RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 (Jack Sikma)

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,512
And1: 8,154
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 (Jack Sikma) 

Post#1 » by trex_8063 » Mon May 10, 2021 1:07 am

2020 List
1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kevin Garnett
12. Kobe Bryant
13. Jerry West
14. Oscar Robertson
15. Dirk Nowitzki
16. Karl Malone
17. David Robinson
18. Julius Erving
19. George Mikan
20. Moses Malone
21. Charles Barkley
22. Kevin Durant
23. Chris Paul
24. Stephen Curry
25. Bob Pettit
26. John Stockton
27. Steve Nash
28. Dwyane Wade
29. Patrick Ewing
30. Walt Frazier
31. James Harden
32. Scottie Pippen
33. Elgin Baylor
34. John Havlicek
35. Rick Barry
36. Jason Kidd
37. George Gervin
38. Clyde Drexler
39. Reggie Miller
40. Artis Gilmore
41. Dolph Schayes
42. Kawhi Leonard
43. Isiah Thomas
44. Russell Westbrook
45. Willis Reed
46. Chauncey Billups
47. Paul Pierce
48. Gary Payton
49. Pau Gasol
50. Ray Allen
51. Dwight Howard
52. Kevin McHale
53. Manu Ginobili
54. Dave Cowens
55. Adrian Dantley
56. Sam Jones
57. Bob Lanier
58. Dikembe Mutombo
59. Elvin Hayes
60. Paul Arizin
61. Anthony Davis
62. Robert Parish
63. Bob Cousy
64. Alonzo Mourning
65. Nate Thurmond
66. Allen Iverson
67. Tracy McGrady
68. Alex English
69. Vince Carter
70. Wes Unseld
71. Tony Parker
72. Rasheed Wallace
73. Dominique Wilkins
74. Giannis Antetokounmpo
75. Kevin Johnson
76. Bobby Jones
77. Bob McAdoo
78. Shawn Marion
79. Dennis Rodman
80. Larry Nance
81. Ben Wallace
82. Hal Greer
83. Grant Hill
84. Sidney Moncrief
85. Damian Lillard
86. Chris Bosh
87. Horace Grant
88. Jeff Hornacek
89. Billy Cunningham
90. Dan Issel
91. James Worthy
92. Carmelo Anthony
93. Terry Porter
94. Cliff Hagan
95. Nikola Jokic
96. ???

Target stop time around 9pm EST on Tuesday.
Gus Williams, Bill Walton, LaMarcus Aldridge, Connie Hawkins, Dennis Johnson, Jack Sikma, Draymond Green, Bernard King, Dave DeBusschere, and Tom Heinsohn should be in everyone's Condorcet list.

Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

Ambrose wrote:.

Baski wrote:.

bidofo wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

DCasey91 wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

DQuinn1575 wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dutchball97 wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

Franco wrote:.

Gregoire wrote:.

Hal14 wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

iggymcfrack wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

Joe Malburg wrote:.

Joey Wheeler wrote:.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:.

limbo wrote:.

Magic Is Magic wrote:.

Matzer wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Odinn21 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

O_6 wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

PistolPeteJR wrote:.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]
Senior wrote:.

SeniorWalker wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

Whopper_Sr wrote:.

ZeppelinPage wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

876Stephen wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,512
And1: 8,154
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#2 » by trex_8063 » Mon May 10, 2021 1:09 am

1st vote: LaMarcus Aldridge
This was initially almost a coin-flip between him and Webber, but I'm more and more comfortable with it.
I don't think he peaked quite as high (peaking at probably a weak All-NBA 2nd Team level), but he was just so solidly consistent for about 11 straight years. It's left him in fairly high standing in various counting and cumulative metrics, but he also has a handful on years rating out in the top 12-15 of the league in terms of impact (see below).

Where some people try to label LMA as a low-efficiency volume scorer, I'd advise looking to his turnover economy, which is arguably GOAT [like for real: GOAT] among big-men. So his all-around offensive efficiency should be viewed in light of that.

He always struck me as reasonably solid defensively through his prime [above neutral at his worst].

And where some try to label him "empty stats", I'd note that is simply NOT reflected in the actual impact metrics. For instance, I'd note he has NINE seasons >+2 RAPM, and EIGHT above +3.
Below is his league rank in combined PI RAPM by year:
'09: 16th
'10: tied for 18th
'11: 21st
'12 (NPI): tied for 31st
'13: tied for 15th (with All-NBA 1st teamer Tim Duncan)
'14 (NPI): tied for 15th
'15: 25th
'16: 22nd
'17: notable dip (still positive, but no where near top of the league)
'18 (NPI, rs-only): 12th

So that's a solid decade where his impact metrics would fairly consistently posit him as a fringe All-Star at worst (and All-NBA 2nd/3rd team level at best), especially considering he played anywhere from 30.6 to 39.6 mpg [avg of 35.7 mpg] over this decade while missing relatively few games.

tbh, I'm sort of surprised he doesn't have more support. Prior to the start of this current season he:
*Had the 61st-highest career PER of all-time; this while avg >34 mpg in >1000 games.
**Was 61st all-time in career WS.
***Was 90th in career VORP.

And all of this with a decent impact profile (as noted above), while also nabbing SEVEN All-Star selections [in the tough West, too], FIVE All-NBA honors (3x 3rd, 2x 2nd), and THREE top-10 finishes in the MVP vote (for the people placing serious emphasis on media accolades).

Sure just seems like he ticks off more than enough of the necessary boxes for the mid-90s section of the list.



2nd vote: Chris Webber
Short(ish) prime, and certainly under-achieved his potential [though his potential was REALLY damn high]. He's still a very nice peak and top 2-3 years, with some useful years outside of that. An OK [and somewhat versatile] scorer, EXCELLENT passing big-man, very very good rebounder, good defender when engaged (though I'll freely acknowledge he was NOT consistently engaged).
Although he's an under-achiever [boy, this is a lukewarm endorsement!], I think he did enough in his career to warrant consideration here.


3rd vote: Zelmo Beaty
He's been name-dropped [not only be me, as of last thread]. I'm gonna start pushing for him.
The more I look at him, the more underrated he looks. Several really solid NBA season (seemed pretty reliable for around 18-21 pts and 11-14 reb on VERY good shooting efficiency basically all thru the mid-late 60s). What's more is he has a passable to decent defensive reputation (known as a pretty physical [almost "enforcer"-type??] defender).

Then he jumps into the ABA of the early-mid 70s (an ABA that had Rick Barry, Mel Daniels, and Dan Issel, plus Erving, Gilmore, and McGinnis by Zelmo's 2nd season), and he immediately looks like one of its very best players for those first two seasons. By his 3rd season in the ABA [now age 33], he declines to being merely fringe All-Star level.

I'll try to post a little more later, but he just looks like a very solid candidate.
Cheeks, Sikma, and Porter also very close here.

Have updated my list [for Condorcet purposes] to include ANYONE who has received votes of any kind, plus some others who are definitley on my radar:
LMA > Webber > Beaty > Cheeks > Sikma > Lowry > Walker > DeBusschere > Hawkins > Bellamy > Johnston > G.Williams > D.Johnson > Walton > Tiny > Draymond > King > Heinsohn (may change the order on Walton/Tiny as we go along, but this is how I'm currently feeling).
Could also see bumping Hawkins ahead of DeBusschere +/- Walker. DeBusschere pops a little [visually] when I was doing the game log project, though. Admittedly not always in a good way [takes a lot of shots at questionable accuracy]; but holy crap was he active. Rebounds, deflections, assists, points, generally busting plays; and fwiw he was willing/capable of shooting from the outside, so there was at least a little spacing effect. He'd fit nice in the modern league (where era portability is important to anyone).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Hal14
RealGM
Posts: 21,175
And1: 19,691
Joined: Apr 05, 2019

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#3 » by Hal14 » Mon May 10, 2021 1:15 am

Hal14 wrote:1. Dennis Johnson
2. Tiny Archibald
3. Walt Bellamy

Johnson was Finals MVP in 79. The dude was an animal. Flying around the court like a bat outta hell, some of the best defense a guard has ever played. Going all out, hustling, taking it strong to the rim.

Next, let's look at 84. 83-84 was his first year on the Celtics. The year before that in 83 the Celtics got swept in the 2nd round by the Bucks. Yes, KC Jones taking over as coach was a factor as well, but the Celtics adding Johnson was a HUGE reason why they went from being swept in the 2nd round in 83 to NBA world champs beating the Lakers in the finals the very next year in 84 (with Magic and Kareem in their prime).

In both 84 and 86 Johnson was one of the team's top 4 players, came through in the clutch time and time again and Bird is on record saying that Johnson was the best teammate he ever played with (meaning Bird thinks Johnson was better than Parish and Mchale).

https://www.sportscasting.com/larry-bird-reveals-the-best-player-hes-ever-played-with/

Johnson was one of the best defensive guards of all time, easily one of the top 10 defensive guards ever. The guy had very good size and strength at the PG position which made him a tough matchup, early in his career had great explosiveness and athleticism, he could score inside, drive to the basket and as his career went on developed a deadly outside shot - especially in the mid range area, not as much from 3 because at the time 3's weren't being taken very much across the league (early in his career there was no 3 point line), plus he could rebound well, unselfishly looked to get the ball to his teammates but would make you pay dearly if you ignored him too much on offense, plus of course his outstanding defense.

Solid longevity, played 14 seasons (13 of which he played 27+ mins a game and all of them he played in 70+ games) which was solid for that era, especially considering he played in a ton (180 to be exact) of playoff games.

How about durability? The guy always played, he was always in the lineup. Out of his 14 seasons:
-he played 72+ games in 14/14 (100%)
-he played in 77+ games in 12/14 seasons (86%)
-he played in 80+ games in 7/14 seasons (50%)

How about Rasheed's durability?
-he played 72+ games in 14/16 (63%)
-he played in 77+ games in 8/16 seasons (50%)
-he played in 80+ games in 10/16 seasons (13%)

Here's a glimpse into how good Johnson was on defense:


Johnson was as good defensively as any guard to ever play. Only guards I might put over him on D are Jordan, Payton and maybe Frazier.

How clutch was Johnson? Take a look at this huge shot to beat the Lakers in the finals:


Want more clutch plays? Larry Bird made a great steal, but it wouldn't have mattered, the Celtics would have still lost that game (and the series) if Johnson didn't race in towards the basket, catch the ball in traffic and finish over a defender:


Johnson blocked 7 shots in a single NBA finals game (1978)

Johnson won NBA finals MVP (1979)

Johnson hit the first game winning 3-pointer in NBA playoff history (1980)



Celtics got swept in the 2nd round by the Bucks. Then they add DJ to the team and beat the Lakers (with prime Magic and prime Kareem) in the NBA finals in 1984.

If you want a guys who put up some nice advanced stats in an era where advanced stats didn't even exist yet, sure go ahead and vote for Hornacek. But if you want to win, then DJ is your guy.

Dennis Johnson is considered by many to be one of the most underrated players of all time:



https://aminoapps.com/c/hoops/page/blog/most-underrated-nba-player-of-all-time-dennis-johnson/pXNH_Qun5plrpdaKeJJ7JElNaBb8Qez#:~:text=Johnson%20(R.I.P.)%20is%20NBA's%20all,the%20most%20underrated%20player%20ever.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/3584-the-most-underrated-players-in-nba-history

https://www.celticsblog.com/2014/10/20/7012785/celtic-great-dennis-johnson-clutch-underrated

http://loganssportsratings.blogspot.com/2016/08/top-100-nba-players-45-dennis-johnson.html

Tiny is a 6 time all-star, 3x all NBA 1st team, 2x all NBA 2nd team. You want peak? Only player ever to lead the NBA in both scoring and assists in the same season. And he was a key piece on the 1981 NBA championship-winning Celtics. Solid defender. Very few point guards in the history of the game possessed his combination of scoring and distributing. And he did it in an era before it was easier for point guards to dominate the league (like it's been since 2005). He'd be even higher up this list if not for injuries, but still had 13 seasons which is pretty good longevity, especially for that era.

Bellamy was a dominant center who could do it all - hit shots, score with power inside, rebound, defend, run the floor. Good combination of size, strength and skill. Sure, his ability diminished in his later years, but that's why he's not a top 50 player. If you just look at top 1 or 2 years for peak, there are very few centers who can match Bellamy. It's about time he gets voted in:

1/11/24 The birth of a new Hal. From now on being less combative, avoiding confrontation - like Switzerland :)
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 20,202
And1: 26,065
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#4 » by Clyde Frazier » Mon May 10, 2021 2:07 am

Vote 1 - Bernard King
Vote 2 - Chris Webber
Vote 3 - Tiny Archibald

DeBusschere > Bellamy > Beaty > Jerry Lucas > Hagan > Dandridge > Aldridge > Lowry > Gus Williams > Sikma > Dennis Johnson > Hawkins > Johnston > Draymond > Walton > Heinsohn


At his peak, king was one of the most dynamic scorers the league had seen. He was more methodical than flashy, but he knew what he was good at and kept going to it. His turnaround jumper was so lethal that he didn't even have to look at the hoop when releasing the shot. It was all in 1 quick motion where the defender really had no chance to block it. He was also very bull-like in the open court. Not a high leaper, but extremely powerful with long strides getting to the rim.

From 79-85 he put up the following:

Regular Season
23.6 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 3.2 APG, 1.1 SPG, .3 BPG, 55.1% FG, 70.1% FT, 58.7% TS, .153 WS/48, 111 ORtg

Playoffs
30.5 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 2.8 APG, 1 SPG, .3 BPG, 56.8% FG, 72% FT, 60.9% TS, .213 WS/48, 122 ORtg

His prime was obviously cut short by injuries, but he still put together 11 seasons of solid production when it was all said and done. When he tore his ACL, his career was largely thought to be over given the era he played in. He went on to make an improbable comeback which culminated with him getting back to All NBA status in 90-91 with the bullets. I've alluded to this with other players in the project, but the amount of determination it takes to come back from major injuries and still perform at a high level is really impressive.

[As an aside, the Knicks stupidly released him because he wanted to do his rehab on his own instead of at the knicks training facility. Always would've loved to see even a lesser version of King get to play with Ewing. Could've been a great match.]

He was probably best known for his 1st round game 5 clincher against the pistons in 84:

In a critical and decisive Game 5, Bernard King was his usual unstoppable self putting up 40 points as the Knicks held a double-digit lead with under two minutes remaining in the fourth quarter. Then Thomas decided to take things into his own hands by putting on a performance of epic proportions, tallying 16 points within the game’s final 94 seconds, to force overtime. King and Thomas exchanged offensive blows like a heavyweight title fight, with King getting the final blow by jamming an offensive put-back in the games final moments, giving him a game high 46 points and the Knicks a 3-2 series win. King showed a national audience that he would become one of the game’s most prolific scoring machines before injuries robbed him of his explosiveness. Game 5 was also arguably the moment that put a young “Zeke” on par with the NBA’s elite.



http://www.theshadowleague.com/articles/the-epic-battle-of-bernard-king-vs-isiah-thomas

Notice the splints on both of King's hands...



The Knicks would go on to lose to the eventual NBA champion celtics in 7 games, as he played through injuries and still averaged 29.1 PPG on 59.7% TS in the series. The guy was just relentless.

"The key was his preparation," said former Knicks coach and ESPN analyst Hubie Brown.

Part of that preparation included practicing thousands of shots from what King called his "sweet spots." In the half court, he identified three points along the baseline out to the sideline, then extended an imaginary line from a halfway point up the lane to the sideline with three more, then three more extended from the foul line to the sideline. He did the same on the other side of the lane.

Within the lane he identified four spots from the rim to the top of the key. These 22 spots, all within 18 feet of the basket, created a matrix of areas from which he felt supremely confident he could score. If a team tried to deny him the ball on offense, he would move from one sweet spot to another.

"He had the ability to see what all five positions were doing. That's how he could handle double- and triple-teams, because he knew where everyone would be," Brown said. "He knew how to create space for the high-percentage shot or find the guy who was open."


http://espn.go.com/nba/halloffame13/story/_/id/9653879/bernard-king-ahead
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#5 » by HeartBreakKid » Mon May 10, 2021 2:46 am

On my phone so it’s a pain in the ass to vote but -

With the grizzlies all time thread open - I was pondering should Marc Gasol make the cut?
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,512
And1: 8,154
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#6 » by trex_8063 » Mon May 10, 2021 2:48 am

HeartBreakKid wrote:On my phone so it’s a pain in the ass to vote but -

With the grizzlies all time thread open - I was pondering should Marc Gasol make the cut?


He's someone I considered, but he's not quite making the cut for me. He probably makes my top 125, though.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 9,331
And1: 6,928
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#7 » by falcolombardi » Mon May 10, 2021 3:56 am

if jokic has enough longevity to make top 100 should embiid be given serious consideration too?

his longevity is less but the level of play is conparable

he is a name that i think deserves consideration as one of the few (after walton) truly high peak players left

although his limited amount of games even compared to jokic is a issue
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#8 » by HeartBreakKid » Mon May 10, 2021 4:37 am

Jokic was a decent amount better I think the past couple seasons
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,045
And1: 9,705
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#9 » by penbeast0 » Mon May 10, 2021 4:44 am

1. Jack Sikma -- just the kind of guy who you can fit on any squad and creates wins. Not great but very good
2. Draymond Green -- maybe he has been in the prefect situation, maybe he's really that impactful, but you can't choose your situation, just make the best of what you are presented with and he definitely has done that. Sort of this generation's Dennis Rodman.
3. Bob Dandridge -- similarly, a versatile very good 3rd option who could score if needed, play good defense and swing to the 4 (Milwaukee) or 2 (Washington).


4. Chris Webber
5. Walt Bellamy
6. Zelmo Beaty
7. Maurice Cheeks
8. Dennis Johnson
9. Mookie Blaylock
10. Connie Hawkins
Chris Mullin -- smart pure shooter, lead footed wing defender
LaMarcus Aldridge -- long consistent career
Elton Brand -- shorter career, though it peaked higher than Aldridge, lot of bad teams around him
Marques Johnson -- peaked higher than King, shorter career, substance abuse issues
Bernard King -- a couple of great playoff performances, reasonably efficient scorer but brings little else and had substance abuse issues.
Tiny Archibald -- Amazing for a couple of years on Kings, like Isiaih Thomas that year in Boston, but with his lack of defense and the way his scoring game worked, can't really see him as a key ceiling raiser piece.
Dave DeBusschere -- excellent defender, not a long career, poor shooter relative to league
Bill Walton
David Thompson -- Another skywalker, great scorer, but career destroyed by cocaine
Gus Williams -- inefficient volume scorer without great career length
Tommy Heinsohn -- inefficient volume scorer, rep for poor defense, not a good passer, I don't think he makes my top 8 players who played with Russell much less my top 100 (S. Jones, Havlicek, Sharman, Howell, KC Jones, Cousy, Ramsey, Sanders. . . Jim Loscutoff? Larry Siegfried?).

GUARDS
Dennis Johnson, Gus Williams, Mookie Blaylock, Maurice Cheeks, Nate Archibald

Cheeks (low volume) and Archibald (high volume) are the only ones with significantly positive efficiency, with the other three down below league average during their 5 year primes. DJ has the big rep, both on defense and in awards, Mookie also had a great defensive rep and was ahead of his time shooting low percentage from 2 but a lot of 3's, Cheeks is another very good defender. Cheeks, Blaylock, and Gus Williams generated assists like point guards, DJ didn't. Tiny is the best floor raiser but probably the worst ceiling raiser which I tend to value more.

I rate them:
1. Cheeks -- good defense, leadership, efficient scoring though at low volume, I have to say I'd rather have him as my PG than any of the others except in unusual situations and I don't see DJ as a good enough shooting guard for his ability to guard wings to rate him higher.
2a. DJ -- tempted to go Mookie here but DJ's versatility on the defensive end (and face it, if they are getting any traction it's on their defense) give him the edge despite Mookie's playmaking and range (tempted AGAIN to switch this!)
2b. Blaylock -- spread the floor and played great defense, very modern player. Got assists but not a great creator, scored nearly as much as DJ but no more efficient despite his 3 point range.
4. Nate Archibald -- Isiaih in Boston showed you can compete with a Tiny type PG as the main man, though it's hard. He did show a willingness to sacrifice his personal game for team goals when he went to Boston and his peers rated him highly there.
Gus Williams -- poor efficiency hurts the guy whose game was most built around volume scoring the most.

WINGS
Draymond Green really plays like a 3/4 type, just the system uses him at the 4 and 5 but these are more his peers. Same for DeBusschere who even played some 2 in Detroit. These are the two best defenders, Green the most impactful AND the best playmaker which moves him to the top of these rankings. DeBusschere's shooting is just too ugly to compete at this level despite his rep. Dandridge is the most versatile of the rest, playing 4 in Milwaukee and 2 in Washington as well as the 3. He is an all-defense candidate, which none of the rest can claim while also an excellent 3rd, passible second option scorer on decent efficiency. He did whine in Milwaukee but was a class pro after that in Washington. Marques Johnson, Bernard King, and Chris Mullin all had some strong offensive years, Marques was the only one not a weak defender but also the shortest career of the 3. All efficient volume scorers, none played that long, King had some nice playoff runs. Both Marques Johnson and Bernard King had substance abuse issues and Chris Mullin had one of the ugliest haircuts ever seen outside of boot camp. Close between the 3. Connie Hawkins and David Thompson both would easily have been top 100 player but for injuries (Hawk) and drugs (skywalker).

BIG MEN
Walt Bellamy was a true 1960 (and 70s) center. Good scorer, not a particularly good defender or passer, had a MONSTER rookie year on a super weak expansion team (in the league's most inflated year) then declined from that point on. A rep as being annoying in the locker room and showing up overweight. By the numbers, he's clearly the choice.

Sikma, Webber, Brand all F/C types. Webber and Brand also decent rim protectors though overall Sikma had the only All-Defense award. Sikma and Webber good (some say great) big man passers. Efficiency, Brand was decent, Sikma average, Webber below average; Webber the volume scorer, then Brand and Sikma. Walton just didn't have enough peak seasons.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
sansterre
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,312
And1: 1,816
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#10 » by sansterre » Mon May 10, 2021 11:55 am

#1. Draymond Green - Draymond is a weird player to evaluate. Normally I'm big on longevity and Draymond is still playing. But his peak (by certain metrics) was crazy. He's an insane ceiling raiser, like Ben Wallace but better. And unlike the Ben Wallace argument "Yeah, but having him kills your offense" you really can't argue that for Draymond. Because he was on a lot of extremely strong offenses. He wasn't a great scorer by a long shot, but he was an outstanding passer. A lot of people don't realize that Draymond often averaged more Assists/100 than Curry did (the two were neck and neck during their peak years). So despite not being a good scorer (and he was okay, averaging around league average shooting on high teens usage) he actually tended toward being a net positive on offense from all the impact data we have. And his ability to play a hyper-aware long-armed center in a lineup of all athletic wings (and Curry) transformed the Warriors. I'm not making any argument that Green is as valuable to the Warriors as Curry was. But his AuRPM numbers actually come out looking really close to Curry, and in 2017 were above Durant in both AuRPM and RAPM.

The Warriors from 2015 to 2018 were four of the best teams ever and every impact metric we have suggests that Draymond was a very close 2nd in value on three of them. Unlike shot-blocking bigs like Embiid and Gobert, Draymond's defensive value tends to go up in the playoffs. Because smart switchability is a serious asset in playoff defense and Draymond has that as well as anyone.

Do I have him too high here? Maybe. His 2016 PIPM kind of broke my metric. But the impact metrics scream that he was one of the most valuable players in the league during his peak.

Was he a crap floor-raiser? Definitely. And if you like floor-raisers or wins-added, then Draymond is probably far lower on your list.

But we have to make our peace with the fact that he may have been one of the greatest ceiling-raisers ever. And there's some serious value there. From a CORP point of view, he has a pretty respectable argument.

#2. Kyle Lowry - This may seem incongruous, but Kyle Lowry has some pretty strong selling points. His career has actually been quietly impressive. He's got four different 10+ Win Share seasons and over 30k career minutes. He's got four seasons above 4.5 VORP. Did you know that of all active NBA players he's currently 11th in Win Shares and VORP? These are respectably impressive stats. But would you believe that Kyle Lowry's impact metrics are outstanding? He put up a +4.5 AuRPM in 2014, a +4.6 AuRPM in 2015, a +6.5 in 2016 (10th in the league) and a +6.3 in 2017 (6th). His RAPM in 2018 (including playoffs) was 6th in the league (ESPN's RPM has him #1), ESPN's RPM has him 5th in 2019 and it has him 6th in 2020. By Impact metrics, Kyle Lowry's been a Top 10 player in the league for the past five years.

How is this possible? After all, Lowry is a good offensive player but not great. He's pretty consistently in the low 20s for usage and his shooting was only around +3 or +4 in his five-year peak. How good can he be? But he's also a weirdly quality rebounder. Kyle Lowry may be the best rebounding six footer ever (not a huge claim to fame, but still). He has eight different seasons at 7% TRB or higher, while no other six footer has more than 4. You could argue that he's a rebound-chaser, but his impact metrics suggest that isn't the case. He's a strong floor spacer (half his shots are threes and he made them at 38% over the last ten seasons) and a strong passer (passer ratings at 6.5 or higher from Ben Taylor). I won't argue that he has the offensive impact of a Lillard (though he surely has more longevity). But unlike Lillard, Lowry is a strong defender, generally considered an underrated team defender with a knack for drawing charges. And if he's an actual plus on defense (as most metrics consider him) that means he doesn't need to be as good on offense for the same level of impact.

Has he struggled in the playoffs historically? Yes. But no more than Lillard has, and Dame has been getting a fair amount of love in these votes. And recently Lowry has turned it around in the postseason, posting the 4th best RAPTOR-WAR in the '19 playoffs (+6.6 average) and 5th best in the '20 playoffs (+9.3).

Like Porter, like a lot of guys I champion, he's not super-sexy. But he's had a long career and a strong peak. Instead of being an all-offense chucker he's good at everything, and was a key piece in leading the Raptors to their first ever NBA title. Maybe he deserves some love too. :)

#3. Walt Bellamy - If ever a player was optimized to show up well in the limited stats we have from the first two decades of the league, Walt Bellamy is it. His Win Share CORP absolutely blows everyone else out of the water. He put up seven different 10+ Win Share seasons, including a 16 WS rookie year (where he was 2nd in the league). Like Bob McAdoo and Tiny Archibald he hit the league hard, put up a lot of great seasons, but peaked early and was regressing hard by the time he approached his late 20s/early 30s. Bellamy was a monster scorer, perhaps the best scoring big of the 60s besides . . . some guy I can't remember. Bellamy routinely took 25+% of his shots and made them in the +6% to +8% range, which is really good (especially for the 60s). He was also a strong rebounder (not great). Detractors would argue that he didn't really port his performance into the playoffs well, that he wasn't often a motivated defender and that the Knicks took off once they traded him. As to the first two points that's fair, but I don't agree with the last one. Bellamy was built to be a floor-raiser, a guy who could take a lot of shots (and make them well) no matter what the defense did to stop him. But the Knicks had Clyde Frazier *and* Willis Reed *and* Cazzie Russell. They didn't need a floor-raising scorer, they needed a ceiling-raising defender and they got a great one in Dave DeBusschere (incidentally, the change in the Knicks as a result of the Bellamy -> DeBusschere swap is literally the perfect example of the flaws in the "first option uber alles" philosophy of player evaluation. Bellamy had a long career (for that era), during which he put up Top 6 numbers in points five times. A lot of his other metrics aren't great; his WOWYR is low, his playoff metrics aren't great (of course, he didn't make the playoffs at his peak) and the BackPicks BPM doesn't like him much. But his Win Shares are fantastic. Again, he's like Tiny/McAdoo if their peaks had gone way longer. He's not the kind of player I normally like, but the sheer weight of his scoring and performance on weaker teams merits consideration.

D.Green > Kyle Lowry > Bellamy > Eddie Jones > Z.Beaty > A.Kirilenko > M.Cheeks > S.Kemp > B.Walton > P.George > LaMarcus Aldridge > Webber > Sikma > A.Iguodala > Schrempf > G.Williams > Lucas > A.Hardaway > D.DeBusschere > J.Butler > M. Johnson > B.King > D.Johnson > C.Hawkins > M.Price > C.Mullin > N.Johnston > K.Irving > Heinsohn > K.Thompson > Archibald
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."

"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
Dutchball97
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,406
And1: 5,001
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#11 » by Dutchball97 » Mon May 10, 2021 1:34 pm

1. Gus Williams - While another voter already has Dennis Johnson on his ballot, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned his teammate on the 79 champion Supersonics yet tbh. Gus Williams was only a 2 time All-Star so I understand he might fly under the radar for some people but this massively undervalues him. His prime quality and duration really isn't much different than Ben Wallace. It maybe shouldn't be a surprise I'm this high on Gus WIlliams because I've consistently put a big emphasis on play-off performance and Gus was a post-season savant who consistently stepped his game up when it counted most. After being the best player for the 78 Sonics that lost game 7 of the finals, he went on to post a 23.8 PER, .210 WS/48 and 6.7 BPM alongside a league leading 2.7 WS and 1.3 VORP on the way to a championship the next year. That isn't the end of Gus Williams being amazing in the play-offs though. In the 1980, 82, 83 and 84 post-seasons he had 20+ PER, .150+ WS/48 and 6+ BPM in every single one of those campaigns.

2. Draymond Green - Looking at just his regular season numbers I'd expect to see him near the bottom of my list but the part he played in the Warriors dynasty is severely underrated. Dray has been both the primary playmaker and the defensive anchor for the Warriors for a long time now. Where Draymond really shines is the play-offs though. I'm not sure if anyone is aware but in his 7 post-seasons Dray has never had a DBPM below 3. DBPM isn't a perfect stat but it generally gives a decent indication of a player's defense and Dray has been elite in it every single year. Draymond was a massive part of getting the Warriors to 5 straight finals, accumulating 2+ WS and 1+ VORP in all of those campaigns.

3. Anfernee Hardaway - Penny has a pretty short prime but it's more of a Grant Hill case where they still have high level seasons after their major injuries instead of a Bill Walton or Connie Hawkins who really fell off quick. Penny's peak in 1996 overall was very strong and despite losing to the Heat in the first round the next year, he was clearly the best player in that series. He also pretty much always showed up in the play-offs. When he was 30 he was pretty much done though and was an average player at best in the regular season but even then he showed up strong in the 03 and 04 play-offs when he was 31 and 32 respectively. He's a fringe top 100 guy who will likely just miss the cut due to questionable longevity but I think it's nevertheless worth it to give him his due here.

Jimmy Butler > Zelmo Beaty > Paul George > Kyle Lowry > Marques Johnson > Jerry Lucas > Neil Johnston > Walt Bellamy > Chris Webber > Bill Sharman > Bob Dandridge > Maurice Cheeks > Jack Sikma > Frank Ramsey > Andrei Kirilenko > Eddie Jones > LaMarcus Aldridge > Bernard King > Bill Walton > Connie Hawkins > Dennis Johnson > Tom Heinsohn > Dave DeBusschere > Tiny Archibald
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#12 » by HeartBreakKid » Mon May 10, 2021 2:40 pm

Criteria

Spoiler:
I'm a pretty big peak guy, I'm not that interested in value of total seasons. The value of multiple seasons to me is to give me a greater sample size to understanding how good they were on the court, not necessarily the totality of their impact through out the years.

I also value impact over all else, and I define impact as the ability to help a team win games. Boxscore stats, team accolades and individual accolades (unless I agree with them personally) have very little baring on my voting so some names will look a bit wonky. The reason why I ignore accolades and winningness is because basketball is a team game and the players are largely not in control of the quality of their teammates or the health of their team (or their own personal health in key moments), thus I don't see the value of rating players based on xx has this many MVPs versus this guy has this many rings. In addition, I simply find this type of analysis boring because it's quite easy to simply look at who has a bigger laundry list of accomplishments.



1) Bill Walton. He is the best player by far here. He was probably a top 3 player in the world during his last couple years in college as well, though I believe this is NBA only. I am quite certain that Bill Walton is a top 20 peak ever. He is a top ten defensive anchor which alone adds more value than anyone left, and his offensive passing can generate very efficient offenses without him needing to score.

2) Elton Brand. Brand was a consistent 20/10 guy for 8 seasons with decent passing and legit shot creation. He was also a good defender, perhaps not as good as his shot blocks suggest - and likely over shadowed cause his prime coincided with some freak defenders at PF like Garnett, Duncan and to a lesser extend Rasheed Wallace. However, for the longevity heads who like to add the value of players careers, I feel like 8 seasons of 20/10/2.5/2 is pretty damn hard to beat at this point. Not to mention the guy had a great peak, maybe not Bill Walton good but he was a 25 PPG and 2.5 BPG player at his peak, this is at a time when scoring wasn't easy either. He only has a sample size of one playoff run in his prime, and in that run he nearly made the Western Conference finals and he was incredible in both series against Denver and Phoenix.

3) Draymond Green. Decided to bump him in over Mel Daniels, Beaty and Butler. I feel like his defense is just on another tier from most of the other DPOY guys left (including Daniels). On top of that, he can also scale up his defense in the playoffs, Bill Russell style. His playmaking is really legitimately great. He makes fast decisions with the ball and can accurately hit cutters - he's not just a drive and kick to Steph Curry kind of guy. Draymond on the fast break is a real joy to watch, and his offensive impact is very underrated even during his "bad" years. No doubt his scoring is pretty much non existent, but in his peak he could at least hit a 3 pointer which is nice.




Names in bold are new additions to my list.



Green > Butler > P Hardaway > Beaty > Hawkins > G Williams > King > Webber > Dennis Johnson > Ramsey > Lowry > Sikma > Archibald > Aldridge > Lucas > Heinsohn > Bellamy > Johnston > DeBusschere > Dandridge
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,512
And1: 8,154
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#13 » by trex_8063 » Tue May 11, 2021 1:05 am

ZeppelinPage wrote:.


It's a pretty impressive and impassioned case you've made for Tom Heinsohn in prior threads. Though I'm going to provide some counterpoints to illustrate why I think he's misplaced in the conversation....


Re: Defense
It's interesting that you've described him in such glowing terms as a defender. tbh, I've NEVER heard/read that about him previously; in fact, the OPPOSITE is the narrative I've heard more often (heck, see penbeast0's comments on his vote-post as an example: weak defensively is more the usual commentary).

Red Auerbach was complimentary about his defense.......I'm uncertain how much credence I should give to that. On the one hand, Red is someone I would trust to recognize good defense [and certainly one who recognizes the value of it]; but on the other hand he is also someone you'd expect to be excessively complimentary of Heinsohn [given their professional relationship].

For myself [on my limited eye-test], I never thought Heinsohn looked bad defensively. Can't say I thought him a notably GOOD one either, but he did not appear a notable liability to me on my sample (which is about 2 full games [played from '62-'65], fully logged as part of my game log project).
While I don't overtly disagree with some of the specific abilities you've attributed to him, I will say I am skeptical as to the degree to which he had or was able to leverage these abilities.
I'd be more apt to label him a basically neutral defender [or small positive at best].


Re: "relentless rebounder" (who solved much of their rebounding woes)
No question he helped some in this regard (having Ed Macauley replaced at center helps even more).
However, the fact of the matter is that Heinsohn's rebounding rates were pretty pedestrian for a PF [or combo forward who played mostly PF] of that day.
In terms of reb/100 possessions, his peak year was his rookie season [perhaps because Russell missed a third of the year??], at an estimated 13.35 reb/100. It would fall to 12.3 the following year, and would never again crack the 12-reb mark, hovering around 11.5 thru '62, before then falling to <11 [and as low as just 8.65] for his last three seasons.

For comparison.....
*Cliff Hagan [a 6'4" SF] averaged anywhere from 8.75 to 13.0 reb/100 from '57-'62.
**Bailey Howell [same height and position as Heinsohn (perhaps playing marginally more SF)] in his first three seasons ('60-'62) averaged between 13.1 to 14.3 reb/100.
***Neil Johnston [a C, though only 1" taller and slighter in frame] in his final three seasons ('57-'59) averaged between 13.4 and 15.0 reb/100.
****Rudy LaRusso [same height and position] in his first three seasons ['60-'62] averaged between 11.6 and 12.85 reb/100.
*****Vern Mikkelsen [same height and position] in his final three seasons ['57-'59] averaged 11.1 to 13.6 reb/100.
******Bob Pettit between '57-'62 averaged between 16.9 and 19.3 reb/100; in his final three seasons he averaged 16.0, 15.55, and 14.8 reb/100, respectively [whereas Heinsohn averaged 10.7, 8.65, and 9.1 in the same three years, and retiring at the same time].
******Dolph Schayes [maybe 1" taller] from '57-'62 averaged between 11.05 and 15.1 reb/100 (out-rebounding Heinsohn in EACH of those six years except '62 [33-year-old Schayes was marginally outrebounded by 27-year-old Heinsohn]).
*******Elgin Baylor [a 6'5" SF] averaged between 15.3 and 17.75 reb/100 from ‘59-’62 (and would rebound at a higher rate than Heinsohn in EACH of the seven years their careers overlap).

Nearly any center [except Macauley] was rebounding at a higher rate, too.

Suffice to say that his rebounding rates throughout his prime were nothing special at all for a PF (and were actually kinda poor during his last 2-3 seasons).


Re: Passing
Here again is something I've never heard anyone claim: that Heinsohn was a relevant force as a passer/playmaker. I watched the one gif linked of that nice pass [and it IS a beauty]. However, I was fairly recently watching a game from the '83 Bucks/Sixers series, and there was one play where Moses [from the high-post/elbow] made beautiful bounce-pass delivery to a back-cutting guard for a lay-up [and/or foul, I can't remember].
I mean, it was a BEAUTIFUL pass. But I don't want to read too much into that one play......I've also seen Moses force up a contested fade-away from a triple-team at 13-14' from the basket with about 10 seconds left on the shot-clock and a teammate breaking open in the paint, while also knowing that he never cracked 2 apg [not once] and has a career Ast:TO ratio below 0.5.

Heinsohn's Ast/100 possessions never cracked 3.0 until his final two seasons [ranged between 1.8 to 2.9 for his first seven (even Moses had a career 1.9 Ast/100)].
So I feel making too much a thing about his passing is probably over-selling things.


Re: Scoring/shooting
Heinsohn definitely liked to shoot. And I generally agree that the [at times] limited spacing as well as the hurried pace Red mandated specifically dictated lots of mid-range/outside shots (and/or other relatively low-% shots).....which is going to have an effect on the primary scorers.

However, the hurried pace factor in particular is going to much more preferentially be damaging the efficiency of the primary scorers who ALSO have the ball in their hands a lot [i.e. the ball-handlers].....Bob Cousy more than anyone, but to a lesser degree Jones, maybe Hondo, Sharman, or KC (Heinsohn arguably less so).
Also, it shouldn’t be totally overlooked that he played alongside one of the very best playmakers of the day for 7 of his 9 seasons.

Heinsohn shot a lot: based on his pts/100 possessions and efficiency, it’s clear his usage was >20% ALL NINE years of his career (and probably in the neighborhood of 28% usage in ‘62 and ‘63, though mostly in the lower to mid 20s the rest of his career), but rarely on even passable/decent efficiency: in nine years in the league, he has just TWO seasons where his rTS% is positive [barely, peaking at +0.71%].
He was at least a slight negative the other seven years, and kinda substantially so in ‘61 [-1.89% rTS], ‘64 [-2.73%], and ‘65 [-4.66%].

He does at least space the floor some [which you noted], as he was willing/able to shoot from distance [or what passed as reasonable “distance” for a big in the pre-3pt line era]: in the two full games equivalent I logged, more than a third [12 of 35, to be precise] of his shot attempts came from >16’ from the basket.

Overall…..we’re talking about a perhaps marginally undersized PF [who maybe plays a spot of SF here and there]; someone with moderate-high usage on middling [to poor] shooting efficiency, though providing some “stretch-4” spacing; someone providing middling [to slightly poor] rebounding for a PF/combo forward; someone with limited/negligible impact passing; and perhaps a neutral(ish) defender (I might just have to hedge away from your opinion on that).

If I was looking for someone who reasonably fits that description in today’s league, we’d be talking about someone like…….Tobias Harris, perhaps? (even has the same initials and same length career!)

Major differences being that I’d give Heinsohn the benefit of the doubt on being marginally better defensively, though Harris is the little more efficient scorer. Harris has managed his in a more talented/competitive league environment [imo]. Heinsohn was more “NBA-ready” right off the bat, and was also fortunate to land in a circumstance where he could be a contributor to the most successful team sports dynasty of all-time [which isn't a worthless detail].

But that’s nonetheless basically the calibre of player in the late 50s/early 60s NBA that we’re talking about.

You can say, “but Heinsohn was a 6-time All-Star and 4 times All-NBA 2nd Team [vs zero for Harris].”
But for the entirety of Heinsohn’s career the Eastern Division was just four teams…….so even though they only selected 10 All-Stars per squad, that means that half [literally HALF!] of all Eastern Division starters were “All-Stars”.
All-NBA 2nd Team is obviously a bigger deal, though it ultimately still only means somewhere between the top 6-11% of the league [roughly]. You know what a fringe top 10th-11th percentile player is in TODAY’s league? That’s a top 45-50 player in the league.
A fringe top 6% player is basically a fringe top-25 player (a fringe All-Star, in other words).

So somewhere between fringe top-25 and top-50 player in today’s league?.......that’s sounding not terribly unlike a Tobias Harris calibre player, too.


Consequently, I’m just not seeing a good case for Heinsohn, despite the legacy he gets to be a part of.
How can I justify putting him ahead of someone like Jack Sikma, for example?

Who was the better scorer? Hard to say…...Heinsohn certainly seems a little more willing/able to take tough shots or create for himself. Sikma’s peak usage was 23.6% [career avg of 20.6%].....Heinsohn probably AVERAGED around 24-25% for his entire career. On the other hand, Sikma averaged approximately +0.5% rTS for his entire career; Heinsohn averaged out about -1% (and many would be hyper-critical of Heinsohn shooting so much on such lackluster efficiency).
And he’s got nothing on Sikma in terms of floor-spacing, as Sikma had a solid mid-range shot by the early 80s, and developed into a legitimate 3pt threat by ‘89 (before “stretch bigs” were a thing encouraged or sought after, and when the 3pt line was little more than a gimmick).
Overall, I certainly don’t think any edge Heinsohn might have over Sikma as a scorer is more than marginal [that he has an edge AT ALL is highly debatable].

Who’s the better passer? I’m comfortably giving this one to Sikma, who was quite good at hitting cutters, and averaged 4.5 ast/100 possessions for his entire career (has FIVE seasons of 5+). Heinsohn’s single-season BEST ast/100 estimate is 3.6 in his final season…...Sikma’s rookie season is the only year in which he did NOT exceed that figure.

Who’s the better rebounder? Rather easily Sikma, I would say: Sikma’s career avg reb/100 is 14.0…...recall above I noted Heinsohn’s single-season BEST was 13.35 (and this in an era where there were more rebounds to be had, due to lower shooting %’s).

Who is the better team defender? Certainly this is debatable, and we have much more limited information to go by where Heinsohn is concerned. As noted previously, your opinion wrt his defense is a pinch excessive relative to what I’ve ever heard for him in the past (or relative to what I’ve thought in watching him myself). Fwiw, Sikma was a part of multiple solid defenses and was once awarded All-Defensive 2nd Team [despite NOT being a shot-blocker]. He appears to be a fundamentally sound post and team defender.
At the very least, Heinsohn cannot be given any significant edge [and personally I’d hedge toward Sikma being the better defensive player].


I “add up” these game components, and I’m led to believe Sikma was a better all-around player within their respective league environments. And speaking of league environments, who played in the tougher era? Personally, I’m very comfortably going with Sikma, whose entire career is post-merger.

Who has the better longevity? Obviously Sikma by a comfortable margin.

He also has more All-Star selections, fwiw, despite playing in a time when one had to do FAR better than just be a top-half starter in your conference.
He’s got more MVP award shares, too.
He was a key piece of a title team…..

….idk, for me, he blows Heinsohn out of the water.


Or how about vs LaMarcus Aldridge?
Scoring:
Aldridge has had a couple seasons with usage around 30%, and averaged 25.9% for his career…...that marginally EXCEEDS the reasonable estimates for Heinsohn. And he did so while also maintaining rTS% averages that marginally exceed Heinsohn’s, as well.
And then there’s turnover efficiency to consider…….obviously we don’t know for sure what Heinsohn’s was, but it’s a safe bet that it’s inferior to Aldridge’s [which is GOAT-tier among bigs].
Aldridge also provides the same spacing benefit, as he practically lives outside of 15’ and makes them at a respectable clip.
Overall edge in scoring I have to give to LMA, even if the margin isn’t huge.

Rebounding:
LMA peaked at 15.5 reb/100, and has a career avg of 12.6 rebs/100 (in an era where there are fewer to be had). So I’m comfortable giving him a small edge over Heinsohn here, too.

Passing:
Here I might give a tiny edge to Heinsohn [though I suppose it’s debatable, given LMA has averaged 3.0 Ast/100 for his career, and again: the turnover thing]. At any rate, if Heinsohn has an edge here, it’s of negligible value.

Other defense:
LMA is certainly a more relevant rim-protector, and has been a generally solid defender throughout his prime (DRAPM will solidly back this claim, fwiw). I’d be inclined to give Aldridge at least a small edge here.

Someone will likely claim Heinsohn is a better teammate. OK, you might have me there. Is it enough to offset the fact that Aldridge appears [in almost all ways] the clearly better basketball player? imo, no.

And LMA in a more competitive era, too.

He has more All-Star selections than Heinsohn [despite the aforementioned era considerations, AND noting these all came in the brutal Western Conference], AND more All-NBA selections.

His longevity is notably better as well.


Where does Heinsohn’s claim in this comparison come from, except to note the “8 rings” argument? As far as I can tell, there’s literally nothing else to hang one’s hat on in this particular comp.


Apologies if this seems like I’m poo-pooing all over Heinsohn. It’s not my intention; he’s certainly a VERY relevant player historically. I just don’t think he has a good claim on top 100 status…..not with so many of these other players still on the table.
That’s my 2c anyway….
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,512
And1: 8,154
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#14 » by trex_8063 » Tue May 11, 2021 1:07 am

Thru post #13:

LaMarcus Aldridge - 1 (trex_8063)
Gus Williams - 1 (Dutchball97)
Bernard King - 1 (Clyde Frazier)
Draymond Green - 1 (sansterre)
Jack Sikma - 1 (penbeast0)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Dennis Johnson - 1 (Hal14)


About 24 hours left for this one.

Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

Ambrose wrote:.

Baski wrote:.

bidofo wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

DCasey91 wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

DQuinn1575 wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dutchball97 wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

Franco wrote:.

Gregoire wrote:.

Hal14 wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

iggymcfrack wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

Joe Malburg wrote:.

Joey Wheeler wrote:.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:.

limbo wrote:.

Magic Is Magic wrote:.

Matzer wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Odinn21 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

O_6 wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

PistolPeteJR wrote:.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]
Senior wrote:.

SeniorWalker wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

Whopper_Sr wrote:.

ZeppelinPage wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

876Stephen wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
prolific passer
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,137
And1: 1,455
Joined: Mar 11, 2009
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#15 » by prolific passer » Tue May 11, 2021 1:47 am

Idk about Heinsohn's defense as he had Bill Russell, )Loscutoff, and Satch Sanders alongside him. I always heard and read that he guarded Hagan in their finals matchups and Hagan averaged more ppg, rpg, and shot better than Tommy in those finals.
User avatar
ZeppelinPage
Head Coach
Posts: 6,418
And1: 3,386
Joined: Jun 26, 2008
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#16 » by ZeppelinPage » Tue May 11, 2021 6:56 am

trex_8063 wrote:Re: DefenseIt's interesting that you've described him in such glowing terms as a defender. tbh, I've NEVER heard/read that about him previously; in fact, the OPPOSITE is the narrative I've heard more often (heck, see penbeast0's comments on his vote-post as an example: weak defensively is more the usual commentary).


Where have you read this? I've only seen mentions of his offense, and less on his defense (probably because he wasn't especially flashy there). But the example I used was straight from Red Auerbach's own book. Seems a pretty good source to me. Which leads me to my next point:

Red Auerbach was complimentary about his defense.......I'm uncertain how much credence I should give to that. On the one hand, Red is someone I would trust to recognize good defense [and certainly one who recognizes the value of it]; but on the other hand he is also someone you'd expect to be excessively complimentary of Heinsohn [given their professional relationship].


I highly disagree with throwing Red's opinion out the window when he was always a no non-sense type of guy. He was never afraid to call players out and speak the truth (he did so with both Cousy and Heinsohn early in their career, routinely putting their defensive performances and hustle on blast.) In Basketball for The Player, The Fan, and The Coach, he specifically mentions Heinsohn among Tom Sanders and Jim Loscutoff. No mention of Sam Jones or any other average to poor defensive players. Why? Because they weren't very good on that side of the ball.

I see no reason why Red would not only mention Heinsohn as a good defender (after both had retired), but also consistently give him minutes throughout his career if he was so average at everything but rebounding (Auerbach was not a fan of a poor defender that didn't hustle, to say the least.)

So, not only to we have the coach calling Heinsohn a good defender, but the stats also back it up:

As I noted in my original post, the '57 Celtics were allowing 99 points a game and were among the best defensive teams in the entire league with Sharman healthy. Heinsohn was the biggest addition, and must have been a clear plus if they were this good on defense even before Bill Russell joined the team. The '56 Celtics were near the bottom in defense, Heinsohn joins the team and they get significantly better all the sudden--not just from bad to average, but from bad to one of the best in the league at the time. It's also worth noting that after Heinsohn retired, the Celtics dropped by nearly 3 points in relDRtg, with no other major players leaving the team. Again, lining up with his '57 season, this seems like another indicator of his abilities.

For myself [on my limited eye-test], I never thought Heinsohn looked bad defensively. Can't say I thought him a notably GOOD one either, but he did not appear a notable liability to me on my sample (which is about 2 full games [played from '62-'65], fully logged as part of my game log project).
While I don't overtly disagree with some of the specific abilities you've attributed to him, I will say I am skeptical as to the degree to which he had or was able to leverage these abilities.
I'd be more apt to label him a basically neutral defender [or small positive at best].


Respectfully, I have more than a limited eye-test--I have watched and analyzed basically every piece of 50s/60s Celtics game footage (not highlights) in existence many times over--which includes tracking things like Bob Cousy's shot profile and defensive plays. Which is why I feel like what Auerbach is saying in his book is generally backed up through film. I also feel that I have shown a pretty wide array of Heinsohn's abilities in clips (stealing off swipes, playing for the ball in air, blocking Jerry West, positioning himself well).

Part of your sample includes the '63 Finals, which was from the very game I used of him stealing a Jerry West pass with 2-minutes left. In that game he had 2 steals, 1 block (on West), and 2 offensive fouls drawn. He isn't some kind of lock-down man defender but he is solid, can rebound, and takes swipes and pokes the ball free more than most other defenders. He could make plays and I think that's why he was so beneficial in Auerbach's eyes.

So, overall--I have shown a source (his coach), stats (the defensive ratings of the Celtics), and film to back up my point. I feel like I have provided a good amount of evidence here, most specifically on his defensive play. If you're going to say Auerbach was biased and not take him seriously, nothing I can do about that. But him puffing up Heinsohn just because he knows the guy doesn't seem like something Red would do. I think it's more likely he genuinely believed Heinsohn was good on defense, and he coached him up to be that way--just like he did with other players. Film backs up that he was a plus defender that could get steals and blocks.

Re: "relentless rebounder" (who solved much of their rebounding woes)
No question he helped some in this regard (having Ed Macauley replaced at center helps even more).
However, the fact of the matter is that Heinsohn's rebounding rates were pretty pedestrian for a PF [or combo forward who played mostly PF] of that day.
In terms of reb/100 possessions, his peak year was his rookie season [perhaps because Russell missed a third of the year??], at an estimated 13.35 reb/100. It would fall to 12.3 the following year, and would never again crack the 12-reb mark, hovering around 11.5 thru '62, before then falling to <11 [and as low as just 8.65] for his last three seasons.


This can pretty easily be explained by the fact that he played with one of the greatest rebounders of all-time--none of the players you listed are. Obviously Russell hauling down rebounds is going to impact Heinsohn's rebounding numbers. Heinsohn had pretty great rebounding numbers per 36 while playing next to Russell. In '60, he was 17th among players over 1000 minutes per 36 in TRB, the highest besides Russell on the Celtics. It makes sense that other players were putting up higher rebound numbers, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were better. The fact that he was averaging that many rebounds next to Russell is pretty impressive actually. Playing next to Russell would also make sense as to why his rebounding was so high in his rookie year. Him dropping would also make sense when Tom Sanders joins and begins getting minutes as well which definitely impacted his TRB numbers. Auerbach himself was not playing him because he was "nothing special" at rebounding, he has praised Heinsohn's rebounding ability many times. Through film you can see the pure talent of Heinsohn at rebounding, especially offensive rebounding. I would also like to note that the amount of jumpers Heinsohn was taking was also making it harder to offensive rebound. Which is why watching film is important, because he definitely stands out when underneath the basket fighting for boards.

Re: Passing
Here again is something I've never heard anyone claim: that Heinsohn was a relevant force as a passer/playmaker. I watched the one gif linked of that nice pass [and it IS a beauty]. However, I was fairly recently watching a game from the '83 Bucks/Sixers series, and there was one play where Moses [from the high-post/elbow] made beautiful bounce-pass delivery to a back-cutting guard for a lay-up [and/or foul, I can't remember].
I mean, it was a BEAUTIFUL pass. But I don't want to read too much into that one play......I've also seen Moses force up a contested fade-away from a triple-team at 13-14' from the basket with about 10 seconds left on the shot-clock and a teammate breaking open in the paint, while also knowing that he never cracked 2 apg [not once] and has a career Ast:TO ratio below 0.5.

Heinsohn's Ast/100 possessions never cracked 3.0 until his final two seasons [ranged between 1.8 to 2.9 for his first seven (even Moses had a career 1.9 Ast/100)].
So I feel making too much a thing about his passing is probably over-selling things.


I think the point of me talking about his passing ability was more to show he could definitely make passes and was a skilled overall player. Many like to think of him as some role player that could only shoot but that couldn't be further from the truth. The '57 Celtics vastly improving and Red using him so much back this up. Obviously he's not going to be your main playmaker on a team, but he was pretty solid here. His low assist counts is more from his role on the Celtics than anything--as in Cousy always having the ball and Russell being used at the high pivot to free shooters (Heinsohn) up. Heinsohn was asked to launch quick shots up rather than pass, I think he could have averaged more assists if given more opportunity here.


Re: Scoring/shooting

He led the team in scoring in '57 Finals, and had other really good Finals performances, which I think is noteworthy. He could pour in points when needed in crucial moments. He was taking plenty of longer shots with Russell on the team. His free throw rate was quite low, showing the majority of his shots were further away from the basket (like much of the Celtics with Russell). I honestly think his TS Adds don't quite show how good of scorer he was. If he had been on a more offensively focused team, with better spacing (where he could have drove more, increasing his FTr) I think his rTS% would have been much higher. I think his role and Auerbach's idea of taking shots as quickly as possible (he believed the team with the most shots would more often win) wasn't helping his shooting %s, like some other players on the squad.

Re: Sikma vs Heinsohn, Aldridge vs Heinsohn

I think we both just flat out disagree regarding how Heinsohn compares to these players--specifically on defense and rebounding. I think I value Heinsohn's defense, rebounding, and switching ability pretty highly compared to someone like Aldridge.

Honestly, I don't see much reason for Red Auerbach to have been trusting in Heinsohn to play heavy minutes and start if he was apparently average to marginal in nearly everything. He wasn't that kind of coach who would have accepted that, and Heinsohn certainly wasn't the shooter to the level that Sam Jones was to make trusting a mainly average player worth it. He was usually top 3 in total minutes played--so I think being apart of the greatest defensive dynasty of all-time and Auerbach playing him so much must mean something regarding his overall impact, hustle, and defensive play.

Apologies if this seems like I’m poo-pooing all over Heinsohn. It’s not my intention; he’s certainly a VERY relevant player historically. I just don’t think he has a good claim on top 100 status…..not with so many of these other players still on the table.
That’s my 2c anyway….


No problem--I think many people underestimate the Celtics as a team and how good the entire team was on defense. I think a majority of the players on that squad were actually very good defensively along with Russell (hard to be so dominant on defense historically without contributions from a variety of players.) The amount of film I've watched from this period is why I am so high on Heinsohn overall--but I think most highly underestimate him defensively, as well as some others on that team (notably Ramsey and Cousy).

Overall, I'm just trying to give my own input as someone who has read, watched, and researched quite a bit from this period. I don't think everyone is ever going to see eye-to-eye on this or many other things I have opinions on. I'm simply someone that tries to re-watch film over and over--then look for stats and sources to back up what I see. I believe Heinsohn has been one of those players who even I underestimated at first, but came to appreciate. It is my hope that I was able to bring something new to the table for at least some members of the forum, and could maybe change one or two opinions with some of the examples and arguments I used.

prolific passer wrote:Idk about Heinsohn's defense as he had Bill Russell, )Loscutoff, and Satch Sanders alongside him. I always heard and read that he guarded Hagan in their finals matchups and Hagan averaged more ppg, rpg, and shot better than Tommy in those finals.


Well, the team was already very good defensively when Heinsohn joined pre-Russell (and pre-Sanders), which is some solid evidence of his impact. And for what it's worth, the Finals footage that we have on the Celtics vs Hawks has Heinsohn mainly on Macauley and Jack Coleman. He definitely guards Hagan and even Pettit on some possessions, but the Celtics would switch as well. It actually seems like Hagan is usually guarding Heinsohn, from the film.
User avatar
ZeppelinPage
Head Coach
Posts: 6,418
And1: 3,386
Joined: Jun 26, 2008
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#17 » by ZeppelinPage » Tue May 11, 2021 6:57 am

ZeppelinPage wrote:1. Tom Heinsohn
Heinsohn was an incredibly talented, well-rounded player. He joined Holy Cross in '54 and they immediately jumped in points scored and allowed while going 26-2. By his senior year, Holy Cross ranked 33rd in offense and 23rd on defense nationally. When Heinsohn left, they fell to 153rd of 160 teams in points allowed with an 11-12 record.

The '56 Celtics were a middle of the pack team that struggled to play defense and rebound. Auerbach was a tough coach that got the most out of his players (he helped turn Cousy into a good defender), but his team had never obtained the consistent rebounder vitally needed for the era. At one point, Bob Cousy mentioned how badly the Celtics needed a rebounder to give the rest of the players a break, as they were busy trying to gather rebounds together, with Ed Macauley unable to control the boards himself--this tired them out during playoff time. Enter Heinsohn: a switchable shooter with offensive and defensive skills while being, most importantly, a relentless rebounder.

With Auerbach's coaching, Heinsohn was quick to learn the energy needed at the professional level. Before the season, Auerbach mentioned that Heinsohn had been watching Cousy "break his neck" on defense, and that this would help him understand what was needed from him. He learned quick. The Celtics started out 14-4 with Sharman healthy, easily the best team in the league and on pace for 56 wins--finishing 17-8 before Russell joined, going 3-4 without Sharman. They allowed 99 points a game during this stretch and held the #1 offense Philadelphia Warriors to 83 and 78 points in the middle of a 10-game win streak. Auerbach seemed to be using his press defense more than ever with Heinsohn added to the roster, allowing for small ball line-ups where the guards could harass players up the court without a loss in rebounding.

The biggest additions to the team at the beginning of the season were Heinsohn, Andy Phillip, and Lou Tsioropoulos. Now obviously the sudden shift in the Celtics from treadmill to championship contender is not entirely due to Heinsohn. Andy Phillip was a good all-around ball player, and no doubt improved their defense with his stealing and deflection ability (he had a 6 steal game early in the season). Tsioropoulos was also getting quite a bit of praise for how hard he played.

But Heinsohn was the key piece. A player that solved their rebounding issues, a threat on offense with his shooting, driving, and passing ability; a player with high energy that could switch, play for steals and get deflections off-ball--while having the athleticism to contest a variety of shots. He played a pivotal role in turning a previously middling team into a powehouse, that had other teams actively complaining about the talent level of their roster early in the season (without Russell and Ramsey too). By the time the Finals rolled around, Heinsohn was leading the Celtics in scoring as a rookie against the Pettit led Hawks, closing game 7 with a 37 point game on 17-33 shooting, one of the greatest rookie performances in NBA history. All while helping to keep Pettit below his average efficiency. Heinsohn could score when his team needed him most--always playing steady, but exploding for a boost when the team needed him during a critical moment.

Biggest strengths are his defense, rebounding, and gravity. Defensively, Heinsohn was among the very best of the Celtics. In Auerbach's book Basketball for The Player, The Fan, And The Coach--he lists Heinsohn as one of the great defensive cornermen, and for good reason. On top of being a relentless rebounder, he actively played for the ball and used his hands to poke, strip, and deflect. He could switch 1 through 4 with ease and play tough man-to-man defense, often contesting shots and getting blocks on players like Jerry West.

He didn't have all-time efficiency, but his high volume and tough shot making allowed for floor spacing that was beneficial to his teammates. Heinsohn shot a significant amount of jump shots that were difficult and this hurt his efficiency, with that being said he was also a threat to the defense as he could score when left open. With Russell on the Celtics, there was less spacing and more emphasis on making jump shots. The bulk of the jump shooting was often left to guys like Cousy, Sharman, Havlicek, Heinsohn, and Sam Jones. Sharman and Jones were plus with their shooting ability, but the rest of the main offensive options suffered efficiency wise due to being the only ones that could take and make these difficult shots. With less spacing, it was harder to drive to the hoop as well as get to the line. Heinsohn could score when needed, having multiple playoff runs that were significant to their championships, and arguably could have won 2 Finals MVPs. Overall, I value his ability to be a threat on top of the defense he brings--he could even set up his teammates with good passes.

G6 '63 NBA Finals Heinsohn steal on Jerry West in a 2-point game with 2 minutes remaining
Spoiler:
Image

Heinsohn Defensive Sequence
Spoiler:
Image

Steal on Wilt Chamberlain
Spoiler:
Image

Strips on Rudy LaRusso and Guy Rodgers
Spoiler:
Image

Spoiler:
Image

Blocks on Jerry West
Spoiler:
Image

Spoiler:
Image

Passes in Game 2 '57 Finals
Spoiler:
Image

Spoiler:
Image

2. Frank Ramsey
Led the league in WS/48 during the regular season ('58) and playoffs ('57, '59) on ridiculous shooting percentages (+10 relTS% on 17.5 FGA in '59 playoffs, are you kidding me?) As the 6th man, he didn't have the highest volume, but he was still incredibly efficient whether he was in a smaller role or needed to take more shots come playoff time. Defensively, Ramsey was fantastic--lightning quick, playing passing lanes, deflecting and swiping at the ball, and staying with his man off-ball. In the G6 '63 Finals footage, Ramsey has 2 steals and multiple deflections, all while giving up zero baskets man to man. I think his clutch play, efficient scoring, and defensive ability all more than make up for his lack of volume. Definitely one of the greatest 6th men of all-time.

3. Jimmy Butler
Strong two-way impact, low turnover percentage with high assists, advanced and plus/minus stats are all good across the board. Had one of the greatest NBA Finals of all-time statistically last season. One of only 3 players to record a 40+ point triple double in the NBA Finals. Along with his high free throw rate, Butler has a good mix of volume, passing, and defense that I think a lot of other players don't have.



Walton > D Green > Webber > DeBusschere > Lowry > Lucas > Johnston > Bellamy > Beaty > King > Sikma > Dandridge > G Williams > Hawkins > Archibald > Dennis Johnson > Aldridge
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,860
And1: 21,786
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#18 » by Doctor MJ » Tue May 11, 2021 7:05 am

Repeating vote with updates. (Sliding Mullin up to my Top 3.)

Doctor MJ wrote:Alright...

1. Connie Hawkins
2. Bill Walton
3. Chris Mullin

Other preferences in order:

Spoiler:
Draymond Green
Zelmo Beaty
Mel Daniels
Bernard King
Tiny Archibald
Buck Williams
Dave DeBusschere
Dennis Johnson
Tom Heinsohn
Jack Sikma
Jerry Lucas
Walt Bellamy
Gus Williams
LaMarcus Aldridge


Hawk love letter:

I think there's never been anyone like him, before or since. I'm dying to see more footage of him, because honestly I think he's got a bunch of moves that we don't have names for.

The roots of Hawkins becoming what he became are a story not of some kind of inevitable success through sheer talent, but of a guy with great talent getting bounced around and picking up stuff as he went.

Hawkins was a star in each of the following places:
1. The Schoolyard
2. Golden Age NYC High School Basketball
3. ABL
4. Harlem Globetrotters
5. ABA
6. NBA

All 6 of these things are a big deal, though I'll note that I'd consider (1) and (4) the best for understanding how Hawkins became what he became where (5) and (6) represent the proof in the pudding.

To speak on (1), the thing to understand is that play in the school yard all day is what the "good" Black boys did in this era. You were either playing basketball, or you were getting involved in gangs, pimping, and eventually drugs. So if you had basketball talent, this is where your family wanted you. Stay on the court, where it's safe.

And from the perspective of these Black kids, when they played (white) kids from other places, they just always got the sense that those white kids were far less experienced, because they were doing a lot of things other than playing basketball.

So, while Hawkins was dominating the incredibly high quality ball of NYC back then too, the Schoolyard was always where he developed his game. Just trying different things.

Others noted that while Hawkins lacked confidence in general, and was a poor reader and a poor student, he was an extremely quick learner when he saw someone else do something on the basketball court. When an opponent did something with the ball against Hawkins, Hawkins seemed to instantly have a new tool.

It's also important to note that in the Schoolyard, Hawkins didn't start out as The Man. He learned to play by fitting in around others who were older and better. We're talking about a kid who was playing against NBA pros (in the NBA off-season) before he was a High School star, so when he was playing those games, he wasn't just going in as the star. He learned to fit in. He learned how to be an aware passer before he learned to be a scorer.

About (3), so as many of you know, Hawkins was banned from college due to point shaving scandal (he later won a lawsuit clearing his name), so he ended up getting an opportunity in Abe Saperstein's ABL, which had various former NBA pros and a 3-point line. In the lone full season of that league, Hawkins would win MVP.

This is obviously impressive for a guy basically straight out of high school - and speaks both to his talent and how much experience he'd already had beyond just playing against other high schoolers - but I'd also argue that if not for the existence of the ABL, there's a good chance Hawkins would have died on the vine. He didn't have any other great skills other than basketball, so most likely he'd have ended up like many of his other peers still in Brooklyn which was being taken over by a see of heroin.

But his performance in the ABL, led to an invitation to join Saperstein's flagship product: The Harlem Globetrotters.

And as fortune would have it, Sweetwater Clifton - former New York Ren, Globetrotters, NBA all-star - played in the ABL that year with Hawkins, and re-joined the Globetrotters at the same time as Hawkins. And he told Hawkins basically, "You don't realize what kind of things you can do with those big hands!"

He mentored Hawkins on the ways you can use your ability to easily palm a hand. More flexibility when driving, more ways to protect the ball when you're guarded, myriad tricky passes, and the ability to rebound with just one hand so you can use your other arm (ahem, elbow) to fend of opponents.

I've noted before that big hands seem to be a Harlem Globetrotter thing. Beginning with the team's first clown - Goose Tatum - along through Clifton, Meadowlark Lemon, along with Wilt Chamberlain, Hawkins, and others - the Globetrotters seemed to look for guys with big hands in a way that the NBA has literally never done. I've also seen it noted that a particular Globetrotter was held back by his hand size despite being naturally very comedic.

There's a kind of trickery you can do with hands like this that lends itself well to comedy through basketball actions, and this raises the question of whether these Globetrotters were much better at certain basketball skills than NBA players.

There the answer is yes with an asterisk. Most of the tricks the Globetrotters did, while they required great skill, were not designed to hold up against actual defenders, and this was a source of frustration for Hawkins who felt that he was becoming soft due to not playing in a real competitive league, which I'd say was true.

At the same time, he'd still go back to NYC and play in the Schoolyard testing out techniques. Basically, he mined stuff out from the Globetrotters, and the stuff he found could work against actual defenders, he made a part of his repertoire. And this is how he became truly unique.

As we look at Hawkins ABA & NBA years, one of the things to understand is that both when he joined Pittsburgh in the ABA and Phoenix in the NBA, the teams did not immediately re-shape their offenses around Hawkins, and between these ramp up times, Hawkins increasing tendency toward injury, and a tendency for Hawkins to get down on himself, when we look at his yearly stats, it has to be noted that there was far more variance over the course of the season in team and Hawkins-specific performance than you'd expect not simply as a modern observer, but as a contemporary observer. Hawkins wasn't the absolute rock that you'd expect from a Jerry West, and this certainly doesn't help his Top 100 case.

But what this context also means is that when you look at Hawkins' yearly stats those first few years, as impressive as they look, know that they underrate what he was doing at his best.

I've noted before that in his first year in the ABA, Hawkins led the league in PPG despite being 3rd on his team in FGA. He did this by also leading the league in TS%, and do so while also leading the team in APG, RPG, and almost certainly BPG & SPM had they had that data (but interestingly he did not lead his team in TOs, and was 11th on his team in terms of TOs per minute). To lead a team to the title like this is amazing, but it does give rise to the question: Why were other guys shooting more than Hawkins?

The answer seems to be that these guys were just flat out bad chuckers who the coach couldn't get to pass the ball even though he'd sometimes bench them just to ensure the ball went to Hawkins, but apparently the team couldn't get anyone better mid-season (neither would last that much longer in the ABA).

Now, I tend to read stuff that focuses on Hawkins' perspective rather than the perspective Chico Vaughn, so bias is a concern. But my conclusion is that even in a young ABA that wasn't what it would later become, the Pittsburgh Pipers had no business winning a title given the lack of team play. But what was the case is that when Hawkins played the pivot, the offense hummed with Hawkins both scoring incredibly well and passing incredibly well.

Hawkins suffered the defining injury of his career midway through his second ABA season, and most don't think he was ever as good again, yet still he ended up blowing away the NBA once he got going.

What precipitated him getting going? Mid-way through the season, Phoenix Suns GM Jerry Colangelo fired coach Red Kerr, took over as coach, and had the team play with Hawkins in the high post as the guy the offense would run through. Prior to that point, Hawkins had been positioned in the corner while team captain Gail Goodrich dribbled, dribbled, dribble, and then shot. Goodrich, it should be noted seems to have had a good attitude and was willing to play in an offense with Hawkins as the focus, but when left to his own devices, he tended to just iso.

A few more anecdotes in Hawkins first year in the NBA:

1. After the Suns beat the Celtics in Boston, Bill Russell - who had retired the previous year - came over and gushed "You can do things with the ball I've never seen before!". (Hawkins responded "If you'd have been out there, you'd have blocked half my shots". Russell then said "I don't think so".)

2. Hawkins drew rave reviews as the best passer in the league. Was he better than Oscar? I'm not prepared to say that, but what I can say is that Hawkins was doing things Oscar could not. One described play involved Hawkins having the ball in the high post and making two quick passing fakes in opposite directions (which he could do because had had the ball palmed), and then casually dribbling through the now open lane to the basket.

3. Another anecdote: Apparently Hawkins could dribble through press defense unaided. When a team pressed the Suns, they'd pass the ball to Hawkins, and get out of the way, while he dribbled his way through opponents. If this seems unrealistic for a player generally, I'd note that this skill was a major thing before the shot clock, and the team most famous for this ability was the Globetrotters back in their still-competitive days in the '40s. Against the Mikan-led Lakers, the Globetrotters famously gave the ball to master-dribbler Marques Haynes, and he dribbled what remained of the 4th quarter away so that his team could take the last shot.

While the shot clock rendered this specific ability moot, the Globetrotters used it as part of their act, and so this was something the Globetrotter players actually practiced, and Hawkins honed the ability there.

So I'd say the most amazing thing isn't that someone could do this, but that Hawkins at 6'8" could do this.

4. I'd note that Wilt said that Hawkins was the only guy in the world who could play "all three positions" - by which he meant guard, forward, and center.

I should also note that Hawkins's quickness and agility was tied to his lithe fame, so when Hawkins played center, he took a severe beating that made it hard for him to sustain that kind of play over a season.

I'll also note that Hawkins was a guy who got very little training in formal defense. With his long arms and quickness he could get blocks and steals, but he struggled beyond that.

5. Some people hated his "clown antics". Some refs in particular. I think this makes sense because the Globetrotters - while they may be clowns - spend their games making their opponents look like fools. What happens when you do that to someone who isn't paid to take it? Animosity.

6. Among players, Elvin Hayes in particular apparently expressed hostility toward Hawkins, and this led to a showdown in the very last game of the '69-70 season which Hawkin's Suns needed to make the playoffs. The Suns were down 19 points at half time, and in the second half Hawkins & Hayes matched up. Hawkins led the team back to a victory with a 44/20/8 night on 30 FGA, and was said to have had 5 blocks & 5 steals in the 3rd quarter alone. Multiple of those blocks came on Hayes who went for 23/18/2 on 25 FGA.

7. In the playoffs, the Suns would fight hard before losing in 7 to the West/Wilt led Lakers, with some making the comment that it was essentially "the Lakers vs Connie Hawkins".

After that year, Hawkins would still have great runs, but injuries took more of a toll. The general feeling was that his body was much older than his age suggested having played 250 Globetrotter games per year while others his age were playing 25 college games per year, to say nothing about all that time on the Schoolyard.

In the end, with Hawkins, I think it's very hard to know how to rank him and so I completely understand those who won't have him in the Top 100. More than anything else, I hope others can just appreciate how singular he was, and how significant on a level beyond simple career impact.

But I do think he warrants a place above Bill Walton, who is my #3 pick here. Love, love, love Walton, but as much as Hawkins had longevity issues, I'd say Walton had them worse, and I'm not comfortable saying that Walton was clearly the better player best vs best. I think Walton was amazing like this, and he certainly has the defensive edge overall, but in some ways I feel like you could look at Walton on offense as a poor man's Hawkins.

Part of what I'm saying here is that I believe that the pivot-and-cut offense that Jack Ramsay instituted for Walton in Portland is not some completely new thing, but rather something that was huge and never really made it to the NBA. Once the basketball world saw Mikan & Kurland, pivot-and-cut passing didn't seem as useful as just pass to low post and score. And when that paradigm got challenged, it got challenged by perimeter-oriented offenses that in today's game are dominant.

I would submit that we've never really seen the potential for a pivot-and-cut offense in the modern NBA until Nikola Jokic, and I might make a comparison between Jokic & Hawkins. And on that front, note that I have Jokic below Walton. Through the end of last season, I didn't think Jokic had done enough to surpass Walton, but with this season, well, things are changing.

I will note, with regards to context, I consider Jokic to be more of "random genius" than Hawkins. I think Hawkins became what he did because he was shaped by unique context and had specific, rare physical gifts. Jokic seems like he was born like this.

Alright, beyond Hawk I've got Walton & Jokic on my ballot.

So first, what that means is that I'm clearly right now siding on peak/prime over longevity relative to some other folks. As I always say, I'm not going to tell you that your longevity weighting is wrong - I think that's up to personal philosophy.

I will say on Walton I've had him all over my ballots through the years and really don't know where to put him...but I do think that he deserves to be higher than Jokic through '19-20. I understand that you can argue that Jokic should win based on a longevity edge, but Jokic is obviously weak there as well, and Walton being a key part of a championship team 7 years after the first really cements that indelible impression I have of him.

If you just think Jokic through last year was better than Walton, I get that, but I'd not feel comfortable saying that because Walton was the best defender on the planet.

On Jokic over other guys, the first guy I want to mention is someone I've not even been listing out because he hasn't had traction: Draymond Green. When I look at current players not in, those two are the next ones on my list and to be honest I expected to have Green ahead of Jokic.

If I felt strongly about Green over Jokic, I'd be arguing for that now, but I'm not. I can see arguments both ways, but Green really doesn't have much of a longevity edge, and as special as Green was at his best, I do think Jokic was more special by a smidge even before this year.

On Tiny Archibald - I'm really convinced at this point that he was an absolute killer at his best. He feels like he should be easily a Top 100 guy for me, and I rank him above some guys already on the list, but obviously there are still guys left out there that I like even better.

Since Porter almost got in is that I actually would put Buck Williams over Porter. Porter's greater if you factor in just their Blazer career, but Buck's work on the Nets is big too, so I'm slotting Buck in.

Also, it's bugging me that Chris Mullin isn't being given more love. I think it's worth reiterating that he wasn't a "fringe Dream Teamer". He was more of a lock than Barkley, and his minutes played in the Olympics speaks to this. Basically he had a role with some similarities to what what Miller/Allen/Curry would later have, and which is still tremendously underrated today imho.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
prolific passer
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,137
And1: 1,455
Joined: Mar 11, 2009
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#19 » by prolific passer » Tue May 11, 2021 3:29 pm

ZeppelinPage wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:Re: DefenseIt's interesting that you've described him in such glowing terms as a defender. tbh, I've NEVER heard/read that about him previously; in fact, the OPPOSITE is the narrative I've heard more often (heck, see penbeast0's comments on his vote-post as an example: weak defensively is more the usual commentary).


Where have you read this? I've only seen mentions of his offense, and less on his defense (probably because he wasn't especially flashy there). But the example I used was straight from Red Auerbach's own book. Seems a pretty good source to me. Which leads me to my next point:

Red Auerbach was complimentary about his defense.......I'm uncertain how much credence I should give to that. On the one hand, Red is someone I would trust to recognize good defense [and certainly one who recognizes the value of it]; but on the other hand he is also someone you'd expect to be excessively complimentary of Heinsohn [given their professional relationship].


I highly disagree with throwing Red's opinion out the window when he was always a no non-sense type of guy. He was never afraid to call players out and speak the truth (he did so with both Cousy and Heinsohn early in their career, routinely putting their defensive performances and hustle on blast.) In Basketball for The Player, The Fan, and The Coach, he specifically mentions Heinsohn among Tom Sanders and Jim Loscutoff. No mention of Sam Jones or any other average to poor defensive players. Why? Because they weren't very good on that side of the ball.

I see no reason why Red would not only mention Heinsohn as a good defender (after both had retired), but also consistently give him minutes throughout his career if he was so average at everything but rebounding (Auerbach was not a fan of a poor defender that didn't hustle, to say the least.)

So, not only to we have the coach calling Heinsohn a good defender, but the stats also back it up:

As I noted in my original post, the '57 Celtics were allowing 99 points a game and were among the best defensive teams in the entire league with Sharman healthy. Heinsohn was the biggest addition, and must have been a clear plus if they were this good on defense even before Bill Russell joined the team. The '56 Celtics were near the bottom in defense, Heinsohn joins the team and they get significantly better all the sudden--not just from bad to average, but from bad to one of the best in the league at the time. It's also worth noting that after Heinsohn retired, the Celtics dropped by nearly 3 points in relDRtg, with no other major players leaving the team. Again, lining up with his '57 season, this seems like another indicator of his abilities.

For myself [on my limited eye-test], I never thought Heinsohn looked bad defensively. Can't say I thought him a notably GOOD one either, but he did not appear a notable liability to me on my sample (which is about 2 full games [played from '62-'65], fully logged as part of my game log project).
While I don't overtly disagree with some of the specific abilities you've attributed to him, I will say I am skeptical as to the degree to which he had or was able to leverage these abilities.
I'd be more apt to label him a basically neutral defender [or small positive at best].


Respectfully, I have more than a limited eye-test--I have watched and analyzed basically every piece of 50s/60s Celtics game footage (not highlights) in existence many times over--which includes tracking things like Bob Cousy's shot profile and defensive plays. Which is why I feel like what Auerbach is saying in his book is generally backed up through film. I also feel that I have shown a pretty wide array of Heinsohn's abilities in clips (stealing off swipes, playing for the ball in air, blocking Jerry West, positioning himself well).

Part of your sample includes the '63 Finals, which was from the very game I used of him stealing a Jerry West pass with 2-minutes left. In that game he had 2 steals, 1 block (on West), and 2 offensive fouls drawn. He isn't some kind of lock-down man defender but he is solid, can rebound, and takes swipes and pokes the ball free more than most other defenders. He could make plays and I think that's why he was so beneficial in Auerbach's eyes.

So, overall--I have shown a source (his coach), stats (the defensive ratings of the Celtics), and film to back up my point. I feel like I have provided a good amount of evidence here, most specifically on his defensive play. If you're going to say Auerbach was biased and not take him seriously, nothing I can do about that. But him puffing up Heinsohn just because he knows the guy doesn't seem like something Red would do. I think it's more likely he genuinely believed Heinsohn was good on defense, and he coached him up to be that way--just like he did with other players. Film backs up that he was a plus defender that could get steals and blocks.

Re: "relentless rebounder" (who solved much of their rebounding woes)
No question he helped some in this regard (having Ed Macauley replaced at center helps even more).
However, the fact of the matter is that Heinsohn's rebounding rates were pretty pedestrian for a PF [or combo forward who played mostly PF] of that day.
In terms of reb/100 possessions, his peak year was his rookie season [perhaps because Russell missed a third of the year??], at an estimated 13.35 reb/100. It would fall to 12.3 the following year, and would never again crack the 12-reb mark, hovering around 11.5 thru '62, before then falling to <11 [and as low as just 8.65] for his last three seasons.


This can pretty easily be explained by the fact that he played with one of the greatest rebounders of all-time--none of the players you listed are. Obviously Russell hauling down rebounds is going to impact Heinsohn's rebounding numbers. Heinsohn had pretty great rebounding numbers per 36 while playing next to Russell. In '60, he was 17th among players over 1000 minutes per 36 in TRB, the highest besides Russell on the Celtics. It makes sense that other players were putting up higher rebound numbers, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were better. The fact that he was averaging that many rebounds next to Russell is pretty impressive actually. Playing next to Russell would also make sense as to why his rebounding was so high in his rookie year. Him dropping would also make sense when Tom Sanders joins and begins getting minutes as well which definitely impacted his TRB numbers. Auerbach himself was not playing him because he was "nothing special" at rebounding, he has praised Heinsohn's rebounding ability many times. Through film you can see the pure talent of Heinsohn at rebounding, especially offensive rebounding. I would also like to note that the amount of jumpers Heinsohn was taking was also making it harder to offensive rebound. Which is why watching film is important, because he definitely stands out when underneath the basket fighting for boards.

Re: Passing
Here again is something I've never heard anyone claim: that Heinsohn was a relevant force as a passer/playmaker. I watched the one gif linked of that nice pass [and it IS a beauty]. However, I was fairly recently watching a game from the '83 Bucks/Sixers series, and there was one play where Moses [from the high-post/elbow] made beautiful bounce-pass delivery to a back-cutting guard for a lay-up [and/or foul, I can't remember].
I mean, it was a BEAUTIFUL pass. But I don't want to read too much into that one play......I've also seen Moses force up a contested fade-away from a triple-team at 13-14' from the basket with about 10 seconds left on the shot-clock and a teammate breaking open in the paint, while also knowing that he never cracked 2 apg [not once] and has a career Ast:TO ratio below 0.5.

Heinsohn's Ast/100 possessions never cracked 3.0 until his final two seasons [ranged between 1.8 to 2.9 for his first seven (even Moses had a career 1.9 Ast/100)].
So I feel making too much a thing about his passing is probably over-selling things.


I think the point of me talking about his passing ability was more to show he could definitely make passes and was a skilled overall player. Many like to think of him as some role player that could only shoot but that couldn't be further from the truth. The '57 Celtics vastly improving and Red using him so much back this up. Obviously he's not going to be your main playmaker on a team, but he was pretty solid here. His low assist counts is more from his role on the Celtics than anything--as in Cousy always having the ball and Russell being used at the high pivot to free shooters (Heinsohn) up. Heinsohn was asked to launch quick shots up rather than pass, I think he could have averaged more assists if given more opportunity here.


Re: Scoring/shooting

He led the team in scoring in '57 Finals, and had other really good Finals performances, which I think is noteworthy. He could pour in points when needed in crucial moments. He was taking plenty of longer shots with Russell on the team. His free throw rate was quite low, showing the majority of his shots were further away from the basket (like much of the Celtics with Russell). I honestly think his TS Adds don't quite show how good of scorer he was. If he had been on a more offensively focused team, with better spacing (where he could have drove more, increasing his FTr) I think his rTS% would have been much higher. I think his role and Auerbach's idea of taking shots as quickly as possible (he believed the team with the most shots would more often win) wasn't helping his shooting %s, like some other players on the squad.

Re: Sikma vs Heinsohn, Aldridge vs Heinsohn

I think we both just flat out disagree regarding how Heinsohn compares to these players--specifically on defense and rebounding. I think I value Heinsohn's defense, rebounding, and switching ability pretty highly compared to someone like Aldridge.

Honestly, I don't see much reason for Red Auerbach to have been trusting in Heinsohn to play heavy minutes and start if he was apparently average to marginal in nearly everything. He wasn't that kind of coach who would have accepted that, and Heinsohn certainly wasn't the shooter to the level that Sam Jones was to make trusting a mainly average player worth it. He was usually top 3 in total minutes played--so I think being apart of the greatest defensive dynasty of all-time and Auerbach playing him so much must mean something regarding his overall impact, hustle, and defensive play.

Apologies if this seems like I’m poo-pooing all over Heinsohn. It’s not my intention; he’s certainly a VERY relevant player historically. I just don’t think he has a good claim on top 100 status…..not with so many of these other players still on the table.
That’s my 2c anyway….


No problem--I think many people underestimate the Celtics as a team and how good the entire team was on defense. I think a majority of the players on that squad were actually very good defensively along with Russell (hard to be so dominant on defense historically without contributions from a variety of players.) The amount of film I've watched from this period is why I am so high on Heinsohn overall--but I think most highly underestimate him defensively, as well as some others on that team (notably Ramsey and Cousy).

Overall, I'm just trying to give my own input as someone who has read, watched, and researched quite a bit from this period. I don't think everyone is ever going to see eye-to-eye on this or many other things I have opinions on. I'm simply someone that tries to re-watch film over and over--then look for stats and sources to back up what I see. I believe Heinsohn has been one of those players who even I underestimated at first, but came to appreciate. It is my hope that I was able to bring something new to the table for at least some members of the forum, and could maybe change one or two opinions with some of the examples and arguments I used.

prolific passer wrote:Idk about Heinsohn's defense as he had Bill Russell, )Loscutoff, and Satch Sanders alongside him. I always heard and read that he guarded Hagan in their finals matchups and Hagan averaged more ppg, rpg, and shot better than Tommy in those finals.


Well, the team was already very good defensively when Heinsohn joined pre-Russell (and pre-Sanders), which is some solid evidence of his impact. And for what it's worth, the Finals footage that we have on the Celtics vs Hawks has Heinsohn mainly on Macauley and Jack Coleman. He definitely guards Hagan and even Pettit on some possessions, but the Celtics would switch as well. It actually seems like Hagan is usually guarding Heinsohn, from the film.

Celtics were solid defensively from 50-56 but just lacked that top notch rebounder to matchup with the likes of Schayes and Gallatin. Macauley fell off the map rebounding wise in 56. Could still score though which helped him become a good 6th man for the hawks in 57 and 58.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,512
And1: 8,154
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #96 

Post#20 » by trex_8063 » Tue May 11, 2021 11:51 pm

ZeppelinPage wrote:.


Thank you for taking the time to provide a thoughtful reply. Just a few things I want to respond to....


Re: "disregarding" Red's endorsement
I never said I was disregarding his comments on Tommy's defense.....I said I was uncertain as to how much credence was appropriate to give it. While it's true Red was more "no nonsense" than most, he still might be disinclined to throw someone like Heinsohn [with whom he had a good relationship] under the bus. Not that he's going to outright lie, but his relationship may colour his words somewhat (he might offer praise a little more easily, or be a little less likely to criticize).

That said, I was otherwise merely drawing contrast to what you [and Red] were saying and what the more common narrative I've heard (again: see pen's post #9 above) regarding Heinsohn's defense.
For myself, I noted in my prior post that I never thought Heinsohn looked "bad" defensively; but I wasn't sure I'd label him "good" either.

Side-note as to sample size: you said you've viewed the Celtics of this era "extensively". If you have access to a number of games from that era, please share. You're not obligated to do so, but there are those of us who would love to watch them.
I mentioned I have the equivalent of 2 games I've logged for Heinsohn, from the following videos:



They're all from the NBA finals; but the video for G7 of the '62 Finals only has about 25% of the actual game, the one from the '64 Finals is the 2nd half only, and the one from the '65 Finals is again only about 25% of the actual game. The video of G6 of the '63 Finals (Cousy's final game as a Celtic) is the only one that is essentially the ENTIRE game.
Again, if you know where to find more than that of Heinsohn's career, please share.


Re: further extrapolations wrt his defense
The Celtic defense does indeed get a lot better in '57, but there are a few factors to consider, not least of all is having Bill Russell for 2/3 of the season. They did appear to be doing well defensively prior to that, but it may warrant a pinch of caution because we don't know the pace played with/without Russell. They were allowing 100.63 ppg in the 24 games before Russell joined the team, 99.96 ppg allowed in the 48 games with him. But if, for example, the pace they were playing at WITH Russell was notably faster than without, then the actual DRtg difference could be a lot larger.

Other changes to consider: well, Ed Macauley was gone. One doesn't necessarily need to be DPOY material to show improvement over him (e.g. replace Amar'e Stoudemire with LaMarcus Aldridge, your defense is likely to get A LOT better.....does that mean LMA is a defensive stud? Not necessarily [though he's pretty good, imo]; but merely replacing a terrible defender with, well.....ANYONE who ISN'T terrible will net you an improvement).
Additionally, Jim Loscutoff [defensive specialist] has his minutes jump from 22.3 mpg in '56 to 31.7 mpg in '57.

This is NOT to say Heinsohn wasn't decent defensively that year; this is just to point out that some other factors apply.
And while we're doling out credit, might be worth acknowledging their rORTG got WORSE by -2.3.....how much credit does Heinsohn get for that?

As to the drop-off in '66......OK, but it's worth noting that rDRTG was still better than FOUR of the rDRTG's seen in Boston during Heinsohn's time there. Could age or early decline (on guys like Russell and KC) be a factor too??....

At any rate, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that Heinsohn was a plus defender, and previous narratives I've heard are incorrect.
But was he MORE of a plus defender than guys like Aldridge or Sikma? Or is it just "preference" for a guy who appears very switchable (and how much value can that really have when you yourself are saying he's not a "lockdown" man defender?).

fwiw, Aldridge's DRAPM from '08 onward go: +0.5, +1.1, +1.8, +2.2, +0.7, +2.1, +1.2, +0.78, +1.68, +0.88, +1.69.......that's 11 CONSECUTIVE years with a positive DRAPM, and some of them pretty substantially so [+2 and better is getting near All-D 2nd Team level]. It's hard to deny he's been a solid defender basically his entire career [which again, runs substantially longer than Heinsohn's, and these while playing more minutes than Heinsohn, too].


Re: "explaining away" his pedestrian rebounding numbers
I don't think it can so easily be brushed under the rug by noting he's next to Russell.
Cliff Hagan was playing next to Bob Pettit [who had the huge rebounding numbers I noted], yet was nearly matching Heinsohn's rates (again: being 3" shorter and playing SF). LaRusso played alongside the best rebounding SF possibly of all-time, as well as an excellent rebounding guard beginning in '61, and some fair rebounding centers [e.g. Ray Felix], yet matched Heinsohn's rebounding rates.

Tom Gola [a 6'6" wing] wasn't that far behind Heinsohn's rebounding rates despite playing next to Wilt!

Or for that matter looking at his own teammates: Sanders at an 1" shorter and playing more SF than PF actually rebounds at a slightly higher rate [per 36 min, for same team] in '61 and '62, is only slightly behind in '63, then outdoes him by a comfortable margin in '64 and '65.
Jim Loscutoff [a 6'5" SF] tied him [per 36] in '57, and out-rebounded in '58, and out-did him comfortably [in very limited minutes] in '64.

Again, I'm not trying to label him a "bad" rebounder. I'm just trying to temper what seems overly-effusive praise of his rebounding; he shows every evidence of being a basically average rebounding PF for the time-period.
And I'd have a hard time giving him the edge here vs players like LMA or Sikma, who (yes, not alongside Russell, but....) rebounded at HIGHER rates per 100 possessions despite there being FEWER rebounds to be had in their respective eras.

Also, you say he's out there shooting jumpers which is going to hurt his offensive rebounding rates.....but the same is true of Aldridge (and Sikma to a degree, as well).


Re: shooting efficiency hurt by Celtic pace
Again, I agree. I think SOME of that is countered by the relative luxury of playing next to one of the great playmakers of the day, however.
And in that 2.0-game equivalent I logged, I note 73.3% of his FG's [11 of 15] were assisted. fwiw, I think Aldridge has only 57% of his FG's assist for his career, iirc.

And I'll again note Aldridge's turnover economy: it is frankly very unlikely Heinsohn can match it, given I've so far only found about 3 other big-men who are in the same ballpark. It's quite simply all-time excellent.



All of this isn't necessarily to sway you from you vote [I doubt that would happen anyway]; but I hope it provides some food for thought.
Although I cannot understand having Aldridge, for example, so drastically separated from Heinsohn on your list. Their respective value comes via a lot of the same modes: defense, spacing and willingness to shoulder offensive load, rebounding.........except Aldridge did it for more minutes per game [fairly consistently], did it for LONGER, did it in a tougher era; and by the numbers, at least: did some of it a little better.
Likely as a direct result, he actually has MORE media-awarded accolades, despite playing in an era where they are FAR more difficult to come by.

Heinsohn ahead......well, I don't agree at all, but we can agree to disagree. But having him ahead by a country mile? imo, there quite simply isn't justification for that.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

Return to Player Comparisons