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.

Kareem Abdul Jabbar (penbeast0, Narigo, Dr Positivity, Dutchball97, Ryoga Hibiki, Doctor MJ, eminence, trex_8063, kipper34)
Julius Erving (penbeast0, Narigo, Dr Positivity, Dutchball97, Ryoga Hibiki, Doctor MJ, eminence, trex_8063, kipper34)
George Gervin (penbeast0, Narigo, Dr Positivity, Dutchball97, Ryoga Hibiki, Doctor MJ, eminence, trex_8063, kipper34)
Artis Gilmore (penbeast0, Narigo, Dr Positivity, Dutchball97, Ryoga Hibiki, Doctor MJ), eminence, trex_8063, kipper34)
Bob McAdoo (penbeast0, Narigo, Dr Positivity, Dutchball97, Ryoga Hibiki, Doctor MJ, eminence, trex_8063, kipper34)
Bill Walton (penbeast0, Narigo, Dr Positivity, Dutchball97, Ryoga Hibiki, Doctor MJ, eminence, trex_8063, kipper34)

Bobby Jones (penbeast0, Narigo, Dr Positivity, Ryoga Hibiki, Doctor MJ, eminence, trex_8063, kipper34)
Dennis Johnson (penbeast0, Dr Positivity, Dutchball97, Ryoga Hibiki, Doctor MJ, eminence, trex_8063, kipper34)

Marques Johnson (penbeast0, Narigo, Dutchball97, Ryoga Hibiki, Doctor MJ, eminence, trex_8063)
Gus Williams (penbeast0, Dr Positivity, Dutchball97, Ryoga Hibiki, eminence, kipper34)

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

Retired 1985 or before

Some names to consider:

Spencer Haywood
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Julius Erving
Artis Gilmore
George Gervin
Bob McAdoo
Bill Walton
Bobby Jones
Maurice Lucas
Marques Johnson
Dennis Johnson
Gus Williams

I have some sure things here:

Kareem
Erving
Gervin
Gilmor
McAdoo
Bobby Jones

I would say Bill Walton is in for me too. He may not be top 100 in terms of career value but his influence and peak made him a defining player for the HOF.

Marques Johnson, Dennis Johnson, Gus Williams are my last 3.

Was Maurice Lucas better than Spencer Haywood who I voted for last time? The evidence certainly favors Haywood by a lot, much bigger scorer, rebounding edge, more All-Pro votes, the ABA MVP. On the other hand, Lucas is one of those player who tend to be more valuable than their numbers (very much like Paul Silas last time), strong defense, known for his fiery leadership, good passing big, etc. Again, I'd need some strong indicator that his impact metrics are superior and again, looking at WOWY, Haywood actually outperforms Lucas pretty easily.

I still have Marques Johnson (and the Seattle guards) over Haywood though. Not as long or as flashy a career but I just think he was a better player in his prime and his prime was long enough for me to take him instead.

I will make these my official votes.

This class particularly strong up top, but competition for the 10th spot isn't exactly weak.

Guys it's hard for me to even imagine not voting for:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Artis Gilmore
Julius Erving
Bob McAdoo
Bobby Jones
George Gervin
Bill Walton

Guys who seem like the obvious choices for the next 3, and feel worthy to me:

Maurice Lucas
Dennis Johnson
Marques Johnson

Other guys on my mind:

Jamaal Wilkes - he's in the hall and Marques isn't, maybe someone can sway me based on that
Gail Goodrich - In this incredibly UCLA-dominant class, I find myself thinking about whether Goodrich deserves a spot over with Marques or Wilkes.
Lenny Wilkens - he keeps lingering as a basis for comparison, he's obviously got longevity over a lot of these guys

fyi: Not intending to vote for Roger Brown again, but don't regret my votes.

Can anyone tell me why I remember Micheal Ray Richardson mainly as a Warrior?

Re: Lucas vs Haywood.

Bill Walton really makes it a point to talk about Lucas as an equal, and essential, partner. (His admiration for Lucas is such that son Luke Walton was made his namesake.) While Walton's impact on the court was profound in a way Lucas was not, Lucas seemed to be the one actually setting the tone for how the Blazers' prepared each day. I see the fact that Lucas was so essential to a team that I see as having a very high peak - poised quite possibly for a dynastic run - as a big deal. This is the sort of thing I ask myself about players - could I imagine them playing their role and having it be very valuable on top tier teams. With Lucas there's no doubt.

I would add that it helps that Lucas has a defensive focus that I think could translate to most settings, and the fact that the Blazers didn't actually fall off a cliff without Walton, they fell but had a solid record and Lucas continued to be named all-star. The run in Portland ends if that were all for Lucas you could accuse him of a very short prime, but he hangs around and ends up getting named all-star again at 30 and a sought after tough veteran presence to 35.

When I look at Haywood, I see a guy whose volume scoring game didn't seem to be good enough to really move the needle in the NBA, and thus you see a classic pattern of a guy start out as really high primacy, then become part of an ensemble, and then bounce around from team to team taking smaller roles each time. Haywood is an example of someone I mean when I say I'm always cautious about the stature of volume scoring big men even when they are clearly quite solid at shooting effectively. Plan A has turned out not to work as well as people thought back then (and sometimes still do), and a lot of guys for whom Plan A doesn't work never find a way to truly thrive as a secondary/tertiary star synergizing with the primary.

I have a lot less faith in my ability to fit Haywood on a truly great team than I do with Lucas.

Bit surprised not to see Norm Nixon mentioned yet, not sure where I'll come down on him, but deserves a look I think.

Edit: Thought some more, and he's on the outside looking in for sure might've got some more consideration in a weaker class.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

Considering Gus Williams? On my first glance he was probably at the back end of my 10.

Doctor MJ wrote:Re: Lucas vs Haywood.

Bill Walton really makes it a point to talk about Lucas as an equal, and essential, partner. (His admiration for Lucas is such that son Luke Walton was made his namesake.) While Walton's impact on the court was profound in a way Lucas was not, Lucas seemed to be the one actually setting the tone for how the Blazers' prepared each day. I see the fact that Lucas was so essential to a team that I see as having a very high peak - poised quite possibly for a dynastic run - as a big deal. This is the sort of thing I ask myself about players - could I imagine them playing their role and having it be very valuable on top tier teams. With Lucas there's no doubt.

I would add that it helps that Lucas has a defensive focus that I think could translate to most settings, and the fact that the Blazers didn't actually fall off a cliff without Walton, they fell but had a solid record and Lucas continued to be named all-star. The run in Portland ends if that were all for Lucas you could accuse him of a very short prime, but he hangs around and ends up getting named all-star again at 30 and a sought after tough veteran presence to 35.

When I look at Haywood, I see a guy whose volume scoring game didn't seem to be good enough to really move the needle in the NBA, and thus you see a classic pattern of a guy start out as really high primacy, then become part of an ensemble, and then bounce around from team to team taking smaller roles each time. Haywood is an example of someone I mean when I say I'm always cautious about the stature of volume scoring big men even when they are clearly quite solid at shooting effectively. Plan A has turned out not to work as well as people thought back then (and sometimes still do), and a lot of guys for whom Plan A doesn't work never find a way to truly thrive as a secondary/tertiary star synergizing with the primary.

I have a lot less faith in my ability to fit Haywood on a truly great team than I do with Lucas.

Coming immediately on the heels of our discourse regarding Elvin Hayes, I must admit I'm a bit shocked by the positive sentiment toward Maurice Lucas.

The major criticism of Hayes was him shooting too much on poor efficiency, but Lucas jacks up shots at the same rate (just didn't play quite as many minutes) and basically the same efficiency:

'77-'79 Lucas: avg 24.5 TSA/100 possessions @ -0.58% rTS
'74-'79 Hayes: avg 24.0 TSA/100 possession @ -0.93% rTS (while having a marginally better turnover economy, too)

Based on the above it seems this is partly forgiven because Lucas has a defensive focus (sort of same basic argument I applied toward Hayes).


And wrt to the highlighted portion.......
I mean, I assume you're referring specifically to the '79 season, and absolutely NOTHING else [because the statement otherwise doesn't hold up at all]. But they had Tom Owens, who was probably underutilized while playing in Walton's shadow to fill in some of the gap left by Walton's absence in '79, PLUS they got rookie Mychal Thompson that year, too (All-Rookie 1st Team). Still had the most of that historically underrated perimeter core, as well.

That's not necessarily to discredit Lucas; but if we're looking at how he could right the ship in the face of adversity, it's only fair to also look at '77-'78:
In '77 the Blazers were 44-21 (on pace for 55-56 wins) in the games Walton played, were 5-12 (on pace for 24 wins) in his absence.
In '78 they were 48-10 (on pace for nearly 68 wins) when Walton was around, 10-14 (on pace for just over 34 wins) in his absence.

And then there's the year after '79, where despite Lucas being only 26 years old they were already moving away from him (averaged just 28.7 mpg in his half-season in Portland) before they dealt him away for a song: traded him PLUS a 1st-round pick in the next TWO drafts for Calvin Natt. That Portland team was just 15-26 (on pace for 30 wins) in the 41 games he played for them (went 23-18 in the 41 games without him).

With such a stacked pool I’m probably not going to vote for Lucas. His career fell apart obviously after a few years and not great TS%. I would rather vote for Gus Williams for example since he was arguably even more important to the Sonics run and he put together a few more good years than Lucas. I get the vibe Bobby Gross was closer to being the Blazers 2nd most impactful player than you might think by looking at the PPG. I thought I read a story once along the lines of Lucas intentionally taking credit for a foul Gross had at one point at the end of the game because he felt Gross was more important to the team than him. Idk, I can’t find the story, and it’s the kind of thing you can take with a grain of salt (on the other hand as mentioned Walton is also high on Lucas) but it stuck with me.

Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Julius Erving
Artis Gilmore
George Gervin
Bob Mcadoo
Bill Walton
Bobby Jones
Marques Johnson
Lenny Wilkens
Spencer Haywood

Jamaal Wilkes v. Marques Johnson seems an interesting comparison as well. Wilkes clearly wins on durability as Johnson fell victim to the cocaine plague that hurt so many NBA players. In addition to his intangibles, Wilkes also has a slightly better defensive rep though Johnson was not bad defensively, unlike so many other 80s scorers.

Johnson was the superior scorer both in terms of peak volume and efficiency, with both better range and better finishing ability on the break, Wilkes had a nice post game though. Johnson was also a better rebounder and had better handles and passing ability, although his aggrandizing himself as the first "point foward" seems a stretch when you look at his actual role.

Both played on good teams, Wilkes as one of the sidemen around Rick Barry on the 75 Warriors then as the second leading scorer on the 80 and 82 Lakers teams next to Kareem, Norm Nixon, and Magic before being supplanted by James Worthy. Marques Johnson was the 1st option for almost 7 years on the Don Nelson Bucks teams that consistently were around 50 wins led by Johnson and Sidney Moncrief (Moncrief outscored him a couple of years but that was due to Sid's extraordinary offensive efficiency, Johnson shot the most).

I rate Marques Johnson higher as I value his 1A/1B primacy on very good teams more than Wilkes's third banana role on great ones but I can see arguing the other way.

eminence wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:.

Considering Gus Williams? On my first glance he was probably at the back end of my 10.

Hard for me to frame a case for him against this bunch. Is there a particular comparison at the forefront of your mind?

trex_8063 wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:Re: Lucas vs Haywood.

Bill Walton really makes it a point to talk about Lucas as an equal, and essential, partner. (His admiration for Lucas is such that son Luke Walton was made his namesake.) While Walton's impact on the court was profound in a way Lucas was not, Lucas seemed to be the one actually setting the tone for how the Blazers' prepared each day. I see the fact that Lucas was so essential to a team that I see as having a very high peak - poised quite possibly for a dynastic run - as a big deal. This is the sort of thing I ask myself about players - could I imagine them playing their role and having it be very valuable on top tier teams. With Lucas there's no doubt.

I would add that it helps that Lucas has a defensive focus that I think could translate to most settings, and the fact that the Blazers didn't actually fall off a cliff without Walton, they fell but had a solid record and Lucas continued to be named all-star. The run in Portland ends if that were all for Lucas you could accuse him of a very short prime, but he hangs around and ends up getting named all-star again at 30 and a sought after tough veteran presence to 35.

When I look at Haywood, I see a guy whose volume scoring game didn't seem to be good enough to really move the needle in the NBA, and thus you see a classic pattern of a guy start out as really high primacy, then become part of an ensemble, and then bounce around from team to team taking smaller roles each time. Haywood is an example of someone I mean when I say I'm always cautious about the stature of volume scoring big men even when they are clearly quite solid at shooting effectively. Plan A has turned out not to work as well as people thought back then (and sometimes still do), and a lot of guys for whom Plan A doesn't work never find a way to truly thrive as a secondary/tertiary star synergizing with the primary.

I have a lot less faith in my ability to fit Haywood on a truly great team than I do with Lucas.

Coming immediately on the heels of our discourse regarding Elvin Hayes, I must admit I'm a bit shocked by the positive sentiment toward Maurice Lucas.

The major criticism of Hayes was him shooting too much on poor efficiency, but Lucas jacks up shots at the same rate (just didn't play quite as many minutes) and basically the same efficiency:

'77-'79 Lucas: avg 24.5 TSA/100 possessions @ -0.58% rTS
'74-'79 Hayes: avg 24.0 TSA/100 possession @ -0.93% rTS (while having a marginally better turnover economy, too)

Based on the above it seems this is partly forgiven because Lucas has a defensive focus (sort of same basic argument I applied toward Hayes).


And wrt to the highlighted portion.......
I mean, I assume you're referring specifically to the '79 season, and absolutely NOTHING else [because the statement otherwise doesn't hold up at all]. But they had Tom Owens, who was probably underutilized while playing in Walton's shadow to fill in some of the gap left by Walton's absence in '79, PLUS they got rookie Mychal Thompson that year, too (All-Rookie 1st Team). Still had the most of that historically underrated perimeter core, as well.

That's not necessarily to discredit Lucas; but if we're looking at how he could right the ship in the face of adversity, it's only fair to also look at '77-'78:
In '77 the Blazers were 44-21 (on pace for 55-56 wins) in the games Walton played, were 5-12 (on pace for 24 wins) in his absence.
In '78 they were 48-10 (on pace for nearly 68 wins) when Walton was around, 10-14 (on pace for just over 34 wins) in his absence.

And then there's the year after '79, where despite Lucas being only 26 years old they were already moving away from him (averaged just 28.7 mpg in his half-season in Portland) before they dealt him away for a song: traded him PLUS a 1st-round pick in the next TWO drafts for Calvin Natt. That Portland team was just 15-26 (on pace for 30 wins) in the 41 games he played for them (went 23-18 in the 41 games without him).

I have to be honest, I wasn't viewing this through the same lens and it's a good thing to consider. I'm not impressed with Lucas' scoring and would have acknowledged it was inefficient, but the fact that he was shooting a similar per possession rate to Hayes is not something I'd made the connection on because of the difference in MPG.

I don't want to cherry pick numbers on the TS Add stat - they still seem to be missing rate-based stats along these lines, but sufficed to say that I Hayes was a considerably bigger problem on this front than Lucas. Lucas even had a positive TS Add in the year of the Blazer championship.

To come back to a previous point though: I acknowledge something of an inconsistency in the way I view the role of these two players. On a per possession basis, if Hayes qualifies as a volume shooter (and I'd say he does), than Lucas does to. I don't think either should have been in that role ideally, so it is a negative factor they share.

Re: positive sentiment. Well the story I relayed about Lucas was quite rosy and the one about Hayes quite sour. Fine to bring up counterexamples or urge against being overly swayed by romantic anecdotes, but I give Lucas credit for essentially creating the locker room culture that allowed the Blazers to blossom in a way similar to the credit I give Unseld.

Re: without Walton. I should be clear, I know that the in/out numbers for Walton was god-like. I'm pointing out that the Blazers were still a good team in '78-79, so it's not fair to say that Lucas utterly fell apart without Walton.

Re: longevity. Right I see what you're talking about but that's why i was pointing to the success later in his career. You can knock Lucas for the inconsistent accolades, but when you look at the way he got back to all-star status quite a bit after his main run, and the fact that he stayed in demand a good deal after that, this wasn't one of these guys who simply becomes irrelevant once the glossy explosiveness of youth gets worn off.

Dr Positivity wrote:With such a stacked pool I’m probably not going to vote for Lucas. His career fell apart obviously after a few years

I think it's really important to note that he becomes an all-star again 6 years after the championship. and he kept playing for another half decade afterward retiring at 35. He's no Kareem of course, but there are lots of guys who careers actually did fall apart after only a few years and never did anything else after that. Lucas isn't that. Quite honestly, I don't know if there's much reason to think he was worse at 30 than he was in his heyday.

penbeast0 wrote:Jamaal Wilkes v. Marques Johnson seems an interesting comparison as well. Wilkes clearly wins on durability as Johnson fell victim to the cocaine plague that hurt so many NBA players. In addition to his intangibles, Wilkes also has a slightly better defensive rep though Johnson was not bad defensively, unlike so many other 80s scorers.

Johnson was the superior scorer both in terms of peak volume and efficiency, with both better range and better finishing ability on the break, Wilkes had a nice post game though. Johnson was also a better rebounder and had better handles and passing ability, although his aggrandizing himself as the first "point foward" seems a stretch when you look at his actual role.

Both played on good teams, Wilkes as one of the sidemen around Rick Barry on the 75 Warriors then as the second leading scorer on the 80 and 82 Lakers teams next to Kareem, Norm Nixon, and Magic before being supplanted by James Worthy. Marques Johnson was the 1st option for almost 7 years on the Don Nelson Bucks teams that consistently were around 50 wins led by Johnson and Sidney Moncrief (Moncrief outscored him a couple of years but that was due to Sid's extraordinary offensive efficiency, Johnson shot the most).

I rate Marques Johnson higher as I value his 1A/1B primacy on very good teams more than Wilkes's third banana role on great ones but I can see arguing the other way.

The intangibles are something I'm really looking for more thoughts on. Wilkes clearly has the edge there, but how big of a deal is it? Was Marques damaging to his team? How damaging?

My general sense is that if Marques was as esteemed as Wilkes as professional this wouldn't be a comparison, but I haven't heard enough that's made me feel like Marques' lack of Hall call can be justified based on actual basketball impact. But maybe I just haven't heard enough yet.

First thing that pops out to me is that I'm going to need some convincing on Bobby Jones. So far people seem to mention him among their locks but right now he's on the outside looking in for me.

The top 6 of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Julius Erving, George Gervin, Artil Gilmore, Bill Walton and Bob McAdoo seem pretty far ahead of everyone else but after that there are quite a few options for the last 4 spots.

Right now I'd round out my list with Spencer Haywood, Dennis Johnson, Marques Johnson and Gus Williams but that leaves Bobby Jones out. I'll be listening to arguments for him to make it and decide from there if I should include him after all.

Dr Positivity wrote:I would rather vote for Gus Williams for example since he was arguably even more important to the Sonics run and he put together a few more good years than Lucas. I get the vibe Bobby Gross was closer to being the Blazers 2nd most impactful player than you might think by looking at the PPG. I thought I read a story once along the lines of Lucas intentionally taking credit for a foul Gross had at one point at the end of the game because he felt Gross was more important to the team than him. Idk, I can’t find the story, and it’s the kind of thing you can take with a grain of salt (on the other hand as mentioned Walton is also high on Lucas) but it stuck with me.

On the importance of these guys, I've already talked about how I see Lucas as basically one of two cornerstones the Blazers built on (3 of you include Jack Ramsay). What about Gus?

I think maybe the most interesting thing about the late '70s Sonics is that we know exactly what made them go from bad to good and when it happened:

Lenny Wilkens took over as coach midseason, promoted Dennis Johnson and Jack Sikma, and the team went from a 5-17 team to one that almost won the championship that exact year, and did win it the next year with Johnson & Sikma as the 2 big minute guys. Gus Williams was a new arrival this year but had been featured from the beginning of the season. He was a major part of that much-worse-than-the-previous-year that resulted in the coaching change.

There's also the matter that the Sonics were winning with defense, and basically all of the major Sonics are showered with defensive praise except Williams - with DJ of course getting tons of a defensive adulation. Williams role was to be the scorer. He did so with an efficiency that left a lot to be desired.

I would definitely put Williams behind Wilkens' featured duo (DJ, Sikma) in importance, and I'd also say that I don't feel like what they did peaked anywhere near as high as the Blazers did. I think against normal levels of elite competition, the Sonics don't win titles (similar to how I saw the Bullets). If I didn't think the Blazers were more than that, I wouldn't be championing Lucas. Perhaps I'm wrong to make this distinction though.

Back to Lucas being the #2 on the Blazers: I don't think it's crazy to argue that someone else had the 2nd most on-court value of the Blazers, but aside from the off-court value, what is clear is that the Blazers won the title relying primarily on Walton & Lucas. Lucas played the most in the regular season by a significant margin, and his MPG only went up in the playoffs (where Walton's MPG went way up and surpassed him).

Dutchball97 wrote:First thing that pops out to me is that I'm going to need some convincing on Bobby Jones. So far people seem to mention him among their locks but right now he's on the outside looking in for me.

Honestly, I bet your not even the only one thinking "Seriously? Y'all rate Bobby Jones THAT highly?" Skepticism is understandable.

In a nutshell, Bobby Jones to me is one of these guys who just seems impossibly optimized for his day. Extreme shooting efficiency, racked up steals/blocks while playing on fundamentally successful defenses. In general seen as someone with extreme motor and superb in-the-moment decision making (two things that unfortunately don't necessarily correlate at all), and a great locker room presence.

Jones would be someone I'd covet for pretty much any team.

Doctor MJ wrote:

eminence wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:.

Considering Gus Williams? On my first glance he was probably at the back end of my 10.

Hard for me to frame a case for him against this bunch. Is there a particular comparison at the forefront of your mind?

Lucas is the guy from your list I'm lowest on (there's a case against Walton too, but that's a completely different one that I'm sure everyone has already made up their mind on).

And he's getting my vote, but way lower on McAdoo than it sounds like some are.