Redoing the NBA Hall of Fame (1960 or earlier players)

[penbeast0]

NBA playing careers only; we are not including college, Olympic, foreign, etc. You can select up to 10 players (you do not HAVE to fill out your list). They do not have to be in order. The 10 players with the most votes make the HOF. For the first year of the HOF, a player could not have played after the 1959-60 season. Voting will stay open as long as there is active interest. If the thread drops off page 1, I will either bump it or call the vote. We take the top 10 votegetters, in case of a tie, I will go back and ask everyone to vote on just the tied players, ranking them in order with just 1st place votes counting, then 2nd if 1st ties again, etc.

We will start with the BAA back to the '46-'47 season as the official NBA pre-cursor, NBL merged with them in '49 but was the superior league (level of play) in the seasons prior. So also using the NBL from the same season. Very basic NBL stats can be found here: https://www.basketball-reference.com/nbl/seasons/.

Voters: penbeast0, kipper34, Dr Positivity, Doctor MJ, eminence, trex_8063, Dutchball97, worldjbfree

INDUCTEES:
Mikan 8
Johnston 8
Macauley 8
Martin 8
Yardley 8
Davies 7
Wanzer 7
Mikkelsen 6
Gallatin 4
Pollard 3

[penbeast0]

George Mikan, Neil Johnston, Ed Macauley, Vern Mikkelsen, Slater Martin, . . . Bob Davies, Dick McGuire, George Yardley, Joe Fulks
I only have 9 that come to mind. Open to suggestions (or to getting some shot down). Adding Maurice Stokes to make 10.

Guys like Cousy, Sharman, Arizin, Pettit, and Schayes played into the 60s.

[eminence]

Firstly a trio I think absolutely deserve HMs, if not votes.

Maurice Stokes: If it weren't for the tragic injury he and Oscar could've re-wrote the early 60's, an early small-ball big. Half of the teammate of the year award.

Marques Haynes: Wilt's pick for the best Globetrotter ever, absolute wizard with the ball, would be a world-class ballhandler even today. One of the very few players to ever outplay Mikan head to head.

Goose Tatum: The Crown Prince, what's more to be said. Not sure if he was quite the talent Haynes was, but he certainly would've been a strong NBA player.

A link to box-scores for those famous Trotters v Lakers games from the late 40's/early 50's.

http://www.apbr.org/trotters-lakers.html

[trex_8063]

My tentative picks would be (EDIT: I'll make an "official" vote post later, pen):
George Mikan
Neil Johnston
Vern Mikkelsen
Ed Macauley
^^^^Those are the easier picks [first three quite easy]. Starts getting a little harder shortly thereafter....
Harry Gallatin
George Yardley
Bob Davies
Bobby Wanzer
Arnie Risen
Joe Fulks


I'll tentatively go with those picks, though I could be swayed on some toward the bottom.
Joe Fulks I think gets historically overrated for being the big scorer on the very first BAA champion; and I could be easily convinced I'm overrating him here as a result (though that circumstance does carry some historic weight, so idk). Arnie Risen is the other guy who doesn't feel solid in the 10 players above.
The "honorable mentions" I could consider replacing one of them with are:

Max Zaslofsky
Slater Martin
Dick McGuire
Maurice Stokes
Jim Pollard
Andy Phillip

I don't think there's anyone else terribly relevant who I'm forgetting for this stage. Thoughts? Does Joe Fulks truly have the career to warrant his inclusion? He's definitely the one I feel the most shaky about.

[penbeast0]

Firstly a trio I think absolutely deserve HMs, if not votes.

Maurice Stokes: If it weren't for the tragic injury he and Oscar could've re-wrote the early 60's, an early small-ball big. Half of the teammate of the year award.

Marques Haynes: Wilt's pick for the best Globetrotter ever, absolute wizard with the ball, would be a world-class ballhandler even today. One of the very few players to ever outplay Mikan head to head.

Goose Tatum: The Crown Prince, what's more to be said. Not sure if he was quite the talent Haynes was, but he certainly would've been a strong NBA player.

A link to box-scores for those famous Trotters v Lakers games from the late 40's/early 50's.

http://www.apbr.org/trotters-lakers.html

NBA (BAA/NBL/ABA) only, Globetrotters, playground legends, Bob Kurland types not eligible except for their NBA careers.

Stokes is an interesting case. If Walton types make it into the Hall, Stokes is that level compared to the other 50s guys. And, it's a great narrative.

[eminence]

Firstly a trio I think absolutely deserve HMs, if not votes.

Maurice Stokes: If it weren't for the tragic injury he and Oscar could've re-wrote the early 60's, an early small-ball big. Half of the teammate of the year award.

Marques Haynes: Wilt's pick for the best Globetrotter ever, absolute wizard with the ball, would be a world-class ballhandler even today. One of the very few players to ever outplay Mikan head to head.

Goose Tatum: The Crown Prince, what's more to be said. Not sure if he was quite the talent Haynes was, but he certainly would've been a strong NBA player.

A link to box-scores for those famous Trotters v Lakers games from the late 40's/early 50's.

http://www.apbr.org/trotters-lakers.html

NBA (BAA/NBL/ABA) only, Globetrotters, playground legends, Bob Kurland types not eligible except for their NBA careers.

Stokes is an interesting case. If Walton types make it into the Hall, Stokes is that level compared to the other 50s guys. And, it's a great narrative.

I phrased that weird, I won't be voting for any of the 3, but strongly wanted to at least give them a brief mention in this thread.

[penbeast0]

Martin and McGuire v. Wanzer for guards, care to make the case?

Risen and Gallatin v. Fulks?

And I'm throwing a vote for Stokes unless someone talks me out of it. In terms of peak impact, I have him right behind Mikan . . . rep of a great defender, great rebounder, supposedly excellent handles for a forward, his scoring efficiency sucks but so do many of his competitors (other than Johnston and Macauley and their teams didn't seem to miss them that much when they were gone). Only played 3 years but led the league in rebounding once despite not being a center, averaged about 5 assists from the PF slot, led league in defensive win shares two of those 3 years (yeah, I know, crappy stat but it's all we have since few of us were around to see him and there isn't much footage).

[kipper34]

George Mikan, Neil Johnston, Vern Mikkelson, George Yardley, Ed Macauley, Bob Davies, Harry Galatin, Bobby Wanzer, Maurice Stokes, Slater Martin

Andy Phillip, Arnie Risen and Joe Fulks just miss the cut

[Owly]

My votes:
George Mikan
Neil Johnston
Vern Mikkelsen
Ed Macauley
^^^^Those are the easier picks [first three quite easy]. Starts getting a little harder shortly thereafter....
Harry Gallatin
George Yardley
Bob Davies
Bobby Wanzer
Arnie Risen
Joe Fulks


I'll tentatively go with those picks, though I could be swayed on some toward the bottom.
Joe Fulks I think gets historically overrated for being the big scorer on the very first BAA champion; and I could be easily convinced I'm overrating him here as a result (though that circumstance does carry some historic weight, so idk). Arnie Risen is the other guy who doesn't feel solid in the 10 players above.
The "honorable mentions" I could consider replacing one of them with are:

Max Zaslofsky
Slater Martin
Dick McGuire
Maurice Stokes
Jim Pollard
Andy Phillip

I don't think there's anyone else terribly relevant who I'm forgetting for this stage. Thoughts? Does Joe Fulks truly have the career to warrant his inclusion? He's definitely the one I feel the most shaky about.

One guys missing ...
(per last attempt at this)

My guess, if I was really getting into this would be that I would be boosting for Bob Feerick as a 40s representative, probably above Fulks. I thought I remembered reading a weird novelty stat about him in a Martin Taragano book about him being (maybe with Hagan) the only person to be top 10 in the league in a year in so many - I think "all" - categories ... much easier in the smaller number of teams, less stats leagues) but that seems to be the memory playing tricks (it was just Hagan). Regardless, whilst he didn't have the crazy volume of Fulks he was an outlier efficiency scorer and probably the best player on a good early BAA team. He does have a longevity problem but then so does Fulks for longevity of goodness (and Fulks has some years so bad they may actually detract from him, depending on how one feels about that sort of thing).

I might also, without thinking out a full voting list, be a bit frosty on Macauley based on the number of 50s centers posting strong boxscore composites, and his lackluster defensive reputation and Boston's play at that end.

Spoiler:

looking at it. I think Reference has Feerick as top ten for ppg, apg, fg%, ft% which is basically the entire positive boxscore but the apg is due to rounding, go to 2dp or beyond and Feerick drops to 11th for assists

Extra tidbit on Feerick. His '47 campaign ranks 27th all time in total win shares for one season (obviously with an incomplete box-score for that era), with only Jabbar, Chamberlain, Mikan, Jordan, Robertson, James, David Robinson, ABA Gilmore, Durant and Shaq having seasons above him. His 18.59 Win Shares were accumulated over 55 games (of a 60 game team schedule). Obviously WS likes efficiency and he was super efficient for that early era. Anyhow if you want someone for that early BAA era, I back him.

He was on the NBA's silver anniversary team [edit: longlist of 25, not the 12 man team] (he was also on the voting panel, as was ex-coach Auerbach).

I don't think he's a lock, but I do think he's in the conversation, at least an HM and a better player than Fulks though less important narratively (Fulks scoring leader, best player on a champ, one of the jump shot pioneers), even if you don't hold Fulks's post-prime years against him as a negative.

other possibilities (mostly fringe/mention types):

Cervi might be worth discussion based mainly on NBL days, though hard to get a really accurate sense of who drove what goodness, how good individuals really were (like Arnie Johnson, but more so, has a very high foul draw and in Cervi's case crazy WS/48 in the limited sample [though Johnson's good for a non-"big"], wonder how much this is the foul rules playing hell with the numbers).

Don Otten gets a mention as an NBL MVP (though in the year after the best teams went to BAA) and solid numbers but centers for this era might not need any more representation.

Frankie Brian gets a mention with some accolades, likely best player on a dominant champ (in the weakest NBL year). Hard to tell if he was best player in playoffs with v. limited data but others overtook him in scoring.

For his numbers as a non-big Ernie Vandeweghe gets a mention. On the flipside Pollard has the accolades but not the numbers.


I'd also say I lean a little cynical on Macauley as a lock. Many centers putting up big numbers at the time (Neil Johnston,
Ed Macauley, Clyde Lovellette, Larry Foust, Charlie (Chuck) Share, Bob Houbregs plus Mikan) whilst I'd like to parse it out more closely, Boston was bad defensively Ed lacked strength and it seems like he might have been a real problem on that end.

[eminence]

I'd also be pretty hesitant to call Macauley a lock, I think his calling-card (scoring efficiency) was very dependent on Cousy.

[trex_8063]

I might also, without thinking out a full voting list, be a bit frosty on Macauley based on the number of 50s centers posting strong boxscore composites, and his lackluster defensive reputation and Boston's play at that end.

.......

I'd also say I lean a little cynical on Macauley as a lock. Many centers putting up big numbers at the time (Neil Johnston,
Ed Macauley, Clyde Lovellette, Larry Foust, Charlie (Chuck) Share, Bob Houbregs plus Mikan) whilst I'd like to parse it out more closely, Boston was bad defensively Ed lacked strength and it seems like he might have been a real problem on that end.

I'd also be pretty hesitant to call Macauley a lock, I think his calling-card (scoring efficiency) was very dependent on Cousy.

While I don't disagree wrt indicators pertaining to his defense----I sort of see him as the Amar'e Stoudemire of his era [though with better durability and passing]----I still feel he's pretty secure in my picks, so will provide the [positive] counterpoint....


I can't overly fault him that the Celtics got better after he left (I mean, they basically lost Macauley, but added rookies Bill Russell and Tom Heinsohn, as well as an aging Andy Phillip). St. Louis (after obtaining him) worsened defensively but made a somewhat dramatic improvement offensively (from -2.7 rORTG in '56 to +0.1 rORTG in '57). They improved overall (SRS +1.15 from '56), and went 7 games with the Celtics in '57 Finals. The other major roster change in St. Louis was swapping out PG Bob Harrison for Slater Martin. They also got rookie Cliff Hagan in '57, but unlike Russell and Heinsohn he wasn't instantly a major impact player.


Macauley's scoring efficiency for a few years there is noteworthy in an historic sense: from '51-'54 he was putting up TS% that would be respectable in the modern era, which was all but unheard of at that time. In that 4-year span, he AVERAGED +11.2% rTS (ranging from +9.81% to +12.36% each year). Since his name was mentioned, that exceeds even the shooting efficiency of Neil Johnston (Johnston PEAKED at +9.72% rTS), though Johnston scored higher volume.
Though at any rate he doesn't have to "beat out" Johnston to make the cut.....he just has to beat out guys like Fulks, McGuire, Stokes, etc.
Macauley did the above while being one of the primary scorers for multiple #1 offenses, too (led by him, Cousy, and Sharman). These things alone make him a pretty relevant figure historically, to me.

And I disagree that his efficiency was "very dependent" on Cousy. Did it help? I would imagine yes.
But his shooting efficiency [while still very very good] fell drastically with the advent of the shotclock, and fell a pinch further in '56 (indicating perhaps that, like Cousy, he was having difficulty keeping pace with a rapidly improving league). His rTS in '55 was +6.62, then +5.16% in '56 (his final season in Boston). His first year in STL it was +4.61%; his 2nd year there was +4.01%.
That drop-off from '56 to '57 is LESS than had occurred in each of the previous two seasons while still in Boston. To me, the small bit of trickle-down that occurred in '57 and '58 just seem like the continuation of a trend that had already started years before.

Other "legacy"/narrative factors, for whatever they're worth: 7-time NBA All-Star, 3x All-NBA 1st Team, 1x All-NBA 2nd Team, key role player on the '58 Champions.

[Dr Positivity]

I think leaving out Macauley would be overthinking it with 10 spots and 1960+ guys not being available. His stats are WAY better than some of the players who you'd have to displace for him. Only Mikan has more WS.

Same for Joe Fulks, are people doubting him cause of his efficiency? He was the star of the league and considered the best offensive player in the league in the late 40s, and you can't say it never led to success. In 47 he had the highest TS% on his team and 9th in the league, while leading the league in scoring, and his team won the title. Maybe after that his volume/inefficiency over does it (early 50s version original Thunder Melo???), but it still has a lot of value to be scoring that much in that era.

FTR here was the NBA's 25th anniversary team (retired players only):

F Bob Pettit
F Dolph Schayes
F Paul Arizin
F Joe Fulks
C Bill Russell
C George Mikan
G Bob Cousy
G Bill Sharman
G Bob Davies
G Sam Jones
Coach Red Auerbach

So some solid respect for Fulks and Davies there based in part of their success pre merger. I believe they were forced to pick 4 forwards, 2 C and 4 guards which would explain why a player like Johnston wasn't there.

My picks:

George Mikan - Duh
Neil Johnston - dominant peak statistically
Ed Macauley - strong productivity
Vern Mikkelson - star player on Lakers dynasty
Joe Fulk
Bob Davies

For last four spots

Jim Pollard - I have a hard time leaving off a player with 2x 1st team, 2x 2nd team resume that was a part of Lakers
Slater Martin - Lakers dynasty again and was one of the better guards.
Bobby Wazner - Solid stats (he has the most WS for guards eligible here) and played on champion
Max Zaslfosky - makes 4 early 1st teams, contributes to 3x Knicks finals

HM

Harry Gallatin - productive career with winning teams. I gave Zaslofsky the slight edge.
George Yardley - impressive scoring peak (28ppg), but seems a bit like a good stats bad team
Maurice Stokes - not quite enough longevity
Arnie Risen - too many good big men

[penbeast0]

BTW, possibly the second most talented NBA big man of the era won't even get considered since Alex Groza was banned for shaving points for gamblers at UK. I had serious questions about defensive value for both Macauley and Johnston but it's harder to judge defense. It may be that guys with less statistical value have more actual value, guys like Risen, Gallatin, etc. but without more evidence (eye test, contemporary observers talking about their defensive dominance, etc.) I have to give it to the clearly statistically superior pair.

Same goes for Yardley v. Pollard as well. Pollard made his name offensively and Yardley may be more "empty stats" but they are such superior stats that being the 3rd or 4th best Laker just doesn't seem as key, especially when you can see St. Louis improve when Slater Martin goes there (other reasons as well of course, but that's part of it and a part of it that contemporaries talked about even when Martin's stats were underwhelming). That's why I went with Martin, rather than Pollard as the 3rd Laker star for my picks.

[Owly]

I think leaving out Macauley would be overthinking it with 10 spots and 1960+ guys not being available. His stats are WAY better than some of the players who you'd have to displace for him. Only Mikan has more WS.

Same for Joe Fulks, are people doubting him cause of his efficiency? He was the star of the league and considered the best offensive player in the league in the late 40s, and you can't say it never led to success. In 47 he had the highest TS% on his team and 9th in the league, while leading the league in scoring, and his team won the title. Maybe after that his volume/inefficiency over does it (early 50s version original Thunder Melo???), but it still has a lot of value to be scoring that much in that era.

FTR here was the NBA's 25th anniversary team (retired players only):

F Bob Pettit
F Dolph Schayes
F Paul Arizin
F Joe Fulks
C Bill Russell
C George Mikan
G Bob Cousy
G Bill Sharman
G Bob Davies
G Sam Jones
Coach Red Auerbach

So some solid respect for Fulks and Davies there based in part of their success pre merger. I believe they were forced to pick 4 forwards, 2 C and 4 guards which would explain why a player like Johnston wasn't there.

My picks:

George Mikan - Duh
Neil Johnston - dominant peak statistically
Ed Macauley - strong productivity
Vern Mikkelsen - star player on Lakers dynasty
Joe Fulks
Bob Davies

For last four spots

Jim Pollard - I have a hard time leaving off a player with 2x 1st team, 2x 2nd team resume that was a part of Lakers
Slater Martin - Lakers dynasty again and was one of the better guards.
Bobby Wazner - Solid stats (he has the most WS for guards eligible here) and played on champion
Max Zaslfosky - makes 4 early 1st teams, contributes to 3x Knicks finals

HM

Harry Gallatin - productive career with winning teams. I gave Zaslofsky the slight edge.
George Yardley - impressive scoring peak (28ppg), but seems a bit like a good stats bad team
Maurice Stokes - not quite enough longevity
Arnie Risen - too many good big men

RE: Fulks can't really see the case for him over Feerick (besides non play based reasons, see above). Also 9th in TS% is an outlier for him even in his better years.
Re: Yardley "bad team" seems a bit strong for a two time finalist (even if that was easier then). Not my bag personally, but given the way many slant heavily towards playoffs Yardley consistently performed well there individually too, which should be a big plus for those who are so inclined (and is abetter selling point than ppg).

Internal reasoning doesn't seem clear here. e.g. Gallatin has "stats are WAY better than some of the players" included (and yes he's a big and the weaker numbers guys are smalls but ditto for Macauley). Not to say EM can't be in, just that some rationalizations run somewhat counter to others, making the process murky, though aggregating the different and limited information can of course be tricky to do systematically.

[Dr Positivity]

I'll change my pick to Zasflofsky to Yardley now that i look at it, I missed that Yardley's team did well before his scoring peak

[Dr Positivity]

Internal reasoning doesn't seem clear here. e.g. Gallatin has "stats are WAY better than some of the players" included (and yes he's a big and the weaker numbers guys are smalls but ditto for Macauley). Not to say EM can't be in, just that some rationalizations run somewhat counter to others, making the process murky, though aggregating the different and limited information can of course be tricky to do systematically.

Macauley's numbers are easily better than Gallatin's though. I just think it's a reach to leave out a guy who was like a top 3 statistical player of the pool, 3x 1st team All-NBA against competitive group of big men, and it's not like his teams sucked. I'm not going to blame him too much for the Celtics being better after they traded him for Bill Russell, and for that matter he still helped the Hawks beat them two years later. We don't have enough close to enough information to say Macauley is as overrated as he'd have to be to be out of the top 10 in this pool.

[Owly]

BTW, possibly the second most talented NBA big man of the era won't even get considered since Alex Groza was banned for shaving points for gamblers at UK. I had serious questions about defensive value for both Macauley and Johnston but it's harder to judge defense. It may be that guys with less statistical value have more actual value, guys like Risen, Gallatin, etc. but without more evidence (eye test, contemporary observers talking about their defensive dominance, etc.) I have to give it to the clearly statistically superior pair.

Same goes for Yardley v. Pollard as well. Pollard made his name offensively and Yardley may be more "empty stats" but they are such superior stats that being the 3rd or 4th best Laker just doesn't seem as key, especially when you can see St. Louis improve when Slater Martin goes there (other reasons as well of course, but that's part of it and a part of it that contemporaries talked about even when Martin's stats were underwhelming). That's why I went with Martin, rather than Pollard as the 3rd Laker star for my picks.

Groza might have been overrated.

Big stats, but when he and Beard "left" (and Grabowski came in) the Indiana team got better. Nothing conclusive but harmful to the idea either, never mind both, were elite.

[Owly]

b) for position ... are they?
Centers peak-wise iamong primarily 50s centers (not the pool here, but his peers) it's Mikan, then Johnston, then Foust/Macauley but Lovellete, Share and Houbregs also peak close statistically. Groza would do if we had his minutes for a year. Ray Felix, and to a lesser degree Jorgensen (WS/48) and Miller (PER) show that the center position could put up numbers (and I've left out Risen and Otten as more 40s guys, and at a lower level Connie Simmons).
As 50s PFs it's Schayes/Pettit, then Gallatin then Mikelssen (or Sears if PF, then Yardley if PF).

fwiw, I expect guys like Foust and Lovellette to get in with the next group (or at least, I'll not be surprised to see that I am voting for them).

Somewhat related, I'm not much for dividing things up by position and inducting along the "how good he was compared only to those of his own position" lines (where we get roughly the same number of bigs and perimeter guys). I don't want to over-inflate the value of certain players based only on how they compare to other guys at the same position (rather than how they compare to ALL other players). To me that'd be a little bit like----if we were voting on football players---voting the game's best punter in ahead of the game's 3rd-best quarterback.
Basketball has been a "big man's game", especially in the early days. Personally, I'm not going to "correct" for that and give the little guys much by way of extra credit. I'm OK with there being a disproportionate number of bigs inducted on these early ballots.

c) WS leans quite heavily on team performance and whilst star power isn' the whole teeam, Macauley did get to play with Cousy and Sharman, then Pettit and Hagan (and Lovellete and Share and Martin) [also WS skews heavily pro efficiency which is to his advantage,......

The same is true of Bob Feerick.

[Owly]

he still helped the Hawks beat them two years later.

Not really, he was playing 21mpg that playoffs and less against the Celtics mash unit center rotation (often hurt Russell, hurt/old Risen, not a center not ever good Nichols) he plays less and shoots .345 from the field (below team series average, and overall series average). He seemed more useful in getting them there versus Detroit.

[Owly]

We don't have enough close to enough information to say Macauley is as overrated as he'd have to be to be out of the top 10 in this pool.

How much information would persuade you? Of what type?
Where would you say Macauley ranks in this pool? Is he the lowest big in the 10?

As ever not to say he isn't there or that I would have such info, but I do see some reasons for skepticism in terms of his D, his overall impact.