" within the project. I put it in quotes to make sure people get the right sense of the word as I specify "an ardent supporter of a cause". In pretty much every thread we should see active pro-champions plugging the guy they think should your vote. When a guy jumps a lot from one project to the next then, that means some folks had to be the ones deciding to champion the guy at that spot.

All of this might seem obvious, but what it means in practice is that sometimes the right champions can make a big difference in where a guy ends up.

Green's not in yet, so who knows if he'll end up with a big jump or not, but what I can say is that I'm one of his champions and have been for a number of threads now.

Back in 2020, I don't recall doing anything for him that felt like "championing", but I believe my vote contributed to him getting in.

Why am I different this time?

1. I redid my own lists thoroughly for the first time in a long while in between last project and this. Green did well.
2. Green has also done more since the 2020 project.
3. You can't really champion a bunch of guys simultaneously, and so when you end up championing a player who never gets in the 100, you can get "stuck" there. I don't remember all the details pertaining to Green, but I do recall championing Connie Hawkins for a long time, and he never got in.
4. I am more engaged this time - I think I would have been even if I wasn't running the project, but running it means I'm going to stay engaged the whole way through.

I'm going to hit one other thing pertaining to Green vs Iverson:

If there's one thing I'd like an Iverson-advocate to understand about me as an Iverson "hater" it's this:

Iverson was my favorite player at his cultural apex, and there's no denying he had massive cultural impact.
The appeal of Iverson for me was primarily in how much I enjoyed watching him play.
Whatever you want to say about the effect of watching a guy play who just feels different and special - that basketball frisson - I absolutely feel that for Iverson.

But the impact he had on me as a fan isn't the same thing as impacting the scoreboard, and there's no reason to assume that the best aesthetic wins.

None of this means Iverson wasn't great at basketball because of course he was, but many of the defenses of Iverson supporters - such as myself - back in the day when confronted with his poor shooting efficiency, were of the sort "They wouldn't win a game without him", "They NEED him to take all those shots!", and when we started getting access to on/off data, the data didn't back us up.

And when presented with new data that didn't match my prior beliefs, my mind changed.

None of this means I must be right and others must be wrong, but just understand that there was a time where I was making arguments similar to the ones you make now, and I'm not alone in making this transition over the '00s.

[Doctor MJ]

Runoff Vote: Paul Pierce

So my runoff preference probably isn't a surprise given that I'm on record as less impressed with Howard than many. To boil this particular conversation into a nutshell I'll put it like this:

Who had the greater career for their respective primary teams:

Paul Pierce for the Celtics

or

Dwight Howard for the Magic

?

I would say Pierce pretty easily. I'd give Howard an edge at peak, but he took longer to get good, and went from great to good-but-toxic to blow-it-all-up pretty quickly. And then of course there's Pierce's longevity with the Celtics.

Here it's right to point out that Howard has additional longevity after his time on the Magic...but as I've said, I don't think the rest of his career amounted to anything. I'll readily give Howard longevity credit for the later years in the sense of him being physically able to do things, but his teams haven't been able to build with him ever since.

So yeah, had the talent to rank higher than Pierce without question, but if the criteria is the best career...

[trex_8063]

Iverson is in my top 100, and I may consider nominating him around #75, but I am in agreement that I do not see any non-cultural case for him to go much higher than that. Glib response, but his only real playoff relevance was as part of a run where he was arguably outplayed by the opposing shooting guard every single round.

I think I'm a bit of a unicorn here: I frequently find myself arguing against my favourite players on this forum, while defending players I don't like.

My two favourite players all-time are probably Reggie Miller and Steve Nash. Reggie was voted in before I was even ready to give him my alternate vote, and I was actively arguing AGAINST Steve Nash (who I still think was voted in too high).


On the flip-side: I was not and am not an Allen Iverson fan. Yet over the years I've repeatedly found myself in the role of the guy tempering all the negative criticism he receives here.

That said: there is no question [to me] that he is grossly overrated by the mainstream........let's just get that statement out of the way right up front. But the piling on here at times feels like a bit of knee-jerk overreaction to his overly-elevated status by casual fans.

Oh, let me also be clear to you [AEnigma] that I'm not saying you specifically are having a knee-jerk (I've not conversed on Iverson enough with you to know); this is more reference to sentiments I've read here for years, and just something I wanted to mention before replying to specific points in your post.


In response to your post.....
To be fair, the opposing shooting guards faced who arguably out-played him were:

Reggie Miller -- Granted he was 35 years old at the time, but this is the guy we voted in at #36 all-time, in no small part in respect to his ability as a playoff riser. And he had a bonkers series for his age in that match-up.

Vince Carter -- In his peak season, and yes, I think he arguably/probably peaked higher than Iverson, and is likely one of the several who were more deserving of the MVP in '01. I think he can be credibly argued above Iverson all-time, too.

Ray Allen -- In his peak season; and yes, I think he DEFINITELY peaked higher than Iverson, and was absolutely a more worthy MVP candidate that year (and DEFINITELY should be ranked higher, imo).

Kobe Bryant -- In a season that COULD be argued as the peak of the guy we voted in at #13 all-time.


My point being: there's no shame in being outplayed by that line-up of SG's. If you can even hang with them a little, you're likely a phenomenal player.


Few other thoughts regarding Iverson specifically on that run in '01......

It's been noted that he shot A LOT on kinda meh efficiency, with at least one person saying he should give some of those shots to someone else. Truly though, let's scrutinize that roster, and explain how you're going to "just give some more shots" to those guys and have it be an improvement on offense.
He did not have many good shooters he could penetrate and kick to: they were 26th of 29 teams in 3pt% (worth noting the most relevant 3pt threat they had [Toni Kukoc] wasn't around in the playoffs, as he was part of the trade that landed Mutombo).
He did not have a relevant secondary creator on offense (next-best was who??......Eric Snow??). Once Kukoc was gone, he didn't have anyone in the line-up who EVER [in ANY circumstance] averaged as much as 23 pts/100 possessions (that is: NO ancillary scorers).

So while it's fine and good to say he should have deferred [in a general sense] more, there were some years ['01 among them] where there really wasn't anyone to defer to. Iverson sort of was carrying the offense (which was marginally above league avg that year, albeit in a year where the league avg was pretty damn low [I don't think the absolute ceiling with Allen Iverson "carrying" the offense is all that high]).

Which brings me to another common narrative about the '01 run: that they were a team that won on their DEFENSE.

I have two comments on that.....
1) Yes, but no ONE guy was carrying that effort (as is frequently the case) to perhaps quite the same degree that Iverson was carrying the offense. We can talk about Ratliff/Mutombo (obviously the most relevant anchors of that D); but there were also plenty of good defensive role players all around them (practically everyone EXCEPT Iverson was a defensive role player). So a good defense should be well expected.

2) They won more on the strength of their defense IN THE REGULAR SEASON........during the playoffs, it was almost the opposite that was true.
Here are the Sixers' rORTG's and rDRTG's [relative to opponent faced] in each round of the playoffs:

1st Round (Pacers): +5.6 rORTG, -1.4 rDRTG [4.2 better on offense]
ECSF (Raptors): +5.4 rORTG, +2.1 rDRTG [7.5 better on offense]
ECF (Bucks): +2.1 rORTG, -2.4 rDRTG [0.3 better on defense]
Finals (Lakers): -2.2 rORTG, +1.6 rDRTG [0.6 better on defense]

They got through the first two rounds (in particular a VERY tight 7-game ECSF series) on the strength of the OFFENSE. The ECF was more or less the same on each side. In the Finals, they didn't perform well on EITHER side of the ball, though did slightly better on defense (although the Laker defense went made in that playoff run, far exceeding their rs standard, fwiw).

[Owly]

Might it be that Cliff Hagan should rank higher than Arizin?

So, I like that Hagan's emerged as such a strong contender over time. I think it does make sense to ask whether Hagan could have set the world on fire with big numbers all season long if he were simply unleashed, but when it comes to achievement, I think there's a pretty basic bump you have to get over:

Based on regular season accolades, Hagan just isn't a guy getting much love. Only 6 all-star appearances to Arizin's 10 for example.

So, Hagan's almost certainly getting the nod over Arizin and a bunch of others based on his playoff performances. Makes sense, but I think we need to be very careful when looking at stats from the entire post-season to assert things like Hagan was the true MVP of the Hawks' chip. When we look at the finals, it really seems crystal clear that Pettit would have won that Finals MVP by a landslide and deservedly so.

Quibbles, not to say I disagree overall... or that I'd back Hagan here or whatever ...

All-star ... okay but
- not really a direct measure of players (see also "Yay, points")
- especially at that time when all teams needed representation so teams were functionally capped
- you believe in an S curve development right? Arzin posts his two highest WS totals (in shorter seasons) and establishes himself as a star in the league's early years.
Now for the Hagan specific comp maybe his first year stats might suggest he wouldn't be ready. Or that playing out of position didn't suit him. Or service rendered him more rusty than Arizin. It hurts, but it's hard to be sure what's going on.

I would quibble with asserting that it is "crystal clear" a player "deserved" FMVP "by a landslide" off the data we have. Maybe you've got those games, tabulated full box-scores and on-off and scouted closely ... I think I'd have left more wiggle room in the phrasing.

Even just fading back to the full title run (or chip), okay Pettit put in his seemingly (much) weaker performances versus the Pistons and the Pistons weren't good. Still Hagan was great and the Hawks win games 1 and 2 by 3 points each. If the Hawks lose both of those (taking the other results as a given or not) the Hawks are in a bad way (and unfortunately we likely don't get to see Pettit's finals, only that weak first series).

But if I were championing Hagan it would be as a good playoff performer overall, not on a single series.

Re: Yay, points! I mean, aren't points the basis for Hagan's candidacy? We're not talking about two drastically different players here. If you were to ask me the top two scoring perimeter players of the era, I think I'd say these two guys. I'm inclined to call Arizin the best scorer of the era, and to say that Hagan was generally considered the second best scorer on his own team within that era. Hagan's playoff spikes raise the question of whether he could have done much more, but just based on what he did, that was Pettit's team in the eyes of everyone at the time.

Re: all-stars functionally capped at the time. True statement but odd argument. In a league where there are 9 teams and 24 all-star spots, your typical team is getting at least 2 all-stars. So then, how is it not a reflection of Hagan's perceived longevity to look at all-star selections? If he ain't making that cutoff, that's actually a lower bar than it would be in today's game.

Note that I said "perceived". Fine to disagree with the selections, but the issue shouldn't be about it being too high of a bar when discussing players in this rare air.

Re: S-curve? Arizin early peak? Ah! Yes, I like talking S-curves to help people understand the maturation of fields and I'm happy to talk in these terms.

You're asking whether Arizin having his statistical peak in his 2nd year in the league might be a reflection of the NBA's S-curve growth. Great question, and absolutely something to consider as I would say there's clear evidence among Arizin's contemporaries. My answer would be:

Not primarily, and not dramatically, but it affects everyone in the era to some degree. Some relevant details:

1. We have to remember the context of Arizin's career getting broken up by military service. Arizin's best year came immediately before the service ('51-52), and he improved drastically from his first year back to his second year back ('54-55 -> '55-56).

2. We should keep in mind that Arizin's was a pretty obvious POY guy in that second year back, so if you're the best player in the world at the same time as you're falling victim to the S-curve, that's actually pretty impressive I think.

3. In both '55-56 and '56-57, the only guy who stood in the way of Arizin re-taking his TS Add crown from before the military was his teammate Neil Johnston. It's complicated to say what this says, but I'll say that Johnston really seemed to be fool's gold when it came to playoff basketball. Take a look at the team's playoff numbers compared to the regular season, and you'll the shift away from Johnston and toward Arizin. I'll also note again that Johnston's whole scoring game essentially didn't work against Bill Russell.

Over to Arizin-v-Hagan:

Re: Finals MVP wiggle room in phrasing. I think you give wise advice. I'm happy to give myself some wiggle room: What I said before was hyperbolic and I don't want to attempt to defend it as if being 100% confidence is something I possess. I don't.

But man, Pettit going for 50 (while Hagan goes for 15) in the Game 7 would clinch any typical previously-contested Finals MVP vote, would it not?

Re: full title run; Pistons. So, let me put it like this. If we divide the Hawks' championship year into the regular season and each playoff series, that means we get:

82 game regular season: Pettit seen as clear Hawks' MVP.
1st playoff series against the 33-39 Pistons in which they won 4-1: Hagan likely series MVP
2nd playoff series against the 49-23 Celtics in which they won 4-2: Pettit likely series MVP

I'm pretty confident contemporaries would have seen in the same, and from it draw the conclusion that Pettit was the MVP over the duration.

Of course, perhaps we'll get a fine-grain enough signal of impact that it will eventually sway me for Hagan here, but it's hard for me to imagine arguing against Batman in favor of his Robin when in the biggest game Robin seemed to disappear.

I'll hit one other thing here because a riposte against my post that comes to mind is this:

Doc, why are you trying to argue for Arizin over Hagan using Pettit as if both Pettit & Hagan couldn't be better than Arizin?

Okay so, it's true that possibly both could be better than Arizin, but please do keep in mind the relative dominance of the teams in question.

In '55-56, their title season, the Warriors had an SRS of 3.82.
In '57-58, their title season, the Hawks had an SRS of 0.82.

Over the course of the Hawks' 12 year run in St. Louis, their peak SRS was a 2.99 in '60-61 (featuring Pettit & Hagan).

Now of course, Hagan's whole thing is about rising in the playoffs and everything I've said here is regular season focused, so there's certainly an avenue for continuing to side with Hagan here, but what I want to make clear to folks is that this Warrior team - despite being something of a one-hit-wonder - wasn't a team that just squeaked through in the absence of Hawks-level threats. In that window of time, the Warriors had a real spike of peak that should be taken seriously as more than just a fluke.

Perhaps when Hagan was at his very, very best the Hawks were better than peak Warriors, but this wasn't something he was able to sustain even over the entirety of the two series of their champion run. Meanwhile in the Warrior championship run, Arizin's the rock constant the team holds on to as his co-star struggles.

I can't help but see Pettit & Arizin as north stars for their teams to rely upon in a way I don't see of Hagan - or Schayes for that matter, which relates to why I tend to see Pettit & Arizin (along with what-if of Alex Groza) as the best players to come along between Mikan & Russell .

Re: Yay, points: See above. I'm not arguing for Hagan. I'm arguing against aspects of the case presented. All-Star is a poor measure because it tilts, I'd think, heavily towards scorers. Arizin was, I believe, the greater volume scorer.

All-Star minimums: This works in concert with the surrounding points. Arizin is immediately the scorer and the star in the weaker league. Thereafter he's pretty locked in as one of his teams slots. Mind you I'm not looking closely, probably he's deserving them. Hagan comes later, plays out of position initially (missing out in his rookie year) and then gets pushed out in '63 where the league is stronger, though also his minutes are way down so idk...

Re Johnston "fool's gold when it came to playoff basketball": I think we're working with small samples here and missing much of his prime (now what that says about his D or whether it's more about teammates is up for grabs).

Re "But man, Pettit going for 50 (while Hagan goes for 15) in the Game 7 would clinch any typical previously-contested Finals MVP vote, would it not?": If you're happy to regard it as a purely narrative award, sure. But then I don't think it's worth mentioning (for my criteria at least).

Re "Batman": Not my taste but okay.

Re "in the biggest game Robin seemed to disappear: Ooof! "Biggest game!" I'd disagree. All worth one game. If choosing before the series for a guaranteed win if we get there (or playing out the dead rubber games - i.e. not saying I take the last game and guarantee the results of other games and guarantee we get to a game 7) I'd take early, if choosing after to flip a game (and other coach has same) I'd take early. Late games aren't bigger in a meaningful basketball related sense. They are higher leverage (if that's the right phrase) because of what has happened before which at that point is set in stone. But that's taking the assumption that all the prior stuff happens exactly as it did and pretending because we know it evened out that it's unimportant.

Robin ... see above.

"Disappear" ... it looks like a weak/poor game off the information we have. We don't have quite a bit of information. "Disappear", to me, comes with some baggage beyond not being effective.

Re Seasons splits: Generally fair enough. Hagan's first round "win" appears (with information limits) the most decisive. For those focused on the title run then, on average, Hagan has an angle.

RE two series: Hagan's second series is versus the Celtics (tougher opponents). And I don't really boil their careers down to the single runs. And okay Hagan didn't align his peak series in one year but he's pretty effective versus the Celtics in '61 if one wants focus on the finals for whatever reason. On the whole Hagan seems very effective in the playoffs ... I don't know if he's notably high variance and I don't know how I'd consistently slide that into a schema if he was, to be honest.

Around here I see the edges of a simpler case for Arizin over Hagan, he's also really good in the playoffs (especially in prime) and better RS. Simplistic and missing much information, but broadly speaking I could and probably would go for that.

[Owly]

Random trivia some may not know, Johnston was Connie Hawkins first professional coach with the Pittsburgh Rens (after resigning from the Warriors after 2 seasons with Wilt).

On the brick wall thing ...

... I've come across different versions of this

From memory (so can't be sure or verify)
there's he got injured playing Russell
and or he crumpled to the floor getting blocked and was never the same again
or Russell solved him or neutered him (again maybe "and he's never the same again")

The way it's traditionally presented is more anecdotal than numerical which isn't to say Russell having his number necessarily isn't true, I'd just want to look at the numbers closer and look at the variance for such things before really concluding on the matter. At a very quick first glance I think he is shooting worse versus Russell era Boston.

So for reference here's a From Way Downtown article focused on Russell's success against Johnston and specifically focusing on the game of November 16, 1957.

In that game Russell would score a game high 28 points with 49 rebounds, while Johnston would score 4 points on 1-12 shooting.

Snippets from the article - note that I'm not endorsing what he said, I just think these are hit most noteworthy points, and while some of it doesn't really make sense - a regular season game in the middle of Russell's second year after he won the title is what changed everything? - the impact of the event is remarkable.

With no 24-second clock to worry about, the ball would eventually find its way into Mikan. Somehow number 99 would spot it through those fogged-over glasses, through which he could not possibly see, catch it in those huge hands, and, with elbows flying and huge bulk mowing down opponents, he would hook it in.

If the defense sagged too much on him, then Mikan would pass the ball to one of his big-and-mean forwards, Vern Mikkelsen or Jim Pollard, for a driving layup. For variety, the two-handed, set-shooting guards, Whitey Skoog and Frank “Pep” Saul, would pop a few in from 30 feet.

The style of play would come to an abrupt halt on the night of November 16, 1957, when the 1955-56 world-champion Philadelphia Warriors came to Boston Garden for a game against the 1956-57 world-champion Boston Celtics.

The Warriors are four games behind the Celtics in the Eastern Division, and Philadelphia coach George Senesky will concentrate on getting the ball to his center Neil Johnston, the league’s leading scorer with a 26 point-per-game mark. Senesky hopes the veteran Johnston will handle second-year man Bill Russell, his nemesis a year ago, and stop Boston’s 10-game winning streak.

...
Midway through the second period, the Celtics are ahead, 38-33, and the ball comes into Johnston. He hooks left—blocked and recovered by Russell—and the Celtics’ lanky center drives in for a dunk and is fouled.

...

Moments later, it is 45-36. This time, Johnston hooks right—blocked by Russell—over to Cousy, to Sharman, to Heinsohn for a layup. Johnston is completely flustered and must be replaced

So ended the low-post game. Enter the center playing the high post, near the foul line. So ended the driving forward; enter the corner jump shooter. The guards would have to jump shoot now, as the set shot was too easy to block. Opposing guards could now concentrate on stopping their own men, rather than helping out under the boards.

On that day, Russell would introduce the idea of the center defense, the blocked shot, the denial of the drive and layup, and the triggering of the fastbreak to unimaginable levels. It would ultimately lead to 11 world championships in 13 years.

He would introduce the unheard-of idea of winning on the road, he would later destroy the concept that the Celtics could not win once Bob Cousy retired, and he would always win the big one.

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

I'm going to end by launching a basic stat and then some context to point to why this sort of story rings true to me despite tall-telling of the story.

Russell vs Johnston games, Russell outscored Johnston 15.9 to 14.9.

Knowing nothing about these two guys that wouldn't seem weird, but when you remember that scoring was Johnston's reason for being and it was the furthers focus from Russell, it's very telling.

So yeah, I think it's pretty legit that Russell had huge impact on Johnston and similar players.

So granting that I'm "cheating" in creating my own cutoff point ...

... and granting that Russell could have been playing some head-game (though I'm not sure that I buy that).

Looking at that second season:

Johnston is highly ineffective in the first 3 clashes that season, including that first one, and Philly lose all 3.

Thereafter Johnston ... averages 19.22 points (brought down by final, I'm guessing incomplete/injured game), shoots .470149254 from the field. 7 of 9 games in Philly [I think], Philly win 6 of 9. Philly outscore Boston by 58 points overall.

Is he reduced ... yes. Does it look like he's been solved, rendered obsolete ... I'd venture not. Now I've cut out those 3 games so overall the picture would be uglier. But if he's solved, obsolete or whatever that trajectory (on a limited sample) doesn't fit great.

[AEnigma]

Iverson is in my top 100, and I may consider nominating him around #75, but I am in agreement that I do not see any non-cultural case for him to go much higher than that. Glib response, but his only real playoff relevance was as part of a run where he was arguably outplayed by the opposing shooting guard every single round.

Let me also be clear to you [AEnigma] that I'm not saying you specifically are having a knee-jerk (I've not conversed on Iverson enough with you to know); this is more reference to sentiments I've read here for years, and just something I wanted to mention before replying to specific points in your post.

In response to your post.....
To be fair, the opposing shooting guards faced who arguably out-played him were:

Reggie Miller -- Granted he was 35 years old at the time, but this is the guy we voted in at #36 all-time, in no small part in respect to his ability as a playoff riser. And he had a bonkers series for his age in that match-up.

Vince Carter -- In his peak season, and yes, I think he arguably/probably peaked higher than Iverson, and is likely one of the several who were more deserving of the MVP in '01. I think he can be credibly argued above Iverson all-time, too.

Ray Allen -- In his peak season; and yes, I think he DEFINITELY peaked higher than Iverson, and was absolutely a more worthy MVP candidate that year (and DEFINITELY should be ranked higher, imo).

Kobe Bryant -- In a season that COULD be argued as the peak of the guy we voted in at #13 all-time.

My point being: there's no shame in being outplayed by that line-up of SG's. If you can even hang with them a little, you're likely a phenomenal player.

Fair enough, but remember the context of this is in response to someone pushing for Iverson as a serious top fifty option. Peaking lower than and having substantially worse longevity than two contemporaries who have not sniffed nomination yet (one of whom I suspect will not for another ten or so rounds) does seem like an immediate preclusion in that case.

That was my more specific point. Broader point, Paul Pierce outperforms him the next year. Five series in a row now (six counting the Pacers series in 2000). All good players, sure. Strong era for the position, sure. But we have also been ignoring the true MVP-level bigs. Add Shaq and Duncan, Dirk and Garnett. I think McGrady and Kidd were more valuable in this period as well. Suddenly peak Iverson, winning MVP, is looking on the outside of the top ten.

You have pointed out the artificiality of some of these cutoffs, and that is true. A career of third-team all-NBA play can still be valuable (like I said, I have him in my top hundred). But Iverson did not have a lot career adding that type of value. Other stars progressed and further displaced him: Lebron, Wade, Nash, Billups, Manu… various briefer peaks like Yao, Elton, or Baron…

The 76ers were 2-8 without him from 1997-99, but 79-125 with him. Then 7-5 without him in 2000 (to his 42-28), 6-5 without him in that MVP 2001 season (to his 50-21), 7-15 in 2002 (to his 36-24 — finally an impressive result), 14-20 in 2004 (to his 19-29), 2-5 in 2005 (to his 41-34), and 3-7 in 2008 (to his 35-37). On a per game basis you could say he was worth something like +4 to generally weak 76ers teams, roughly 10-12 wins. Decent impact, and reflective of those all-star / low all-NBA value assessments, but that is also his best framework. I generally do not love just throwing out RAPM numbers against Iverson, because his minute load is a unique distinguisher over other higher rate impact players, but over longer periods his missed games offset that advantage. And even though he was on teams structured to be fully reliant on him for offence, he has never been an O-RAPM standout over extended stretches.

Like I agree with OSNB that Iverson was certainly impressive for his height (and anyone being able to handle that shot volume is impressive anyway), and I am okay with people giving him some light amount of credit as a cultural figure. However, for on-court effect I am not especially sold that he outpaces the career value of even someone like Joe Johnson. And I say that while being higher on IsoJoe than most, but the comparison is not exactly a desirable one either way. There are so many guards I would rather have, even at a maximum salary, if I wanted to compete for a title. Kyle Lowry. Jrue Holiday.

I have him as the least deserved MVP in the history of the award, by a distance. Every other MVP I think can be reasonably justified at least by impact and/or seeding. I am no more impressed by his Finals run than I am by the Finals run one could perhaps attribute to Paul Westphal. Iverson follows in the lineage of Earl Monroe and World B Free, with his primary advantage being accolades and accomplishments I do not feel were earned in any historically meaningful sense — as if you gave those players the marketing of Pete Maravich.

To go back to those shooting guard matchups, in some sense it is kind-of unfair because Iverson really should have only ever been a 1, or at least a 2 next to some oversized 1. He would have been interesting next to Kidd. Grant Hill. Penny Hardaway (not exactly a stout defensive backcourt there but…). Perhaps Wade, Lebron, Jrue down the line… Eric Snow is a good defender for a point guard, but playing him with Iverson is a bit like playing Chris Paul at shooting guard. Nevertheless, that is ultimately a problem with Iverson. He was best used as a shooting guard on offence, but he had the height and length of a smaller point guard. He was a good passer, but not so good that you would typically want to build your offence around him as an on-ball decision-maker (or at least not if you had the option to more regularly leverage his cutting). And if that type of player creates so many inherent problems as a franchise building-block, then yeah, regardless of whether we think he is “better” at basketball than some tertiary piece like Dennis Rodman, we should be asking whether that is the type of player who can be reliably used as a top figure on a title team.

[Doctor MJ]

Hey guys, by my count in the next day runoff Howard and Pierce both got 2 more votes which means we're still tied. I'm going to let this thread continue a while longer while I take care of some other things, but so y'all know, if this ends in a tie, the next tiebreaker is for me to make a separate thread where the poll decides who wins - and thus anyone can vote.

[trex_8063]

Iverson is in my top 100, and I may consider nominating him around #75, but I am in agreement that I do not see any non-cultural case for him to go much higher than that. Glib response, but his only real playoff relevance was as part of a run where he was arguably outplayed by the opposing shooting guard every single round.

Let me also be clear to you [AEnigma] that I'm not saying you specifically are having a knee-jerk (I've not conversed on Iverson enough with you to know); this is more reference to sentiments I've read here for years, and just something I wanted to mention before replying to specific points in your post.

In response to your post.....
To be fair, the opposing shooting guards faced who arguably out-played him were:

Reggie Miller -- Granted he was 35 years old at the time, but this is the guy we voted in at #36 all-time, in no small part in respect to his ability as a playoff riser. And he had a bonkers series for his age in that match-up.

Vince Carter -- In his peak season, and yes, I think he arguably/probably peaked higher than Iverson, and is likely one of the several who were more deserving of the MVP in '01. I think he can be credibly argued above Iverson all-time, too.

Ray Allen -- In his peak season; and yes, I think he DEFINITELY peaked higher than Iverson, and was absolutely a more worthy MVP candidate that year (and DEFINITELY should be ranked higher, imo).

Kobe Bryant -- In a season that COULD be argued as the peak of the guy we voted in at #13 all-time.

My point being: there's no shame in being outplayed by that line-up of SG's. If you can even hang with them a little, you're likely a phenomenal player.

Fair enough, but remember the context of this is in response to someone pushing for Iverson as a serious top fifty option. Peaking lower than and having substantially worse longevity than two contemporaries who have not sniffed nomination yet (one of whom I suspect will not for another ten or so rounds) does seem like an immediate preclusion in that case.

That was my more specific point. Broader point, Paul Pierce outperforms him the next year.

I agree. From that context [of top 50], I can understand being critical.
I'm not considering Iverson at all for probably AT LEAST 10 more spots (so I don't want to dwell on him much here, thus expending my steam on the topic before he's even become relevant). Though I suspect I/we will be encountering some of the same criticisms as reason to exclude him when we're talking about, idk, #61 (or some other later spot where EVERYONE has significant career blemishes).

And I'd have Pierce at least 15-18 places ahead of him (I think we're overdue on a Pierce, actually).

[Doctor MJ]

Dwight Howard vs Paul Pierce Poll Tie-Breaker thread is live. The winner in that poll will decide spot #47 now.

All should vote regardless of whether they have previously specified a preference between Howard & Paul in this project.

[trex_8063]

I have him as the worst MVP in the history of the award, by a distance. Every other MVP I think can be reasonably justified at least by impact and/or seeding.

Meant to also comment on this....

I might agree, in that I think he was arguably the most number of places from #1 of any MVP in history (idk, I have to think about Unseld).

I tentatively have him 9th that year (could see going slightly higher with him, but that's where I've got him).

[trex_8063]

Hey guys, by my count in the next day runoff Howard and Pierce both got 2 more votes which means we're still tied. I'm going to let this thread continue a while longer while I take care of some other things, but so y'all know, if this ends in a tie, the next tiebreaker is for me to make a separate thread where the poll decides who wins - and thus anyone can vote.

I would assume this includes anyone/everyone who already voted for one of the two itt, yes?

I mean, can't really say they're not allowed (or at least the poll becomes on the honour system if we do).......because there's no way to see WHO voted in a poll thread, thus no way of knowing if a voter here isn't stacking the deck in that poll.

[Doctor MJ]

Hey guys, by my count in the next day runoff Howard and Pierce both got 2 more votes which means we're still tied. I'm going to let this thread continue a while longer while I take care of some other things, but so y'all know, if this ends in a tie, the next tiebreaker is for me to make a separate thread where the poll decides who wins - and thus anyone can vote.

I would assume this includes anyone/everyone who already voted for one of the two itt, yes?

I mean, can't really say they're not allowed (or at least the poll becomes on the honour system if we do).......because there's no way to see WHO voted in a poll thread, thus no way of knowing if a voter here isn't stacking the deck in that poll.

Yes, just trying to make clear to people that no one has "already voted". Go vote in the poll people!

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Dwight Howard vs Paul Pierce Poll Tie-Breaker thread is live. The winner in that poll will decide spot #47 now.

All should vote regardless of whether they have previously specified a preference between Howard & Paul in this project.

Just a suggestion - you may want to sticky that thread until tomorrow so that it doesn't get lost and remains easy to see for everyone.

[penbeast0]

I haven't voted because I think this thread is very close. Before the pace and space revolution, Howard was the more valuable player, but the change in the game hurt Howard more than most and his attitude toward his diminished value wasn't always good.

Pierce maintained his value for a lot longer than Howard, though Howard peaked higher. And he had to play with Antoine Walker so he gets a bit of a sympathy vote (kidding, for you Toine fans).

Vote: Paul Pierce

[Doctor MJ]

Results of the poll:

Pierce 27, Howard 22.

Paul Pierce is Inducted at #47.