RealGM

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Lebron James
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kobe Bryant
12. Kevin Garnett
13. Oscar Robertson
14. Karl Malone
15. Jerry West
16. Julius Erving
17. Dirk Nowitzki
18. David Robinson
19. Charles Barkley
20. Moses Malone
21. John Stockton
22. Dwyane Wade
23. Chris Paul
24. Bob Pettit
25. George Mikan
26. Steve Nash
27. Patrick Ewing
28. Kevin Durant
29. Stephen Curry
30. Scottie Pippen
31. ????

OK go. Based on the number of secondary votes, I suspect Havlicek may emerge as the clear front-runner here, but we'll see. I'd be perfectly happy with Kidd, Drexler, or Gilmore at this spot, too. Baylor and Payton are nice options as well, imo.

PG -- Frazier has always been my top choice among the remaining PGs. He's the guy I want shooting it, he ran an offense well known for doing all the right things ("It's Clyde's ball, he just lets us play with it," Willis Reed), he was great in the only two titles in Knicks history, and of course I grew up hating him. But, looking at the impact of Jason Kidd who consistently ran below average offenses until the very end of his career as a 3 and D player around Dirk Nowitzki, I was really surprised to see how much better the Payton led offenses in Seattle were than Frazier's in NY. Frazier's offenses were in the top half of the league, Payton's were consistently top 5 for a stretch with good shooting wings, Shawn Kemp (for better and for worse), and mediocre center play. Add to that Payton's defensive rep (though the Seattle teams weren't generally that good defensively despite both Payton and McMillan at PG), his longer prime (ignoring his last few bad ring chaser years as I try to do for MJ in DC), and Frazier's playing much of his career in the relatively weak era of the 70s and I think I have to switch to the Glove or be inconsistent in my analysis and criteria. Especially for PGs, team offense matters and the personnel isn't grossly in Payton's favor but the results are. I am leaning the Detroit pair of Thomas and Billups over Kidd too but haven't looked that closely at them yet.

SG -- Like the PGs, the guy with the best 5 year prime has a very short career (as short as Curry and unlike Curry, his knees left him a shadow of himself for his last few years). That would be Sidney Moncrief, the GOAT defensive 2 and a superefficient, 20ppg scorer on a spread the wealth offense (sensing a theme!). Longevity would favor Clyde Drexler though and they are probably close enough that Drexler should get the edge. Gervin's defense is a problem, Reggie Miller and Sam Jones are also worth considering, maybe Ray Allen too. Lots of scorers here.

SF -- Baylor and Havlicek were contemporaries for a large part of their careers and while Havlicek was considered a better defender, the strong consensus among those who watched them was in favor of Baylor.
The argument against Baylor is his rather mediocre efficiency for a volume scorer, but Havlicek's is worse against contemporary defenses. So, to pick Hondo, you have to feel that his 70s play (which was his best) is sufficiently strong to overshadow both their contemporaneous run and Baylor's early run of ridiculously good box score numbers. Barry's crappy attitude is a problem, his defense is Gervinesque, however his 1975 run is legendary so he does get some consideration here.

PF -- What to do with Hayes, McHale, Webber, Amare, and Dennis Rodman. I think some of these guys compare to Artis Gilmore or Scottie Pippen, particularly McHale. No sure I'd have him higher but I think it's a comparison worth looking into.

C -- The next C that I have is Artis Gilmore, outstanding defensive peaks though Gilmore's was in the ABA (not nearly as impressed by his post merger defense), superefficient but not aggressive scorer, mediocre passer. Similar to a significantly taller but shy Dwight Howard. Gilmore's 75 run would have been at least as legendary as Barry's, especially since it was arguably the worst year of Dan Issel's long career, but the big name writers generally didn't watch the outlaw league. I don't have Mel Daniels, Willis Reed, or Dave Cowens quite as high.


PICK: Payton, Baylor, or Gilmore. Going with THE GLOVE

Alternate: The A-Train mainly for his ABA years.

Here's the next thread (#31), FYI.

eminence wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

Colbinii wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dr Spaceman wrote:.

fpliii wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

pandrade83 wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

SactoKingsFan wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

JordansBulls wrote:.

RSCS3_ wrote:.

BasketballFan7 wrote:.

micahclay wrote:.

ardee wrote:.

RCM88x wrote:.

Tesla wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:.

kayess wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

MisterHibachi wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

mischievous wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Bad Gatorade wrote:.

andrewww wrote:.

colts18 wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Cyrusman122000 wrote:.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:.

Narigo wrote:.

wojoaderge wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.

Outside wrote:.

scabbarista wrote:.

janmagn wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:.

Arman_tanzarian wrote:.

oldschooled wrote:.

Pablo Novi wrote:.

john248 wrote:.

mdonnelly1989 wrote:.

Senior wrote:.

twolves97 wrote:.

CodeBreaker wrote:.

JoeMalburg wrote:.

dhsilv2 wrote:.

Vote 1 - Walt “Clyde” Frazier

Vote 2 - Clyde Drexler

[Heh, look at that — 2 Clydes]

Frazier in the Finals

70 (7 games): ~17.6 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 10 APG, 54% FG, 76% FT, 5.9 FTAs per game

(yes, i'm aware of the potentially faulty assist count in game 7…)

72 (5 games): ~23 PPG, 8 RPG, 8 APG, 59% FG, 70% FT, 5.4 FTAs per game

73 (5 games): ~16.6 PPG, 7 RPG, 5 APG, 48% FG, 65% FT, 4 FTAs per game

While the knicks would lose in 5 games to the lakers in 72, this was without reed, so they didn't have much of a chance. That said, Clyde stepped up in his absence as evidenced by his impressive all around play. Overall, he was a great performer in the finals. He really had a solid case for finals MVP in 73, but the "big bias" of the time essentially put reed over the top. In addition, his historic game 7 in the 70 finals put the knicks over the top, some of which can be watched here:



It's also worth noting the knicks nearly went to 4 finals in a row if not for a 2 pt game 7 loss to the bullets in the 71 ECF. Frazier led some truly great teams during that stretch.

Frazier embodied just about all you could ask from a star player. He was a versatile playmaker with great decision making, rarely deterred by defensive pressure. On the other side of the ball, he's widely considered one of the best defensive guards of all time. He had the unique ability to lull a player into an "easy" drive to the basket, and then tapping the ball from behind for a steal and fast break bucket. He was also great in passing lanes, and had the size and speed to guard both the 1 and 2.

From a more intangible standpoint, clyde fit in seamlessly with one of the most balanced scoring teams in NBA history. Team chemistry was huge, and he valued the importance of his teammates highly. Per Page 2 interview via ESPN:

The story of that night is that Reed's presence really inspired your team and really rattled the Lakers …

Frazier: Oh, unequivocally. If Willis didn't come out, I would not have had that game.

Is that right?

Frazier: Absolutely. He gave us the confidence we needed. The crowd ... the crowd propelled us to that win, man. They never shut up. They had us doing things we never thought we could do.

The knicks routinely ran an "option-less" offense, where "hit the open man" was the basic game plan. Clyde would further his ability to adapt to playing with other star players when his conference rival Earl Monroe was traded to NY. 2 of the best guards in the game with only 1 ball to go around were expected to clash, but instead their styles of play complemented each other quite well.

Albert pointed out that Frazier, too, had to make accommodations. ''They both subjugated their game,'' he said. But, after playing so intensely against one another, Albert said: ''They both were so in tune with one another and what needed to be done. So it worked.''

- - - - -

But for basketball fans, Monroe's career was a tutorial in winning. ''By enthusiastically adopting the Knicks' philosophy,'' Bradley said, ''Earl helped to show that no one can accomplish alone as much as all of us can accomplish together.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/sports/backtalk-when-stars-collide-in-new-york.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A9%22%7D

Vote: Rick Barry
Alt: John Havlicek

I didn't actually mean to abstain from voting in the last round, so I'll post right at the start of this one. I don't feel that strongly about these picks. I see a long of guys out there with great cases.

I think though that people don't seem to be seeing Barry as I see him, and while that might just mean I'm wrong, I owe it to the basketball gods to speak a bit more on him.

It's been brought up that Barry has a nasty personality, and I've only defended it, I haven't championed it. I did that because I don't like seeming to pretend that I don't think there was a problem there. One of my big pet peeves is when people lionize the faults of great men as if they were a necessary attribute to be revered. Screw that. Jordan could have been a much better leader. Kobe could have been a much better leader.

And Rick Barry could have been a much better leader for the same reason, because he was a similar type of guy, but from an earlier era.

And Rick Barry was vicious, top to bottom. We're not talking about a guy who sometimes exploded at people when he lost his temper, so much as we're talking about a guy who constantly was telling people what they should be doing with impatience. And we're talking about a guy who would throw a supersonic elbow without much hesitation. And we're also talking about a guy with the actual balls to do the granny-style free throw - something way, way more players should be doing, but they care about how they look too much to do it.

So imagine this guy in his 70s Warriors years as someone playing a Chris Paul-like role but with more aggressive manner. I'm not saying he was as good as Paul, or that in sum he was all that similar of a player since he was a shoot-first guy by instinct and had to learn balance back toward passing, but that's how he dominated his team locker room, and the team was remarkably successful like this.

I find it very impressive. Not so impressive that I think him at the 30, ahem, 31 spot is an insult to him, in part because I have issues with his game, but not someone to be brushed aside lightly by any means.

31) Baylor
32) Barry

Once again voting for Artis Gilmore....


Vote: Artis Gilmore
Second Vote: Jason Kidd

Gilmore peaked just as high as Ewing imo and much better longevity. Arguably the best 83 Spurs that took the Lakers to six games in the playoffs. Led the Colnels into a ABA championship in 1975 where the ABA was almost as strong as the NBA. I also think he was top 5 player in NBA post merger in the 70s.

Vote: Clyde Drexler (led team to the finals twice as the man, was the leader of win shares on a team that won the title in 1995). Was on the Original Dream Team, 10x allstar

2nd Vote: John Havlicek

A very long post - guys are bunched together tightly at this point and I think stronger defenses will be required. This list of guys I have listed will carry me through #39 at minimum - potentially into the 40's depending on how things go or don't go.


My Top Point Guards left (in order): Payton/Kidd/Frazier
My Top Wings left (in order): Drexler/Barry/Gervin/Hondo/Baylor
My Top Center left: Artis


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

Wings/Forwards:

10 year prime RS
Drexler ('86-'95): 23-7-6/2 stl/1 block/55% TS
Gervin ('75-'84): 27-6-3/1 stl/1 block/57% TS
Hondo ('67-'76): 23-7-6/partial steal data hovering around 1.5 on the back half of prime, not much blocks/50% TS
Barry ('66-'76): 28-8-5/partial steal data - led league in '75, not blocking much/53% TS - some of those years were years where the ABA wasn't good

10 year prime Playoffs
Drexler: 22-7-7/2 stl/1 block/54% TS
Gervin: 29/7/3/1 stl/1 block/56% TS
Hondo: 24/7/5/steals in 1.5 range on back half of prime, not much blocks/52% TS
Barry: 29/7/4/led '75 playoffs in steals, not blocking much/52% TS

Accolades:
Drexler: 10 All-Star, 5 All NBA, 2nd best player on 1 Title Team, best player on 2 Finals Teams
Gervin: 12 All-Star, 7 All NBA, 2 All ABA, 4 X Scoring Champ, teams never competed for titles
Hondo: 13 All-Star, 11 All NBA, 8 All D, best player on 1-3 title teams depending on interpretation, 2nd best player on several title teams, 3rd best player on 4 title teams.
Barry: 12 All-Star, 6 All NBA 4 ALL ABA, 1 X Scoring Champ, Finals MVP, carried a team that probably had no business winning a title to a title.

Adv. Metrics - take a lot of this with a healthy dose of salt for some of the guys.
Drexler: 7 years @ 10+ WS, peaking out @ 13.2, 3 years @ VORP +7, healthy box score metrics on both sides with prime BPM average of 6.6, RAPM indicates a productive post prime; hard to read too much into data in regards to his prime/peak impact.
Pippen: 6 years @ 10 + WS, peaking out @ 13.1, 2 years @ VORP +7, prime BPM average of 5.9, RAPM indicates he's still elite in '97, suspect impact in Portland years, but still very effective in '98 when he played.
Gervin: 7 years @ 10+ WS, peaking out @ 12, much lower VORP than the other 2 - never above 5 and peaking out @ 4.4, DBPM scores are pretty rough dragging his BPM data to +2.2
Hondo: 4 years @ 10+WS, peaking out @ 12.5, only 2 years of VORP Data in last 2 years of prime @ 3.7 & 3.6. BPM Data ranging from 1.3 to 2.6 - again, just 3 years of data.
Barry: 6 years @ 10 + WS, peaking out @ 14.0, VORP data not available all years but hit 5.7 & 6.0 in '75 & '76, BPM data indicates average impact on defense.

I'm going with Drexler. He's the most capable of carrying a team and his playoff #'s are materially better than Pip's - enough to sway me. Additionally, all signs point to him being a very strong defender - he doesn't have the accolades but he's pretty strong on that end.

Barry goes next - spent too much time in a weak ABA and I don't know what kind of stock to put in those monster #'s - the big thing keeping him in this for me is the carry job on the '75 W's - even though the NBA at that time is much weaker than anything Drexler had to compete with, it's a hell of a carry job, even though he only won the title because the NBA/ABA weren't merged (Kentucky was probably better) and Kareem broke his hand punching a basket and his dumpster fire of a team went 3-14 without him. So, there's kind of an asterisk with that title but it still happened.

Gervin will go afterwards; he's clearly the best offensive wing/forward left and I don't feel it's that close. But his defense really holds him back and he's pretty clearly the worst defensive player in this pack.

After the last thread, I need to speak to Elgin more - he was probably the most discussed player, so if I'm going to rate him lowly, I need more of an explanation. I've spoke to his TS% and the fact that I think it's hard to build around him, etc.

Let's go deeper.

1) Stockton & Malone vs. West & Baylor.

This group ranked Malone 14th, Stockton 21st & West 15th. For Baylor to be ranked pretty highly, I need him to contribute to winning at the same rate. From '62-'68 LA won 58.8% of their regular season games. That's a 48 win season. Stockton & Malone won 67% of their games from '88-'01 - that's a 55 win season. Unless you assume that the 60's was a lot harder, or that Stockton & Malone had appreciably better supporting casts, that says that the gap of Baylor to Stockton is about 7 wins per year. If we look at some of Stockton's contemporaries who just got in or are being discussed now (Drexler, Ewing, Pippen, Glove, Kidd), I don't see those guys as with 7 less wins per season.

Is it possible we have West ranked too highly and/or Stockton/Malone ranked too lowly? Maybe. But the gap is tough to reconcile for me at least.

2) What happens when Elgin is my best player?

We actually have a decent sample size of what happens when Elgin has to be "the man" due to his 1st two years not having West around and then various injuries at other times.

'59 - Baylor comes into a still very segregated league - there will be 5 African American players getting 25 + MPG. The Lakers were a mess the prior year at 19-53. The Lakers make a big improvement to 33-39 and finish 6th in SRS at -1.42 - a big improvement over last year. Baylor leads team in points, rebounds, assists, & TS%.

'60 - The Lakers dip down to 25-50. In combination of the two years, Baylor wins just 39% of his games.

However, there's other times where West missed time - let's see how the Lakers held up.

'68 - the Lakers go 19-12 without West - very nice carry job by Baylor here.
'63 - the Lakers go just 11-14 without West - this is mentioned as one of Baylor's peak years so to see the Lakers lose over 1/2 their games without West is a little disappointing to me.
'69 - the Lakers go 12-9 without West - that looks pretty good until you realize that the Lakers had Wilt at the time, who was decisively more valuable than Elgin.

On the flip-side, in '62, the Lakers go 17-15 without Baylor, .500 without him in '66, and 17-11 without him in '70 - we all know what happened in '71-'73.

Ultimately, if Baylor's my best player, I just don't know where I'm going. It's unfortunate that we didn't get to see Baylor in situations where he was the best player over a multi-year run with strong supporting casts unlike Hondo, Drexler, Payton & Frazier. Maybe good things would've happened - but we just don't know; '63 is really all we have to go on.
Given that Baylor starts to slow down shortly thereafter, that suggests a pretty short run and other guys getting support have a bit longer of runs. We do know that with him as the 2nd best player the Lakers had a TON of near misses at the title but maybe they shouldn't have . . .

3) The Lakers might have been romanticized in terms of their "near misses" at titles.

For argument's sake, let's say that Hondo & Frazier are each getting in the Top 35 and no other players form the 60's are.

'61 - Russell & Wilt both in the East, Robertson & Pettit in the West. Lakers lose to St Louis
'62 - Russell & Wilt in the East, Robertson & Pettit in the West. Lakers make finals.
'63 - Russell, Hondo (rookie year), Robertson in the East. Wilt, Pettit in the West. Lakers make finals.
'64 - Russell, Hondo, Robertson in the East. Wilt, Pettit (final year). Lakers lose to St. Louis in 1st round.
'65 - Russell, Hondo & Wilt are all in the East. Lakers make Finals.
'66 - Russell, Hondo & Wilt all in the East. Lakers make Finals.
'67 - Russell, Hondo & Wilt all in the East. Lakers go 36-45?! and are swept in 1st round.
'68 - Again - Russell, Hondo & Wilt all in the East. Lakers make Finals.

My point is that the Lakers didn't have a whole lot of elite top tier competition to go through in route to those Finals from '65-68. If the distribution of talent in those years was a little bit more even, are the Lakers stuck with two Finals appearances with just those guys? I don't know - but it's a little bit like Lebron's run of Finals appearances.

It's possible I'm being too harsh on Baylor. He'll get in without my support fairly soon I think anyway - so it probably doesn't matter - but I did feel I needed to explain it.

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

GP (I'll be voting for him before Pippen & the A-Train): Very underrated, imo. I'll lead off with an outstanding elimination/closeout track record (which is far superior to Nash's).
22.8 PPG, 5.8 reb, 8.0 ast, 1.8 stl, 0.2 blk, 2.7 TO, 55.3% TS - all stats from '94-'03.
Had a knack for outplaying other strong point guards when it mattered because of his outstanding defensive presence and is one of very few point guards whose defensive impact is highlighted that he's the only one to win DPOY. A true all around player who averaged 21-8-5 during his prime while bringing elite defense and averaged 24-8-5 during the playoffs and had a tendency of showing up when it mattered. Has more Win Shares & VORP (the latter by a lot) vs. Nash (for example) even though one of Payton's best seasons ('99) was a lockout shortened one. His playoff prime #'s are actually understated because he didn't get to play as many games at his peak due to playing on some garbage teams.

GP isn't getting any other sort of traction, so I should probably address the two issues likely to crop up:

1) The Denver series. There's no justification for it. It really is indefensible. 3 of those games are in my elimination/closeout records and his 2 worst performances in those types of games were in the Denver series (Games 3 & 5).
1A) The '95 LA Series. Van Exel out played him. Between '94 & '95 these were two years where a Title was in play for Seattle and they didn't just take a dump on the bed, they got up and smeared it on the wall as well

That said - those series did factor into the overall playoff and elimination record I showed above - and the overall track record is strong. It's unfortunate that he peaked later than a lot of other point guards did - and by the time he peaked the talent on him was not championship caliber to say the least; if you consider '99 or 2000 his peak, it was an outright dumpster fire situation.

2) His RPAM numbers are not as good as they could be. I'm not a huge fan of +/- stats but I can't ignore them either.

'97 & '98 are very strong - '99 for some reason isn't great - but I suspect team context (middling overall record, was out there for virtually all meaningful minutes - 2,010 minutes in a 50 game season is a ton) - even though 2000 bounces back. '01-'03 are basically flat even though WIn Shares & VORP remain at very high levels in '01 & '02 in particular. I don't think his '03 season has tremendous impact - and I think his defense was starting to slip in '01 & '02. It was probably still good - but not necessarily warranting the All D honors he received either.

I'm OK with this wart because I don't think RPAM stats do a great job of explaining elite players' impact who play huge minutes on basically .500 teams - it feels like a "blind spot" for the model - moreso in the years I'm referencing than some of the later years. The inconsistency from '99 to '00 in the metric is odd even though his other performance indicators are fairly comparable and I've read some of the multi-year work in this area - which makes me trust the '99 number less. I'm definitely aware of the flaws in the '97-'00 data vs. other years, but I do think it's important to at least speak to the wart.

I take Payton over Kidd (by a nose) due to a stronger peak & stronger playoff performances - particularly in closeout/elimination settings. I take both over Frazier because Frazier has a material amount of fewer strong years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point, Artis is the best center left and it's not really close. No one else left matches his combination of peak + longevity.

I've watched some game tapes of him and it's not the most exciting thing to watch. You're just watching a big guy play who (in some years) moves with less agility than my 61 year old Dad and you can't help thinking "why didn't he do more" "why didn't he win more titles"? He was a turnover machine to boot and after '77 his defensive impact gets questionable. I get it. Set that aside for a second.

10 year prime: 21-15-3 blocks/60% TS. Is it troubling that his team lost 50 + 3 straight years in what should have been his prime? Of course. Is it troubling that Chicago finished in the bottom third of the league 3 straight times in defensive efficiency with someone who's calling card is defensive impact? Absolutely - although to be fair, those teams were a mess.

But he still has a robust post prime where he played a key role on some strong Spurs teams and that post prime includes 3 all-star squads. There's a few guys I need to see in before he will get some serious traction from me but we're in range where I don't think you're crazy if you're giving him support.

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

Pick: Clyde Drexler
Alternate: Gary Payton

Vote: Baylor
Alternate: Havlicek

Same votes that I've had for a while now. I hope it's finally time for one of them to get in. Good discussion about Baylor in the last thread.

About Baylor:

RS career averages of 27.4 points (3rd all time), 13.5 rebounds (10th), 4.3 assists
PS career averages of 27.0 points (7th), 12.9 rebounds (13th), 4.0 assists
RS career totals of 23,149 points (34th), 11,463 rebounds (27th, 1st among SFs), 3650 assists in 846 games
Had two postseasons when he averaged over 38 PPG (4th and 5th)
Holds the finals records for points in a game -- 61
10th all time in career finals PPG -- 26.4
17 50-point RS games (4th)
Played in 44 finals games (11th)
Averaged 19.8 rebounds in 1960-61 -- only five players have done better (Wilt, Russell, Thurmond, Pettit, Lucas)

There isn't anyone left who can match Baylor's combination of peak, impact, all-around game, career production, longevity, and PS resume. Some beat him in a particular category but come up short in multiple others. Barry is the guy who I think comes closest in terms of peak and impact, and he does have that 1975 title run, but closer examination of his career shows multiple seasons of significantly reduced production.

Recommended viewing:



Now that Pippen's in, we can hopefully dispense with the Havlicek-Pippen conversation. One of Baylor's strengths is his versatility, but Havlicek is even better, being the perfect plug-and-play guy for any position. Was the best player on multiple finals teams and the second best player on many championship teams. The ultimate character guy.

I really hope Hondo doesn't slip out and lose all his alternate votes in round 1. Seems like Baylor is making a push here too.

Second Outside in the discussions about Baylor in the last thread. Seems like Baylor is hugely underrated, really a toss-up between him and Hondo for me. I prefer Hondo only because of his defensive prowess and his team-first mentality. He did a lot of hustle work without any drama even as a star, and led a good locker room in the post-russell era.

I like Rick Barry a lot, and normally have him higher than this, but can't have him before Cousy/Hondo/Baylor. If this were a "best player" thread, I'd drop Cousy out of this... but for "greatest of all time" Cousy needs to be included ASAP. A legend in the 50s, who overshadowed Mikan with ease. Really getting overlooked.

Vote: Cousy
Alt: Hondo
HM: Baylor

I am going to flip my secondary vote to Havlicek. I think my argument for Barry works better as a "well if we just took that other guy how can we ignore this one?" sort of thing.

euroleague wrote: ... but for "greatest of all time" Cousy needs to be included ASAP. A legend in the 50s, who overshadowed Mikan with ease. Really getting overlooked.

Vote: Cousy
Alt: Hondo
HM: Baylor

Mikan was named the greatest player in the history of the game . . . in a poll done after 1965. (Memory, couldn't find the link). Cousy was a popular player and a genuine star in the 50s. He never "overshadowed Mikan with ease."

...
stop quoting me in this kobe project

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:
stop quoting me in this kobe project

Apologies [I guess???] for keeping you notified wrt the project (not a Kobe project) you specifically requested to be a part of. I'll remove you from the list.

euroleague wrote:I really hope Hondo doesn't slip out and lose all his alternate votes in round 1. Seems like Baylor is making a push here too.

Second Outside in the discussions about Baylor in the last thread. Seems like Baylor is hugely underrated, really a toss-up between him and Hondo for me. I prefer Hondo only because of his defensive prowess and his team-first mentality. He did a lot of hustle work without any drama even as a star, and led a good locker room in the post-russell era.

I like Rick Barry a lot, and normally have him higher than this, but can't have him before Cousy/Hondo/Baylor. If this were a "best player" thread, I'd drop Cousy out of this... but for "greatest of all time" Cousy needs to be included ASAP. A legend in the 50s, who overshadowed Mikan with ease. Really getting overlooked.

Vote: Cousy
Alt: Hondo
HM: Baylor

Here's the gist of why I'm not on the Cousy train:

Let's look at his first 6 years before Russell - when the league was for all intents & purposes, still segregated.

If you "modernize" that league - you have a 16 team league made up of white American born players. There's a little over 40 such guys in the modern NBA. You don't even have enough guys currently in the league to fill out the starting lineups. Now you have guys like Louisville star Luke Hancock who sits on our local ESPN Channel playing in this league. Gordon Hayward & Kevin Love are the best players in this league for sure.

That's a simplified way of describing environment Cousy started in - with nutritional benefits. So why didn't he dominate? Why were the Celtics on the treadmill of mediocrity? Why couldn't they even make a Finals?

Dolph Schayes won a ring and made it to the Finals multiple times in this scenario. For that hypothetical league I described, Cousy is basically JJ or Korver. I'm going to vote for Cousy to be in the Top 100 - but it's for pioneer purposes; he's the first point guard to be one of the best players in the league.

Schayes & Arizin will be the next 50's players to get my vote. I can see a more clear impact on winning from what they did and if I'm building a team in the 50's, I'd rather build around those guys than Cousy. Each of them truly led a squad to a chip in the 50's - something Cousy didn't do. The metrics we do have are scarce but don't tell me Cousy had a bigger impact than those two.

penbeast0 wrote:

euroleague wrote: ... but for "greatest of all time" Cousy needs to be included ASAP. A legend in the 50s, who overshadowed Mikan with ease. Really getting overlooked.

Vote: Cousy
Alt: Hondo
HM: Baylor

Mikan was named the greatest player in the history of the game . . . in a poll done after 1965. (Memory, couldn't find the link). Cousy was a popular player and a genuine star in the 50s. He never "overshadowed Mikan with ease."

In 1965 Wilt (or at least Russell) should've won it. Mikan called Russell the GOAT while russell was still in college.

However, in the 80s/90s nobody was showing videos of Mikan. Cousy is the face of the 50s and the pre Wilt NBA, and only by researching could you learn about Mikan.

pandrade83 wrote:

euroleague wrote:I really hope Hondo doesn't slip out and lose all his alternate votes in round 1. Seems like Baylor is making a push here too.

Second Outside in the discussions about Baylor in the last thread. Seems like Baylor is hugely underrated, really a toss-up between him and Hondo for me. I prefer Hondo only because of his defensive prowess and his team-first mentality. He did a lot of hustle work without any drama even as a star, and led a good locker room in the post-russell era.

I like Rick Barry a lot, and normally have him higher than this, but can't have him before Cousy/Hondo/Baylor. If this were a "best player" thread, I'd drop Cousy out of this... but for "greatest of all time" Cousy needs to be included ASAP. A legend in the 50s, who overshadowed Mikan with ease. Really getting overlooked.

Vote: Cousy
Alt: Hondo
HM: Baylor

Here's the gist of why I'm not on the Cousy train:

Let's look at his first 6 years before Russell - when the league was for all intents & purposes, still segregated.

If you "modernize" that league - you have a 16 team league made up of white American born players. There's a little over 40 such guys in the modern NBA. You don't even have enough guys currently in the league to fill out the starting lineups. Now you have guys like Louisville star Luke Hancock who sits on our local ESPN Channel playing in this league. Gordon Hayward & Kevin Love are the best players in this league for sure.

That's a simplified way of describing environment Cousy started in - with nutritional benefits. So why didn't he dominate? Why were the Celtics on the treadmill of mediocrity? Why couldn't they even make a Finals?

Dolph Schayes won a ring and made it to the Finals multiple times in this scenario. For that hypothetical league I described, Cousy is basically JJ or Korver. I'm going to vote for Cousy to be in the Top 100 - but it's for pioneer purposes; he's the first point guard to be one of the best players in the league.

Schayes & Arizin will be the next 50's players to get my vote. I can see a more clear impact on winning from what they did and if I'm building a team in the 50's, I'd rather build around those guys than Cousy. Each of them truly led a squad to a chip in the 50's - something Cousy didn't do. The metrics we do have are scarce but don't tell me Cousy had a bigger impact than those two.

Cousy isn't a vote for "best player of the 50s". Greatest and best are not synonymous. Jessie Owens isn't the best athlete to have competed in USA track and field by any means, but he sure has a strong argument for the greatest. Cousy did things for the league and the NBA that impacted the whole league and the game of competitive basketball.

I'll try to post longer later today, but by position those I'm considering -

PG - Frazier/Kidd/Payton/IT
SG - Reggie/Clyde/Gervin
SF - Baylor/Barry/Hondo
PF - McHale (and I am willing to bet I'll be the first to nominate Rodman in this project)
C - Gilmore/Thurmond/Dikembe

And then by era, the next few that will come up:

50's - Dolph/Arizin
60's - Thurmond/Hondo/Baylor
70's - Barry/Gervin/Gilmore/Frazier/Reed
80's - Drexler/McHale/IT
90's - Payton/Reggie/Dikembe/Rodman
00's - Kidd/Westbrook/Ginobili/Howard/Pierce
Missing anyone?

For Cousy supporters (or anyone really): what kind of separation do you see between him and Davies?

pandrade83 wrote:

euroleague wrote:I really hope Hondo doesn't slip out and lose all his alternate votes in round 1. Seems like Baylor is making a push here too.

Second Outside in the discussions about Baylor in the last thread. Seems like Baylor is hugely underrated, really a toss-up between him and Hondo for me. I prefer Hondo only because of his defensive prowess and his team-first mentality. He did a lot of hustle work without any drama even as a star, and led a good locker room in the post-russell era.

I like Rick Barry a lot, and normally have him higher than this, but can't have him before Cousy/Hondo/Baylor. If this were a "best player" thread, I'd drop Cousy out of this... but for "greatest of all time" Cousy needs to be included ASAP. A legend in the 50s, who overshadowed Mikan with ease. Really getting overlooked.

Vote: Cousy
Alt: Hondo
HM: Baylor

Here's the gist of why I'm not on the Cousy train:

Let's look at his first 6 years before Russell - when the league was for all intents & purposes, still segregated.

If you "modernize" that league - you have a 16 team league made up of white American born players. There's a little over 40 such guys in the modern NBA. You don't even have enough guys currently in the league to fill out the starting lineups. Now you have guys like Louisville star Luke Hancock who sits on our local ESPN Channel playing in this league. Gordon Hayward & Kevin Love are the best players in this league for sure.

That's a simplified way of describing environment Cousy started in - with nutritional benefits. So why didn't he dominate? Why were the Celtics on the treadmill of mediocrity? Why couldn't they even make a Finals?

I more or less accept your criticism wrt the league strength in the analogy you've provided. But "on the treadmill of mediocrity"? That seems a bit of a skewed narrative.


Definition of "mediocre": of moderate or low quality, value, ability.
The Celtics from '51-'56 were a combined 241-181 (.571--->that's about 47 wins in an 82-game season), never had a losing record (one year at .500 was the worst), were in the division finals three years, and [more specifically where Cousy's contributions are concerned] were the #1 offense in the league three times (2nd another year).

To me, the above does not fit the definition of mediocre.

And certainly not making the finals does not qualify "mediocrity". Could this be used to question whether Cousy was a transcendent or super-dominant player in his own time, sure I suppose. I wouldn't try to argue that Cousy ever was that level of player. But let's find the accurate middle-ground.