RealGM

BAA/NBA/ABA 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. Voting will stay open as long as there is active interest. 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.

Elvin Hayes (Dutchball97, Narigo, penbeast0, Dr Positivity, trex_8063, Ryoga Hibiki, Kipper34, 70sFan, eminence, Doctor MJ)
Dave Cowens (Dutchball97, Narigo, penbeast0, Dr Positivity, trex_8063, Ryoga Hibiki, Kipper34, 70sFan, eminence, Doctor MJ)
Wes Unseld (Dutchball97, Narigo, penbeast0, Dr Positivity, trex_8063, Ryoga Hibiki, Kipper34, 70sFan, eminence, Doctor MJ)
Bob Lanier (Dutchball97, Narigo, penbeast0, Dr Positivity, trex_8063, Ryoga Hibiki, Kipper34, 70sFan, eminence, Doctor MJ)
Dan Issel (Dutchball97, Narigo, penbeast0, Dr Positivity, trex_8063, Ryoga Hibiki, Kipper34, 70sFan, eminence, Doctor MJ)

Tiny Archibald (Dutchball97, Narigo, penbeast0, Dr Positivity, trex_8063, Kipper34, 70sFan, eminence, Doctor MJ)
Bob Dandridge (Narigo, penbeast0, Dr Positivity, trex_8063, Ryoga Hibiki, Kipper34, 70sFan, Doctor MJ)
Paul Westphal (Dutchball97, penbeast0, Dr Positivity, Ryoga Hibiki, Kipper34, 70sFan, eminence)
David Thompson (Dutchball97, penbeast0, Dr Positivity, Ryoga Hibiki, Kipper34, eminence, Doctor MJ)
George McGinnis (Dutchball97, Narigo, Dr Positivity, trex_8063, eminence, Doctor MJ)

RealGM PC Board 2020 HOF

Retired 1960 or before

Retired 1965 or before

Retired 1970 or before

Retired 1975 or before

Retired 1980 or before

Here are some guys to consider:

From last time:

Walt Bellamy
Lenny Wilkens
Roger Brown

New:

Mack Calvin
Dan Issel
George McGinnis
Ron Boone

Wes Unseld
Spencer Haywood
Tiny Archibald
Elvin Hayes

Dave Cowens
David Thompson
Paul Westphal
Bob Dandridge


Guys I see as sure things:
Wes Unseld
Elvin Hayes
Dave Cowens

Guys I probably vote for:
Spencer Haywood
Tiny Archibald
David Thompson
Paul Westphal

Guys I think were overrated:
Dan Issel
George McGinnis

Probably need a few other names up here too, throw them out for consideration.

Adjusted votes:

Elvin Hayes
Dave Cowens
George McGinnis
Wes Unseld
Spencer Haywood
David Thompson
Tiny Archibald
Dan Issel
Paul Westphal
Bob Lanier

Lock:
Wes Unseld
Elvin Hayes
Dave Cowens

Others:

Paul Westphal - 3x 1st team All NBA and played on multiple finals core

Tiny Archibald - I think the Boston years get him over the edge in addition to individual greatness earlier

Dan Issel - Major production for a top ABA team and solid NBA numbers

Bob Dandridge - played in 4 finals and a key player for both Bucks and Bullets, two way player, 5th MVP vote peak. I’ll take him over some more talented players who flamed out.

I do not value George McGinnis NBA career much at all but he was 1st team All ABA its latest three years. David Thompson also was a clear superstar for a few years with multiple NBA finishes. I want to vote against Haywood but between the massive ABA year and multiple 1st team All NBAs not sure I should. Roger Brown seems like another good ABA candidate as well. JoJo White is 7x all-star, 2x 2nd team All-NBA and a finals MVP and played on big teams, his shooting % makes him a candidate for being overrated though.

Jojo White reminds me much of Dennis Johnson though with less defense. I always thought Paul Silas was the #3 Celtic at the time (and Robert Parish for those teams).

I might consider Roger Brown over Jo Jo White but I'll wait to hear more arguments on that (or for others I've missed/disregarded).

On a side note, we're getting blue on red Bullets colors for the 85 class right?

And a small dachshund pulling a tiny cannon around to celebrate. As long as we are at it, Kevin Porter and Phil Chenier are eligible too

One stat from the last thread explains Dan Issel for me. Kentucky was 4th or 5th (out of 11) in the ABA in defense until they drafted Dan Issel to play center. They then immediately dropped to 10th until they brought in Artis Gilmore and went to 1st or 2nd for the rest of Gilmore's ABA career. Issel was a fine offensive player, decent in the post, excellent midrange, good motor, meh passer, but never a dominant one. Kentucky won it's only championship the year they chose to deemphasize Issel and feature Gilmore instead. He was also a weak defensive center. His years at PF are his best ones because he was not being tasked with doing things he was not good at. He may belong here for longevity and consistent offensive excellence, I just am not sold on him being a HOF difference maker.

I know we talk about things like "empty stats", and there are a few names that get tossed around with that idea. But HOW empty is required to overlook a statistical titan in this project?

There's a guy who is #36 in NBA history (#41 in NBA/ABA combined stats) in career points [and on excellent efficiency: somewhere around +6% rTS for his career], #11 (#12) in rebounds........and he's been overlooked twice now. I mean, we're talking about someone who's basically top-40 and top-12 EVER in two major counting stats, and yet we've essentially said he's not even one of the 20 best of a single decade.

I'm skeptical such a disconnect between output and "value" is indicated; especially given:
*the aforementioned efficiency
**that he's a dominant scoring center in an era when EVERYONE endeavored to build their team/offense around a scoring low-post center (so there was some in-era philosophy actively encouraging one to focus on the skills he was good at).


I've a metric that attempts to measure career value over replacement level as measured by PER and WS/48 ("replacement level" defined as 13.5 PER and .078 WS/48 in the rs, 12.5 PER and .064 WS/48 in playoffs [as numbers tend to drop a bit in the ps]; playoff minutes weighted at 3.25x the value of rs minutes).......this guy comes in #56 all-time (#58 if using standard deviations above "replacement level"--->the SD's I used in this study) without any strength of era modifier.
He's actually 8th among all players who became available between the 1975 and 1980 groups.


I'm sort of [more than sort of, really] surprised he's been passed over twice, and is so far being largely ignored itt, while guys like Roger Brown, Paul Westphal, Jo Jo White [and George McGinnis, for that matter--->another guy with a disconnect between numbers and impact, though his numbers are notably less than those of the guy I refer to] are being discussed.

trex_8063 wrote:I know we talk about things like "empty stats", and there are a few names that get tossed around with that idea. But HOW empty is required to overlook a statistical titan in this project?

There's a guy who is #36 in NBA history (#41 in NBA/ABA combined stats) in career points [and on excellent efficiency: somewhere around +6% rTS for his career], #11 (#12) in rebounds........and he's been overlooked twice now. I mean, we're talking about someone who's basically top-40 and top-12 EVER in two major counting stats, and yet we've essentially said he's not even one of the 20 best of a single decade.

I'm skeptical such a disconnect between output and "value" is indicated; especially given:
*the aforementioned efficiency
**that he's a dominant scoring center in an era when EVERYONE endeavored to build their team/offense around a scoring low-post center (so there was some in-era philosophy actively encouraging one to focus on the skills he was good at).


I've a metric that attempts to measure career value over replacement level as measured by PER and WS/48 ("replacement level" defined as 13.5 PER and .078 WS/48 in the rs, 12.5 PER and .064 WS/48 in playoffs [as numbers tend to drop a bit in the ps]; playoff minutes weighted at 3.25x the value of rs minutes).......this guy comes in #56 all-time (#58 if using standard deviations above "replacement level"--->the SD's I used in this study) without any strength of era modifier.
He's actually 8th among all players who became available between the 1975 and 1980 groups.


I'm sort of [more than sort of, really] surprised he's been passed over twice, and is so far being largely ignored itt, while guys like Roger Brown, Paul Westphal, Jo Jo White [and George McGinnis, for that matter--->another guy with a disconnect between numbers and impact, though his numbers are notably less than those of the guy I refer to] are being discussed.

Bellamy played in an era where the points and rebounds were inflated and among everyone from that time he's had one of the longest careers. He was off to a promising start making 4 straight All-Star games but he never made another All-Star appaerance in the 10 seasons after that. He also never made an All-NBA team and never had any MVP traction. In terms of play-offs it's not much to look at either. Lots of 1st round exits and even more not making the play-offs at all. He was pretty good for a long time but he was hardly ever, if at all, a great player.

Dutchball97 wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:I know we talk about things like "empty stats", and there are a few names that get tossed around with that idea. But HOW empty is required to overlook a statistical titan in this project?

There's a guy who is #36 in NBA history (#41 in NBA/ABA combined stats) in career points [and on excellent efficiency: somewhere around +6% rTS for his career], #11 (#12) in rebounds........and he's been overlooked twice now. I mean, we're talking about someone who's basically top-40 and top-12 EVER in two major counting stats, and yet we've essentially said he's not even one of the 20 best of a single decade.

I'm skeptical such a disconnect between output and "value" is indicated; especially given:
*the aforementioned efficiency
**that he's a dominant scoring center in an era when EVERYONE endeavored to build their team/offense around a scoring low-post center (so there was some in-era philosophy actively encouraging one to focus on the skills he was good at).


I've a metric that attempts to measure career value over replacement level as measured by PER and WS/48 ("replacement level" defined as 13.5 PER and .078 WS/48 in the rs, 12.5 PER and .064 WS/48 in playoffs [as numbers tend to drop a bit in the ps]; playoff minutes weighted at 3.25x the value of rs minutes).......this guy comes in #56 all-time (#58 if using standard deviations above "replacement level"--->the SD's I used in this study) without any strength of era modifier.
He's actually 8th among all players who became available between the 1975 and 1980 groups.


I'm sort of [more than sort of, really] surprised he's been passed over twice, and is so far being largely ignored itt, while guys like Roger Brown, Paul Westphal, Jo Jo White [and George McGinnis, for that matter--->another guy with a disconnect between numbers and impact, though his numbers are notably less than those of the guy I refer to] are being discussed.

Bellamy played in an era where the points and rebounds were inflated and among everyone from that time he's had one of the longest careers. He was off to a promising start making 4 straight All-Star games but he never made another All-Star appaerance in the 10 seasons after that. He also never made an All-NBA team and never had any MVP traction. In terms of play-offs it's not much to look at either. Lots of 1st round exits and even more not making the play-offs at all. He was pretty good for a long time but he was hardly ever, if at all, a great player.

And yet people are voting for Dan Issel, who had his flashiest seasons in the ABA and whose case is also based on scoring a lot of point on a super high pace Denver team but with a decidedly lesser defensive impact from what I could see and worse rebounding. Not saying Issel shouldn't be in there. He was a more versatile scorer than Bellamy and had better intangibles but I think it's certainly worth a debate.

penbeast0 wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:I know we talk about things like "empty stats", and there are a few names that get tossed around with that idea. But HOW empty is required to overlook a statistical titan in this project?

There's a guy who is #36 in NBA history (#41 in NBA/ABA combined stats) in career points [and on excellent efficiency: somewhere around +6% rTS for his career], #11 (#12) in rebounds........and he's been overlooked twice now. I mean, we're talking about someone who's basically top-40 and top-12 EVER in two major counting stats, and yet we've essentially said he's not even one of the 20 best of a single decade.

I'm skeptical such a disconnect between output and "value" is indicated; especially given:
*the aforementioned efficiency
**that he's a dominant scoring center in an era when EVERYONE endeavored to build their team/offense around a scoring low-post center (so there was some in-era philosophy actively encouraging one to focus on the skills he was good at).


I've a metric that attempts to measure career value over replacement level as measured by PER and WS/48 ("replacement level" defined as 13.5 PER and .078 WS/48 in the rs, 12.5 PER and .064 WS/48 in playoffs [as numbers tend to drop a bit in the ps]; playoff minutes weighted at 3.25x the value of rs minutes).......this guy comes in #56 all-time (#58 if using standard deviations above "replacement level"--->the SD's I used in this study) without any strength of era modifier.
He's actually 8th among all players who became available between the 1975 and 1980 groups.


I'm sort of [more than sort of, really] surprised he's been passed over twice, and is so far being largely ignored itt, while guys like Roger Brown, Paul Westphal, Jo Jo White [and George McGinnis, for that matter--->another guy with a disconnect between numbers and impact, though his numbers are notably less than those of the guy I refer to] are being discussed.

Bellamy played in an era where the points and rebounds were inflated and among everyone from that time he's had one of the longest careers. He was off to a promising start making 4 straight All-Star games but he never made another All-Star appaerance in the 10 seasons after that. He also never made an All-NBA team and never had any MVP traction. In terms of play-offs it's not much to look at either. Lots of 1st round exits and even more not making the play-offs at all. He was pretty good for a long time but he was hardly ever, if at all, a great player.

And yet people are voting for Dan Issel, who had his flashiest seasons in the ABA and whose case is also based on scoring a lot of point on a super high pace Denver team but with a decidedly lesser defensive impact from what I could see and worse rebounding. Not saying Issel shouldn't be in there. He was a more versatile scorer than Bellamy and had better intangibles but I think it's certainly worth a debate.

I mean Dan Issel was an important part of a championship team, made multiple All-ABA teams, was 2nd in MVP voting in 1972 and also was one of the few guys who didn't significantly drop off when going to the NBA. For HoF consideration I'm looking at play-off success and individual acclaim. If someone was never one of the best players in a given year, how can they be one of the best ever?

One of the few guys? Let's look at the 76 All-ABA teams.
You have two guys who dropped off the radar:
James Silas (injuries but after 2 years of gimping around, he came back to have 3 NBA years as good as his 2nd best ABA years)
Ralph Simpson (no idea why he just completely fell apart).

A couple that were good NBA players but not as great as in the ABA:
Artis Gilmore (went to Chicago where they moved him more inside making him the most efficient scorer in NBA history but without the defensive impact he had had in Kentucky)
Julius Erving (NBA MVP but not as dominant as ABA)
Dan Issel (stayed as a very good scorer but never to the extent of best ABA years)

And a number that were the same or even better in the NBA:
Gervin (best years in NBA)
David Thompson (best years in NBA until cocaine beat him)
Bobby Jones (same player in NBA per minute though he played less minutes won 1st team All-D almost every year)
Don Buse (like Jones, played lesser minutes with similar offense and continued to get the All-D recognition)

There were guys from earlier in the ABA that aged out shockingly fast (Mel Daniels, Louie Dampier) and a lot who fell due to drugs and injuries (Brisker, Jabali) but the top players generally transitioned well. Thompson, Jones, Knight, Issell, Maurice Lucas, Buse, Erving, and Gervin were all All-Stars in post merger 1977 for example.

Re: Bellamy vs Issel:

First, I appreciate beast's points on Issel. I do think we basically all agree that he's an offensive-oriented guy with defensive issues from a position where we traditionally count on defense. His weaknesses hold him back, and if you're not that impressed with his strengths, well...

However:

1. Yes Gilmore was the MVP of the Colonels...but Issel was able to fit with Gilmore because he could play what we now call Stretch 4, which is exactly what Gilmore would probably want in a 4.

2. After being one of the key pieces for one of the two great ABA franchises for years, Denver wants him. Denver's an awesome team that goes to the finals that year, and then Issel stays on with that team into the NBA for a decade with a featured role in some of the best offenses of the era.

3. While '74-75 did feature Issel less on offense, and maybe you could speak to that more, but it's not like the offense took an obvious step forward when they did this, and it's not like Gilmore was leading amazing offenses later in the NBA. I think the truth is that these two guys worked very well together on offense because they had different natural habitats, and whether you featured Issel a bit more or featured Gilmore a bit more, it was good either way. There's no doubt Gilmore was the better player because of his defense, but offensively we're just talking about allocating credit for good things not finding major sources of blame.

4. The comparison with Bellamy is good for contrast. I tend to look at whether teams swear in a guy, whether they have success with the guy, and if they are switching teams if it seems they are "bubbling up" to good teams or "sinking down" taking spots on bad teams who are basically thinking "Might as well try X". Bellamy's does not come off looking good here. Obviously Bellamy starts on a terrible expansion team where he puts up big numbers. If we basically cut him slack for that, let's look at what happens from that point on.

5. Bellamy goes to NY, makes the offense better and the defense worse. No massive impact, but not an embarrassment either...but of course, they take their leap forward literally when they trade him mid-season in '68-69. By my count they were 18-17 with Bellamy, and for the rest of the year they would go to 36-9, which is actually a better record than what they had the next year with their "greatest team ever" candidate. It's an awful thing for your evaluation in my book when a team takes off specifically when they get rid of you.

6. Bellamy goes to Detroit. Detroit goes nowhere with Bellamy and they push him to the side after a couple season.

7. Bellamy then goes to Atlanta where he has the most noteworthy team success of his career. In his first year, the Hawks win 48 games, the team has the highest ORtg in the league. He's the 3rd leading scorer and the defense is awful, but if this were a sign of times to come, you could imagine an Issel-like end to his career. Instead the Hawks get worse and when the Hawks move on from him a few years later, you don't even notice a loss to team performance.

8. Bellamy then ends his career on a godawful Jazz team going nowhere.

9. Finally, in terms of both Issel and Bellamy being offensive-oriented bigs. Yes, however, Issel is of the new mold that is now a standard part of the game - the stretch big - whereas Bellamy is primarily an interior guy...the type of big scorer that the league has largely gone away from. Bellamy is the type of player I'm skeptical of, Issel isn't.

I don't see it as a hard call between these two. Issel is a guy with some weaknesses but who has the strengths and an overall shape to his game that good teams found useful. Bellamy is a collection of talents who never really figured out how to make his impact live up to the numbers he could produce.

Bit busy the last few days, but hoping to get to this this evening.

Dutchball97 wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:I know we talk about things like "empty stats", and there are a few names that get tossed around with that idea. But HOW empty is required to overlook a statistical titan in this project?

There's a guy who is #36 in NBA history (#41 in NBA/ABA combined stats) in career points [and on excellent efficiency: somewhere around +6% rTS for his career], #11 (#12) in rebounds........and he's been overlooked twice now. I mean, we're talking about someone who's basically top-40 and top-12 EVER in two major counting stats, and yet we've essentially said he's not even one of the 20 best of a single decade.

I'm skeptical such a disconnect between output and "value" is indicated; especially given:
*the aforementioned efficiency
**that he's a dominant scoring center in an era when EVERYONE endeavored to build their team/offense around a scoring low-post center (so there was some in-era philosophy actively encouraging one to focus on the skills he was good at).


I've a metric that attempts to measure career value over replacement level as measured by PER and WS/48 ("replacement level" defined as 13.5 PER and .078 WS/48 in the rs, 12.5 PER and .064 WS/48 in playoffs [as numbers tend to drop a bit in the ps]; playoff minutes weighted at 3.25x the value of rs minutes).......this guy comes in #56 all-time (#58 if using standard deviations above "replacement level"--->the SD's I used in this study) without any strength of era modifier.
He's actually 8th among all players who became available between the 1975 and 1980 groups.


I'm sort of [more than sort of, really] surprised he's been passed over twice, and is so far being largely ignored itt, while guys like Roger Brown, Paul Westphal, Jo Jo White [and George McGinnis, for that matter--->another guy with a disconnect between numbers and impact, though his numbers are notably less than those of the guy I refer to] are being discussed.

Bellamy played in an era where the points and rebounds were inflated and among everyone from that time

We're doing a project that goes in era-specific groupings. i.e. this is true of literally EVERYONE we're considering him against, so it's not terribly germaine to the debate.
EDIT: Also, I'd also referenced a career measure that utilizes PER and WS/48 (which are era standardized anyway).

Dutchball97 wrote: he's had one of the longest careers.

Not terrifically long [shade over 13 years], but extremely consistent and durable. This should be something he's credited for, no?

Dutchball97 wrote:He was off to a promising start making 4 straight All-Star games but he never made another All-Star appaerance in the 10 seasons after that......

His career overlaps almost exactly with those of Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond, basically envelopes that of Willis Reed and Zelmo Beaty, overlaps Bill Russell during the first 8 years, then right around the time Russell departs the league, there was Wes Unseld, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bob Lanier, and Dave Cowens…….ALL these guys being sure fire "1st ballot picks", ALL these guys playing his position.
Considering All-Star teams for awhile there were typically only 10 players----so they were only selecting two, or maybe three centers per squad......making the cut at all is something of an achievement, imo.

fwiw, Earl Monroe was only a 4-time All-Star, as well as Roger Brown (and that in the early ABA).

Dutchball97 wrote: He also never made an All-NBA team

See above.

Also: neither did Nate Thurmond or Zelmo Beaty [in the NBA] at the same position; Dave DeBusschere made All-NBA 2nd just once (against less fierce positional competition than what's noted above), same with Larry Costello. But they were all were "1st ballot" guys.

Dutchball97 wrote: and never had any MVP traction.

Neither did DeBusschere or Beaty [in NBA], Costello finished 7th in the vote once (the only year he received any votes); Dampier little better (and that in the ABA).

Dutchball97 wrote:Se In terms of play-offs it's not much to look at either. Lots of 1st round exits and even more not making the play-offs at all. He was pretty good for a long time but he was hardly ever, if at all, a great player.

Not necessarily saying he was. But guys like Costello, Dampier, and perhaps even Beaty were hardly ever [if at all] "great" players either.


None of this is to say that you [using the royal "you"] have to vote for him. However, if the reasons you present to NOT vote for him can be applied in some measure to other "1st ballot" guys [whom perhaps you yourself voted for], and while they're being statistically trounced by him......idk, seems to me he shouldn't be so easily disregarded.

With George McGinnis' it's time to analyze him, and I found myself analyzing the Pacers' run, and specifically Roger Brown as part of this.

When I went into this project, I expected to vote in Daniels & McGinnis but not Brown. I voted for Brown last round, does that actually hold up? McGinnis displayed both Daniels & Brown in the hierarchy, is Brown just the "lucky to be there" #3 guy?

Others have mentioned that McGinnis NBA career is a problem. It's one thing when a 30 year old with a lot of wear and tear goes to a new team and they're never convinced to feature him. It's another thing when teams do decide to feature you, but then give up on you.

He starts his NBA career in Philly with a year that nets him All-NBA 1st team. The team then acquires Julius Erving, poor fit ensues, and the team trades McGinnis. While it's never a good thing to have a team move you from franchise player to guy-to-be-traded over the course of a year, but this was Dr. J we're talking about. I think for most through that point there's a bit of a question as to why McGinnis couldn't play better with Erving, but he's still seen as a B-list superstar.

McGinnis then goes to Denver...and really just seems like he can't compete. Not worth being the alpha, not able to fit in valuably in any other role. The team falls off a cliff in their full year with him, and begins to build toward their pretty-good-'80s building around Thompson/English/Issel in earnest after they kick McGinnis to the curb. Worth noting that Issel is in his 30s by this point and still seen as valuable, while McGinnis lost his place in the game in his 20s without aging appearing to be the major issue.

McGinnis ends his career back with his old coach (Slick Leonard) in Indiana, but it's with a whimper on a team going nowhere.

You look at all of this with a lens of expectation where we're looking to see ABA guys struggle in the NBA and a narrative presents itself:

McGinnis tried to do his ABA thing in the NBA, it didn't quite work the same way and so McGinnis had to take on more role player-ish roles, and he wasn't able to do it effectively.

From there you start looking at him as basically a guy with great ABA accomplishment who may not deserve a spot over true NBA guys, but surely he was better than the ABA guys, right?

Well, it's weird. The Pacers won their 3rd title having handed the offense over to McGinnis...but they won with defense. Their offense got worse in '73 when they handed McGinnis the reins, and if you're looking for the 4 best SRS' in Pacer ABA history, they are the teams from '68-69 to '71-72. Those 4 years are what gives the Pacers the vast majority of their claim to be the best franchise in ABA history, and in that time the 3 core players were Daniels, Brown, and Freddie Lewis.

Worth noting that for most of that time, it was the offense that was better than the defense. The shift toward McGinnis and the way they Pacers won with defense is to me what really seals Daniels > Brown to me, but if we're asking who was the top offensive player on the Pacers when they were at their best, it's Brown, not McGinnis that is the answer.

None of this means that giving the primacy - and such extreme primacy it was - to McGinnis was the wrong move necessarily, but it's just really noteworthy to me that McGinnis was not an efficiency shooter in either league with this role, and for someone put in what we might call a proto-LeBron role, McGinnis doesn't really seem to have the BBIQ I'd want in such a role.

If you ignore the NBA years - on the grounds they were largely a wash - everyone associated with the ABA would rank Daniels & Brown ahead of McGinnis. Daniels & Brown are unanimous All-Time ABA selections, McGinnis isn't. If you go look at the bkref leaderboard for the franchise you'll find Brown there 2nd behind Reggie Miller, Daniels comes in 5th, and McGinnis face doesn't show up at all in the row of faces because he's not in the top 12.

Before now however, I basically felt that McGinnis "clearly superior" peak would have put him ahead of Brown. I can't say that any more. I think very clearly if you're voting in 2 Pacers from this era, it should be Daniels and Brown.

First of all I don't think it's fair to say Bellamy not being voted in means he's being disregarded. I considered Bellamy seriously last time but he just didn't make the cut and right now I'm having a hard time justifying Bellamy over Jo Jo White.

Costello, Beaty, Dampier and White were all important parts of championship teams which Bellamy was not and when I'm unsure if their level of play warrants a HoF vote I generally have this as tiebreaker.

Doctor MJ wrote:With George McGinnis' it's time to analyze him, and I found myself analyzing the Pacers' run, and specifically Roger Brown as part of this.

.

Your thoughts on Bellamy thus far have been so unflattering ["scathing" might be more accurate] that I almost cringe to ask this question, but as I value your opinion [even though we disagree more often than not].....how would you compare Bellamy to McGinnis?

A bit more on Roger Brown.

First, here's an awesome article from a legendary high school game between Roger Brown and Connie Hawkins:

http://www.apbr.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2891

Connie at the time was already seen as the prodigy among prodigies, but in this game Brown was the man. It's noteworthy that Hawkins - despite playing center in the ABA - was tasked to guard Brown because no one else had a prayer. It's noteworthy that Brown is called "Roger Rabbit" and that basically Hawkins is struggling to chase him everywhere, because Brown had "uncanny range". Hawkins would foul out.

The fact they played against each other in Brooklyn in high school takes on a more tragic note when you realize that Brown also got banned from college and the NBA because of a college point shaving-scheme that occurred while they were both in high school. Basically these are two poor Black kids from the city with an association with a guy who had been doing not-good things. For the most part those banned were actually in college playing college games, but not these two high school kids.

That is how Brown ends up in the ABA like Connie did.

Brown was the first player the Pacers ever signed and played through all their championship ABA years during which time he developed the best reputation for playing up to competition in the playoffs of anyone pre-Erving.

Re: uncanny range. It's so strange. Brown never shot a lot of 3's, but the moment where he shot more than any other was the 1970 ABA finals where he took over and dominated scoring 53. 39 & 45 points to clinch it. In those games, he shot 12-25 from 3. It seems clear that Brown was a guy with aggressive motor and the motor skill to be a great 3-point shooters, and yet rather than look at that ABA finals ending as a reason why the Pacers should double down on Brown as a higher volume scorer with the greenlight to shoot 3's, Brown's increase in 3's the next year would be pretty mild and then would go down from there, following the general ABA trend wherein teams seem to have convinced themselves that 3's didn't work...even as a guy wins the Playoff MVP with them as a significant part of his arsenal.

I'm going to vote for Brown again this time. I don't know if I'll vote after that - will depend on whether he's getting traction from others and of course, the competition, but I'm sold on him.