RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #82 (Sam Jones)

[Doctor MJ]

No Nomination vote this round.

Our system is now as follows:

1. We have a pool of Nominees you are to choose from for your Induction (main) vote to decide who next gets on the List. Choose your top vote, and if you'd like to, a second vote which will be used for runoff purposes if needed.

2. Nomination vote now works the same way.

3. You must include reasoning for each of your votes, though you may re-use your old words in a new post.

4. Post as much as they want, but when you do your official Vote make it really clear to me at the top of that post that that post is your Vote. And if you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same Vote post.

5. Anyone may post thoughts, but please only make a Vote post if you're on the Voter list. If you'd like to be added to the project, please ask in the General Thread for the project. Note that you will not be added immediately to the project now. If you express an interest during the #2 thread, for example, the earliest you'll be added to the Voter list is for the #3.

5. I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over). For this specific Vote, if people ask before the Deadline, I'll extend it.

Here's the list of the Voter Pool as it stands right now (and if I forgot anyone I approved, do let me know):

Spoiler:

AEnigma
Ambrose
ceilng raiser
ceoofkobefans
Clyde Frazier
Colbinii
cupcakesnake
Doctor MJ
Dooley
DQuinn1575
Dr Positivity
DraymondGold
Dutchball97
f4p
falcolombardi
Fundamentals21
Gibson22
HeartBreakKid
homecourtloss
iggymcfrack
LA Bird
JimmyFromNz
Joao Saraiva
lessthanjake
Lou Fan
Moonbeam
Narigo
OhayoKD
OldSchoolNoBull
penbeast0
Rishkar
rk2023
Samurai
ShaqAttac
Taj FTW
Tim Lehrbach
trelos6
trex_8063
ty 4191
WintaSoldier1
ZeppelinPage

Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):

Cliff Hagan


Sam Jones


Sidney Moncrief


Larry Nance


Tony Parker


Bill Walton


As requested, here's the current list so far along with the historical spreadsheet of previous projects:

Current List
Historical Spreadsheet

[penbeast0]

Tentative votes, open to be convinced:

Vote: Sam Jones On the downside, Celtics didn't win with their offense, on the upside, Jones was the main offensive engine of that dynasty and a consistent strong scorer with good efficiency (in a scheme that people say drove scoring efficiency down).

Alt vote: Larry Nance Consistent two way play with efficiency scoring. He and Kirilenko probably the two greatest shotblocking combo forwards ever. Also the winning of the NBA's first slam dunk contest. Did need to be set up as he was neither a post player nor someone who could handle well enough to create his own offense.


Nominate: Shawn Marion Similar to Nance in that he was a great finisher but not a guy who created his own offense. Also an excellent shotblocker for a forward and a more active player than Nance; particularly when he was with Phoenix. Phoenix didn't miss a beat when Amare went out for the year, replaced by Kurt Thomas and Boris Diaw, as Nash and Marion kept the offensive production high while Marion kept up his job of being all over the court defensively. Even post-prime, as Marion's offensive production greatly slowed, he was still the main defender on LeBron James's epic finals fail during Dallas's title run. Certainly that's on LeBron to a large degree but Marion and the Dallas defense deserves some credit for keeping him down and not letting him turn it around.

Alt: Bill Sharman Best shooting guard of his era, combined relatively good scoring with relatively good defense for an extended period. Still valuable up into the 60s.

[AEnigma]

VOTE: Tony Parker
Alternate: Larry Nance, Sr.
[Nomination: Al Horford]

I imagine Trex will do a more thorough analysis later, but just as a cursory point for Tony Parker:

From 2002-2017, the Spurs were +7.7 with a 72.6% win rate with Parker, then +4.4 with a 64.7% win rate without Parker. By win percentage, that is on average — across sixteen seasons! — a shift from a 53-win team to a 59.5-win team. Respectable and valuable over that time span, but I can see why prime-focused people may not care much. So for the prime-focused, seems fair to look at 2006-15 as Parker’s best ten-year split (I think 2015 is slightly out-of-prime but whatever). Over that period, the Spurs are +7.3 with a 71.8% win rate with Parker, then +3.6 with a 62.7% win rate without Parker. Reasonably consistent with the career marks, although slightly higher change in net rating (+3.7) and raw win rate (51.5-win pace to 59-win pace).

Again, not a commendable peak, no… but all the remaining players with high (“weak MVP” or better) peaks have abysmal prime lengths, so give me the guy who spent roughly a decade as a low-end all-star and then added on six useful starter seasons past that.

The best criticism against him is that he might not be an all-star calibre player in the postseason. Reductive to an extent, but he is enough of a faller for me consider it. So then the question becomes, is having a functional but unspectacular point guard for that long worth more than having a pretty good but not great point guard for 60% of the time? At that level of difference, I lean no, but I am not excited about Parker, and I am consequently open to value-based cases for others.

[Samurai]

Vote for #82: Sidney Moncrief. Doesn't have elite longevity but has six strong seasons of prime. Great all around player who impacted the game with his scoring, playmaking, defense and leadership. Also consistently finished in the top 3 in rebounds/game among guards during his prime. Moncrief didn't have a ton of success in the play-offs but he did consistently manage to lead teams to the play-offs and be competitive against stacked 76ers and Celtics teams. Five time all star with five All NBA Team selections (one first team and four seconds). Outstanding defender with five All Defensive Team selections, four of them on the first team.

Alternate vote: Sam Jones. Ten rings but some will take that with a grain of salt for being Russell's teammate. Three-time All NBA Second Team (cursed by playing guard at the same time that Oscar and West were in their primes) and had three top ten finishes in MVP voting. Seven top twenty finishes in both points/game and TS% indicates that he was not only a scoring threat but an efficient shooter as well. I don't have a good feel on how good he was on defense; he had 9 top twenty finishes in DWS but Russell was obviously the primary driver of the team's excellent defense and KC Jones typically drew the assignment of defending the opposing team's primary backcourt scorer. One of the greatest bank shot artists of all-time; he was banking in shots before Tim Duncan was even born.

[trelos6]

Vote; Larry Nance

Historically, he's been voted in around the 73-83 range. He had a 11 year stretch where he averaged 18.8 pp75 on +5.2 rTS%. When he got to Cleveland, he finally was able to make the post season with regularity. He was around 17.4 pp75 on +5.8 rTS%. The rest of his game was solid, with basically no weakness. Once you combine the efficient scoring with his reputation as basically the best shot blocking PF in history, I think that propels Nance to, at the very minimum, an ALL STAR level player for the vast majority of his career.

Looking at his PIPM over his career, I think he was a pretty impactful player for 11 seasons.

Alt vote: Sidney Moncrief

Injuries cut his career short. Fantastic guard defender. Decent shot, fairly efficient, with some seasons around +6rTS%. Slight decline in playoffs, but they were going against Bird’s Celtics and Erving’s 76ers. Would be higher if not for injuries.

5 All NBA level years. It’s a tough one vs Walton. Bill had 2 fantastic prime years, and not much else.

After Moncrief, I lean: Jones > Walton > Parker > Hagan

Nominations if we had them:

Spoiler:

nom: Marion

Another guy who's been voted in 77-78 in the last 3 projects. Not a flashy scorer, but he was a high impact player. A couple of seasons of efficient scoring alongside prime Nash, but otherwise, he was around league average in rTS%. I have him with 6 ALL D level seasons. He was a beast defensively, as a giant wing who could rebound with the best of them.



Looking at his PIPM, he had 3 really good peak years, which were borderline weak MVP level. I err on the side of caution, so I only have them as ALL NBA level seasons, but ultimately, his great peak and defensive play is what gets him here.

alt. Nom: Terry Porter

88-93 in the last 2 projects. I have him with 6 very strong seasons, 2 of which I have at a weak MVP level. His career had some longevity to it, though it wasn't at any great level.

These can be seen on his career PIPM graph.

His 3 year post season peak from 90-92, he averaged 20 pp75 on + 10.6 rTS%. I think an efficient PG makes team building so much easier, and if they can also not be a turnstile on defense, it helps even more. Porter did that really well. Playoff Porter increased both his usage and shooting against playoff defenses, and that's not something that can be said of a lot of players.

Next men up:
Kevin Johnson

Made it as high as 51 on a previous project, but he's always been elected by 76. KJ was another guy with a monster prime.



From 89-97 KJ was 20 pp75 on +5.3 rTS%. His best 3 yr post season stretch was 25, +6.2%. He was also an incredible offensive engine, who frequently had his teams at +5 rORtg.

I've also got Moncrief and Mo Cheeks quite high, right behind these 4.

[AEnigma]

Will make a note of it now, but Eminence and Doc have made sufficiently compelling arguments for Davies to the extent I am probably willing to lend him support in the 90s, assuming my list of names to be nominated ahead of him are not significantly pushed down the line.

Current list of players I would feel odd excluding from this project:

- Kevin Johnson
- Gus Williams (or at least one representative for the 1979 Sonics)
- Billy Cunningham
- James Worthy

There are several players I would support on the list ahead of some or all those names — Al Horford currently the leader, and Shawn Marion close behind — but in telling the story of the league, I think all those names have been more notable than players like Horford or Marion. And in that sense, Davies is an easy fit as a league MVP and two-time champion. It is also why I have never objected to Walton’s inclusion, although my personal preference would be to slot him in right at #100 as a perpetual cutoff marker.

[trelos6]

And in that sense, Davies is an easy fit as a league MVP and two-time champion. It is also why I have never objected to Walton’s inclusion, although my personal preference would be to slot him in right at #100 as a perpetual cutoff marker.

I quite like the idea of Walton as the perpetual #100. His peak was fantastic, but longevity tragic.

My main issue with Davies is would I consider his case weaker than Cousy. I had Cousy with 12 all star level seasons. Other guys with 10 all star level seasons include Greer and Chet Walker. So I don't think I'd even have Davies ahead of those 2. Unless his peak can be said to be all nba level, which I would then possibly consider him for #99.

[f4p]

but in telling the story of the league, I think all those names have been more notable than players like Horford or Marion.

that's the thing about this list. in my head, i don't really think tony parker is a top 100 player and probably just landed in the right spot at the right time. but he's a huge part of the story of the nba for like 15 years, even if it's just because of the luck of playing with duncan and ginobili and pop. like i think he's definitely not making the list if he's tony parker of charlotte. but he isn't. so him not being top 100 would just feel weird even if it wouldn't really bother me.

but then, even though i noticed a lot of the names from 70-100 on the last project list, now that we're actually doing this project, you realize just how much of the oxygen of nba history is sucked up by such a small number of players. the top 10 takes up a huge percentage of the alpha championships. by the time you leave the top 30, you're basically done with mvp's. and by the time you hit the 70's, you're already looking at guys who might have been weak 2nd's or strong 3rd's on championship teams. you would think with a league that has had something like 4500-5000 players, that top 70 or 80 would just be the elite of the elite, legends of the game, the way the Top 50 list felt back in 1996.

but you start getting guys who made one 1st team like paul george or traditional lebron punching bags like lowry and horford getting brought up with only one 3rd team and you think, yeah, they were good players, but top 80? and then you realize you can't come up with anyone to replace them because that's just how many titles/accolades those top guys hoovered up.

[penbeast0]

but in telling the story of the league, I think all those names have been more notable than players like Horford or Marion.

that's the thing about this list. in my head, i don't really think tony parker is a top 100 player and probably just landed in the right spot at the right time. but he's a huge part of the story of the nba for like 15 years, even if it's just because of the luck of playing with duncan and ginobili and pop. like i think he's definitely not making the list if he's tony parker of charlotte. but he isn't. so him not being top 100 would just feel weird even if it wouldn't really bother me.

but then, even though i noticed a lot of the names from 70-100 on the last project list, now that we're actually doing this project, you realize just how much of the oxygen of nba history is sucked up by such a small number of players. the top 10 takes up a huge percentage of the alpha championships. by the time you leave the top 30, you're basically done with mvp's. and by the time you hit the 70's, you're already looking at guys who might have been weak 2nd's or strong 3rd's on championship teams. you would think with a league that has had something like 4500-5000 players, that top 70 or 80 would just be the elite of the elite, legends of the game, the way the Top 50 list felt back in 1996.

but you start getting guys who made one 1st team like paul george or traditional lebron punching bags like lowry and horford getting brought up with only one 3rd team and you think, yeah, they were good players, but top 80? and then you realize you can't come up with anyone to replace them because that's just how many titles/accolades those top guys hoovered up.

That's when those 2nd tier 50s/60s players like Sam Jones, Hagan, Sharman, etc. or all the high scoring 3's of the 80s start looking interesting. We still have English, B. King, and Nique out there though I do have to go with Jayson Tatum soon as well.

[AEnigma]

And in that sense, Davies is an easy fit as a league MVP and two-time champion. It is also why I have never objected to Walton’s inclusion, although my personal preference would be to slot him in right at #100 as a perpetual cutoff marker.

I quite like the idea of Walton as the perpetual #100. His peak was fantastic, but longevity tragic.

My main issue with Davies is would I consider his case weaker than Cousy. I had Cousy with 12 all star level seasons. Other guys with 10 all star level seasons include Greer and Chet Walker. So I don't think I'd even have Davies ahead of those 2. Unless his peak can be said to be all nba level, which I would then possibly consider him for #99.

Cousy has been inducted.

For Greer, I would say whatever standards have Greer as all-star level — in his time he certainly was — should have Davies as all-NBA level at minimum, yes. NBL MVP with a title, then led an NBA title team as a four-time all-NBA first-teamer.

My issue with Greer is that in his entire career, he appeared on MVP ballots once: in 1964, where he tied for sixth place with 3 points out of 480. He was a regular second or third fiddle to Schayes or Wilt or Cunningham, and there is only so much credit I am willing to give him as a distant third or fourth best guard (by perception) in a league environment where only two guards (eventually three with Frazier) mattered at all.

[trelos6]

And in that sense, Davies is an easy fit as a league MVP and two-time champion. It is also why I have never objected to Walton’s inclusion, although my personal preference would be to slot him in right at #100 as a perpetual cutoff marker.

I quite like the idea of Walton as the perpetual #100. His peak was fantastic, but longevity tragic.

My main issue with Davies is would I consider his case weaker than Cousy. I had Cousy with 12 all star level seasons. Other guys with 10 all star level seasons include Greer and Chet Walker. So I don't think I'd even have Davies ahead of those 2. Unless his peak can be said to be all nba level, which I would then possibly consider him for #99.

Cousy has been inducted.

For Greer, I would say whatever standards have Greer as all-star level — in his time he certainly was — should have Davies as all-NBA level at minimum, yes. NBL MVP with a title, then led an NBA title team as a four-time all-NBA first-teamer.

My issue with Greer is that in his entire career, he appeared on MVP ballots once: in 1964, where he tied for sixth place with 3 points out of 480. He was a regular second or third fiddle to Schayes or Wilt or Cunningham, and there is only so much credit I am willing to give him as a distant third or fourth best guard (by perception) in a league environment where only two guards (eventually three with Frazier) mattered at all.

Yep. I know Cousy was inducted, he's my reference point as a guard from the 50's.

Ok, interesting note then on Davies. I guess I'd factor him in just head of guys like Jeff Hornacek, but behind Bosh and Sam Jones. In the 90's somewhere. He didn't have all that much longevity, but 4 all NBA level years is still quite valuable at this stage.

[Doctor MJ]

I quite like the idea of Walton as the perpetual #100. His peak was fantastic, but longevity tragic.

My main issue with Davies is would I consider his case weaker than Cousy. I had Cousy with 12 all star level seasons. Other guys with 10 all star level seasons include Greer and Chet Walker. So I don't think I'd even have Davies ahead of those 2. Unless his peak can be said to be all nba level, which I would then possibly consider him for #99.

Cousy has been inducted.

For Greer, I would say whatever standards have Greer as all-star level — in his time he certainly was — should have Davies as all-NBA level at minimum, yes. NBL MVP with a title, then led an NBA title team as a four-time all-NBA first-teamer.

My issue with Greer is that in his entire career, he appeared on MVP ballots once: in 1964, where he tied for sixth place with 3 points out of 480. He was a regular second or third fiddle to Schayes or Wilt or Cunningham, and there is only so much credit I am willing to give him as a distant third or fourth best guard (by perception) in a league environment where only two guards (eventually three with Frazier) mattered at all.

Yep. I know Cousy was inducted, he's my reference point as a guard from the 50's.

Ok, interesting note then on Davies. I guess I'd factor him in just head of guys like Jeff Hornacek, but behind Bosh and Sam Jones. In the 90's somewhere. He didn't have all that much longevity, but 4 all NBA level years is still quite valuable at this stage.

So first, I get why you're using Cousy as the reference point. I do the same, I just have Davies ahead.

When you note the 4 All-NBA years, let me emphasize:

Davies made All-League in 7 straight years from the NBL to the BAA to the NBA, with those last 4 in the NBA happening in his 30s. Those years represent years 2-8 after World War II, and in year one Davies started slow but by year's end was pretty clearly seen as the franchise player of the best team in the world, and in my assessment would have likely won Finals MVP in the NBL that year had the award been given.

So yeah, I think if you're going by accolades, Cousy's longevity edge is really about the fact that Davies early years were taken up by the War

And then for me, there's just the fact that I have a specific red flag concern about Cousy - venerated for his flashy passes, but a chucker who became super-inefficient relative to league while still in his 20s - whereas Davies career comes off solid in judgment through to the end.

Mind you as I say all of this: I completely understand hesitation when it comes to guys of Davies' era due to our limited information.

[Doctor MJ]

but in telling the story of the league, I think all those names have been more notable than players like Horford or Marion.

that's the thing about this list. in my head, i don't really think tony parker is a top 100 player and probably just landed in the right spot at the right time. but he's a huge part of the story of the nba for like 15 years, even if it's just because of the luck of playing with duncan and ginobili and pop. like i think he's definitely not making the list if he's tony parker of charlotte. but he isn't. so him not being top 100 would just feel weird even if it wouldn't really bother me.

but then, even though i noticed a lot of the names from 70-100 on the last project list, now that we're actually doing this project, you realize just how much of the oxygen of nba history is sucked up by such a small number of players. the top 10 takes up a huge percentage of the alpha championships. by the time you leave the top 30, you're basically done with mvp's. and by the time you hit the 70's, you're already looking at guys who might have been weak 2nd's or strong 3rd's on championship teams. you would think with a league that has had something like 4500-5000 players, that top 70 or 80 would just be the elite of the elite, legends of the game, the way the Top 50 list felt back in 1996.

but you start getting guys who made one 1st team like paul george or traditional lebron punching bags like lowry and horford getting brought up with only one 3rd team and you think, yeah, they were good players, but top 80? and then you realize you can't come up with anyone to replace them because that's just how many titles/accolades those top guys hoovered up.

So wanted to chime in here and also urge some caution with criteria.

I think it's important to draw a distinction between actual competitive achievement and Hall-worthiness and to note that this project has traditionally been about competitive achievement. Hall-worthiness absolutely merits a list, but if that's what we're focused on than Mikan should certainly be higher and a guy like Connie Hawkins deserved to be in a long time ago.

But I say this not to chide you at all for thinking in these terms, because I think the reality is that when we weigh achievements, we do so through the lens of basketball culture, just like the Hall does, and the goal is the chip. So while literal narrative quality shouldn't be a factor in this project in my interpretation, competitive achievement is the carrier wave on which narrative rides.

This then to say that I don't think there's an objectively right way for evaluating how many X-level years it takes to match a Y-level year. This isn't a Peaks project, but if Peaks loom large for you in your holistic career evaluation, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that.

The lack of objectively right approach year has caused me to have some wandering in my approach through the years, and frankly even within a given project.

On Parker: How I would put it is that Parker's career amounted to more than it would have had he been drafted elsewhere, but it amounted to what it amounted. I'm not super-high on what he did, else I'd have already advocated for him, but it matters that the Spurs depended on him like they did through their extremely successful run.

[iggymcfrack]

Vote: Sidney Moncrief
9th in prime WOWY with only elite superstars ahead of him. Back-to-back DPOY. TS Add of 30 or higher every season of his career peaking at 201.0 in 82/83 (4th in the league).

Alternate: Sam Jones
Second all-time in rings (10 in 12 years) and the best offensive player on the greatest dynasty in the history of the league.

Nominate: Baron Davis
17th all-time in playoff BPM and 21st in age-adjusted RAPM. Both are the best of any player not yet taken. Also has a sparkling career playoff on/off of +15.8.

[Doctor MJ]

Will make a note of it now, but Eminence and Doc have made sufficiently compelling arguments for Davies to the extent I am probably willing to lend him support in the 90s, assuming my list of names to be nominated ahead of him are not significantly pushed down the line.

Current list of players I would feel odd excluding from this project:

- Kevin Johnson
- Gus Williams (or at least one representative for the 1979 Sonics)
- Billy Cunningham
- James Worthy

There are several players I would support on the list ahead of some or all those names — Al Horford currently the leader, and Shawn Marion close behind — but in telling the story of the league, I think all those names have been more notable than players like Horford or Marion. And in that sense, Davies is an easy fit as a league MVP and two-time champion. It is also why I have never objected to Walton’s inclusion, although my personal preference would be to slot him in right at #100 as a perpetual cutoff marker.

So we're in the deep cuts now and that means means we can largely agree but end up championing different guys. I'm honestly not sure who I'll end up championing toward the end. To speak to some of the guys you mention along with others on my mind:

- KJ. Yeah, to me he's a very strong candidate now. We think of his career as short, but he packed a lot into the time he had. I'll put it this way: To me the question of Phoenix Suns GOAT is between Nash & KJ, and I don't really see anyone else close.

- 1979 Sonics. I'm definitely on team DJ over team Gus. I think even siding with Gus as the greater Sonic is iffy, but when you consider what DJ did after Seattle he's the clear guy there for me. I think the question of DJ vs Sikma is more intriguing. Sikma seems like he'd fit better on more teams, but I can't deny the continued success DJ had.

- Cunningham, Greer & Walker, I tend to debate between these 3. I don't mind having Cunningham the top of the bunch given how things played out, but I see arguments for the others.

- Worthy is a guy I always feel like I should be championing by now but I don't really have a specific compelling argument. Feel like we should have the debate.

Other guys on my mind:

- Davies as mentioned. To me he's the top player left on the board from the early eras. Not looking to force the issue because I get why a lot of folks just might not feel comfortable even considering him.

- Zelmo. So traditionally both Cunningham & Mel Daniels are given more respect by us than Zelmo, but I think that when they were in the ABA together Zelmo was the most impressive. Zelmo's time in the NBA is seen as an afterthought, but I would argue that Zelmo was the most impressive player for the Hawks in after the Pettit-Hagan peak. I realize that contemporary observers gave Lenny the nod as the MVP candidate in '67-68, but both the box score and the surrounding year WOWY seem to favor Zelmo.

- I am considering Baron Davis who as noted has the best RAPM track record of any modern player not yet in.

- And last, while I really get sad at the idea of championing Connie Hawkins again and not convincing anyone - for quite understandable reasons - he's dear to my heart and perhaps the most interesting single player in basketball history. Those who see him simply a precursor to Dr. J are selling him way short.

[AEnigma]

Will make a note of it now, but Eminence and Doc have made sufficiently compelling arguments for Davies to the extent I am probably willing to lend him support in the 90s, assuming my list of names to be nominated ahead of him are not significantly pushed down the line.

Current list of players I would feel odd excluding from this project:

- Kevin Johnson
- Gus Williams (or at least one representative for the 1979 Sonics)
- Billy Cunningham
- James Worthy

There are several players I would support on the list ahead of some or all those names — Al Horford currently the leader, and Shawn Marion close behind — but in telling the story of the league, I think all those names have been more notable than players like Horford or Marion. And in that sense, Davies is an easy fit as a league MVP and two-time champion. It is also why I have never objected to Walton’s inclusion, although my personal preference would be to slot him in right at #100 as a perpetual cutoff marker.

So we're in the deep cuts now and that means means we can largely agree but end up championing different guys. I'm honestly not sure who I'll end up championing toward the end. To speak to some of the guys you mention along with others on my mind:

- 1979 Sonics. I'm definitely on team DJ over team Gus. I think even siding with Gus as the greater Sonic is iffy, but when you consider what DJ did after Seattle he's the clear guy there for me. I think the question of DJ vs Sikma is more intriguing. Sikma seems like he'd fit better on more teams, but I can't deny the continued success DJ had.

If we could guarantee multiple inclusions, I would have no qualms with DJ and Sikma going ahead of Gus because of their total careers — just as I have no real objection to taking Rasheed ahead of Billups and Ben.

And here we come back to that inconsistent data standard. It was a common argument in this group that Rasheed was a less impactful playoff figure than Billups and Ben, so this group ended up siding with those two. There was also a recognition that those two were the ones functioning as the team’s stars in a way that was not true of Rasheed, whose best “star” years were in Portland. Yet we do not have data for the Sonics, so now we look past Gus’s consistent playoff elevation and instead turn to DJ’s and Sikma’s longevity and DJ’s quaternary presence on two more title winners? It does not really sit right with me.

DJ at least I am softer toward on that issue because I think he has a fine enough argument as the most valuable player to that team’s title run, but while I think Sikma had a fine career, and perhaps even a top 100 one in aggregate, it looks a lot more to me like a reduced Rasheed profile than a Ben/Billups profile.

- Cunningham, Greer & Walker, I tend to debate between these 3. I don't mind having Cunningham the top of the bunch given how things played out, but I see arguments for the others.

I have a tough time arguing for Greer for reasons previously articulated to trelos, but again, fine longevity case, and I do think it reflects well on him that he was absorbing so many minutes on those excellent Wilt 76ers teams. Between Chet and Cunningham, I just care more that Cunningham was the guy who really elevated and for a period was the top forward in the game (before Erving arrived).

- Worthy is a guy I always feel like I should be championing by now but I don't really have a specific compelling argument. Feel like we should have the debate.

In a similar spot. I actually included English and Wilkins before reflecting further on it (and specifically on how they compare with Carmelo, who has functionally no support and will not make the list). That 1988 Game 7 does seem to be doing a lot of work for a player who also never achieved anything without Magic and faded out quickly.

Other guys on my mind:

- Zelmo. So traditionally both Cunningham & Mel Daniels are given more respect by us than Zelmo, but I think that when they were in the ABA together Zelmo was the most impressive. Zelmo's time in the NBA is seen as an afterthought, but I would argue that Zelmo was the most impressive player for the Hawks in after the Pettit-Hagan peak. I realize that contemporary observers gave Lenny the nod as the MVP candidate in '67-68, but both the box score and the surrounding year WOWY seem to favor Zelmo.

Generally agreed — Mel winning MVP over Zelmo reads as an outright bad choice to me — although I think Cunningham was clearly more historically significant before their respective ABA switches, and also as previously stated, I think Willie Wise was the standout during the Stars’ title run.

- I am considering Baron Davis who as noted has the best RAPM track record of any modern player not yet in.

To a point. Is his RAPM case that much stronger than the case of someone like Jrue Holiday, who has provided a much longer career and been the #2 on a title team?

Connie

Sad thing about Connie is that he, like Walton or Penny or McAdoo, should be sorted as more of a Peaks Project player, but because of the ABA environment he never gets too much respect there… even though I would probably take him over Elgin Baylor at minimum and think he has decent arguments over Barry and Pettit as a basketball player, even if his championship is understandably weighed much less.

[trex_8063]

Induction vote: Tony Parker
Starting PG for a virtual dynasty of more than a decade. Near his peak was good for around 20 pts and 7 ast on good efficiency, functioning as the primary driver of their offense......they were sometimes better offensively than defensively in that period. For example, he once anchored [led in pts and assists] a +6.3 rORTG [#1 in league]. Multiple other good ones around that time, too.

In '13 he was 9th in PER, 5th in WS/48 (and I think like 12th or 13th in BPM), while having the 2nd-best [behind only LeBron] RAPM in the league (RAPM including playoffs, fwiw); this for a 7th-rated offense that came one made trey away from winning the title in 6 games.
Was top 5 in RAPM in '12, too; though other years do lag behind.
He's got solid longevity to couple with some of these bullet points. I'd like to write more, though don't have time. He's comfortably my preferred candidate though.


Alternate vote: Larry Nance
Sort of a "best of the rest" pick.
13 seasons, was at least a borderline All-Star level player by his 2nd year, and then remarkably consistent all the way through his 12th year. Only a moderate dip in his 13th and final season, which is one of probably only two seasons in which he missed relevant time, too (in '85 he missed 21 games, plus the playoffs [start of them anyway]).

For basically a decade he was someone who could be counted on for ~17-22 ppg on good efficiency, with 8-9 rebs, 3 ast, and good rim protection. The "only" three All-Star selections and no All-NBA teams [though he did get votes] belies how good he actually was, and for how long.
imo, he has ELEVEN seasons that are at least fringe/borderline All-Star level, and perhaps 2-3 seasons that are All-NBA 3rd Team level (maybe even weak 2nd Team level at his peak???).

I could potentially be convinced to switch my alternate vote to Moncrief IF someone can show me multiple examples of his defensive excellence blowing up plays and/or him "quarterbacking" the defense (in the way someone like KG or maybe Draymond does).


If it comes to any runoff, I'm presently ranking them:
Parker > Nance > Jones > Moncrief > Hagan > Walton
(with Jones and Moncrief being close, and Hagan and Walton being close)

Nomination: Dominique Wilkins
Alt Nomination: Shawn Marion

I'd like to nominate KJ also, though no traction yet. Chris Bosh or Horace Grant as well.

[AEnigma]

In '13 he was 9th in PER, 5th in WS/48 (and I think like 12th or 13th in BPM), while having the 2nd-best [behind only LeBron] RAPM in the league (RAPM including playoffs, fwiw)

Not familiar with the RAPM sources indicating this; I do know some of Engelmann’s feature Mike Conley being an RAPM standout that year (by virtue of some implausibly high DRAPM scores), but not Parker.

[Owly]

Induction vote: Tony Parker
Starting PG for a virtual dynasty of more than a decade. Near his peak was good for around 20 pts and 7 ast on good efficiency, functioning as the primary driver of their offense......they were sometimes better offensively than defensively in that period. For example, he once anchored [led in pts and assists] a +6.3 rORTG [#1 in league]. Multiple other good ones around that time, too.

In '13 he was 9th in PER, 5th in WS/48 (and I think like 12th or 13th in BPM), while having the 2nd-best [behind only LeBron] RAPM in the league (RAPM including playoffs, fwiw); this for a 7th-rated offense that came one made trey away from winning the title in 6 games.
Was top 5 in RAPM in '12, too; though other years do lag behind.
He's got solid longevity to couple with some of these bullet points. I'd like to write more, though don't have time. He's comfortably my preferred candidate though.


Alternate vote: Larry Nance
Sort of a "best of the rest" pick.
13 seasons, was at least a borderline All-Star level player by his 2nd year, and then remarkably consistent all the way through his 12th year. Only a moderate dip in his 13th and final season, which is one of probably only two seasons in which he missed relevant time, too (in '85 he missed 21 games, plus the playoffs [start of them anyway]).

For basically a decade he was someone who could be counted on for ~17-22 ppg on good efficiency, with 8-9 rebs, 3 ast, and good rim protection. The "only" three All-Star selections and no All-NBA teams [though he did get votes] belies how good he actually was, and for how long.
imo, he has ELEVEN seasons that are at least fringe/borderline All-Star level, and perhaps 2-3 seasons that are All-NBA 3rd Team level (maybe even weak 2nd Team level at his peak???).

I could potentially be convinced to switch my alternate vote to Moncrief IF someone can show me multiple examples of his defensive excellence blowing up plays and/or him "quarterbacking" the defense (in the way someone like KG or maybe Draymond does).


If it comes to any runoff, I'm presently ranking them:
Parker > Nance > Jones > Moncrief > Hagan > Walton
(with Jones and Moncrief being close, and Hagan and Walton being close)

Nomination: Dominique Wilkins
Alt Nomination: Shawn Marion

I'd like to nominate KJ also, though no traction yet. Chris Bosh or Horace Grant as well.

Now these are clear cut stronger years for Parker box and impact signal.

What I would say is there isn't one "RAPM" JE seemed to be the main guy for a long time and the Googlesites that I think you're using would tend to be my main source ... and I grant above, these are good years that are probably going to look good ...

If the above is indeed from Googlesites ... 2012 is labelled as NPI and 2013 isn't. And those two different "flavors" would probably be optimal for Parker. '12 ... looking at '11 on-off ... is looking at some pedestrian priors. Then 13 will have stronger ones.

Looking at Shotcharts - if I'm understanding correctly - he's 1st in '12 (2nd in what I think is luck adjusted) and he's powered especially by a 3rd overall on D though strong on both ends ...
Then for '13 he's 8th overall in '13 (68th in what I think is luck adjusted).

And the longer term picture from Googlesites has peer Baron Davis ahead in 97-14 RAPM, but also narrowly ahead in RAPM Value above average despite the longevity disadvantage including less opportunity in the playoffs, granting Parker gains an edge if the above replacement variant is favored. This measure also includes Davis's down years and depending on ones perspective denies Parker his full career value or does not include his weaker years. 97-22 and 97-24 continue to find Davis as if anything - at a glance - more strong, whilst the 97-22 and 97-24 find Parker a fairly average player in a way that I would imagine more than negates the minutes "value" added [Parker ranked 68th (of 1648) in 97-14, 559th (of 2465) 97-22 and 718th (of 2615) for 97-24] whether one is imagining above average or replacement.
versus Davis that's ...

Player: to 14 RAPM (rank); to 22 RAPM (rank); to 24 RAPM (rank)
TP: 2.15 (68th); -0.3 (559th); 0.7 (718th)
BD: 2.66 (40th); 6.1 (30th); 2.8 (26th)

And fwiw my guess is there isn't some huge weighting on playoffs.
(if so) That's in line with my own thinking.
But iirc we've seen projects that tilt something like playoff time counts 10x as much as RS. Those who are heavily playoff inclined ... that aren't just measuring opportunity/narrative but playoff goodness, would I think be better served by Davis.

So whilst there are rosy angles on Parker's peak to say other years, as you acknowledged, "lag behind" might be a generous framing, individually and particularly collectively, to my limited knowledge the RAPM family doesn't seem that friendly off what I've been looking at. That is of course just one angle.


On Nance, granting anchoring versus guys in ... isn't the field but ... I'd echo the call that there isn't (from what I've seen) clear separation from rank 48 Kevin McHale (beyond narrative). Now I suspect I'm lower on McHale than that rank. McHale's playoff box does hold up a little better (absolute terms comparison depends on metric of choice - Nance's BPM fall puts him circa even with McHale after his climb - PER and WS/48 give more solid leads [edit: to McHale, to be clear]). I'd be looking at moving Nance up more than down the ballot.

[Doctor MJ]

If we could guarantee multiple inclusions, I would have no qualms with DJ and Sikma going ahead of Gus because of their total careers — just as I have no real objection to taking Rasheed ahead of Billups and Ben.

And here we come back to that inconsistent data standard. It was a common argument in this group that Rasheed was a less impactful playoff figure than Billups and Ben, so this group ended up siding with those two. There was also a recognition that those two were the ones functioning as the team’s stars in a way that was not true of Rasheed, whose best “star” years were in Portland. Yet we do not have data for the Sonics, so now we look past Gus’s consistent playoff elevation and instead turn to DJ’s and Sikma’s longevity and DJ’s quaternary presence on two more title winners? It does not really sit right with me.

DJ at least I am softer toward on that issue because I think he has a fine enough argument as the most valuable player to that team’s title run, but while I think Sikma had a fine career, and perhaps even a top 100 one in aggregate, it looks a lot more to me like a reduced Rasheed profile than a Ben/Billups profile.

Hmm. So, if we go by who was playing the most MPG in their championship years together:

For Detroit:
RS Ben / Rip / Billups / Prince / Sheed
PS Rip / Ben / Billups / Sheed / Prince

For Seattle:
RS Sikma / DJ / Gus
PS DJ / Sikma / Gus

I think this is worth bearing in mind when seeking to slot by importance. With Sheed, we're not talking about a guy playing among the very most prolific on the team - like Sikma - and merely reducing primacy, he really did play less than the guys who played the most.

I feel like you're seeing Gus' scoring volume in the playoffs and you're just plain a believer that that was a huge part of what put the Sonics over the time. And frankly that may be correct...

but I do think we should remember that the Sonics won with defense just like the Pistons. And this is certainly plays a big part in way I tend to be higher on both Ben & DJ than most. These two guys really seem like the guys who were most central to the team's competitive advantage. Doesn't mean they're necessarily the most valuable overall of course, and while I think the +/- bears this out for Ben, we can't see this with crystalized granularity back in DJ's era.

In a similar spot. I actually included English and Wilkins before reflecting further on it (and specifically on how they compare with Carmelo, who has functionally no support and will not make the list). That 1988 Game 7 does seem to be doing a lot of work for a player who also never achieved anything without Magic and faded out quickly.

His fade-out does him no favors and affects me too.

At the same time, it impresses me that he went from being drafted #1 as the man in college to willingly working as a wing man for another star in the NBA and yet still seemed to be able to erupt when his team needed him to during his prime.

Generally agreed — Mel winning MVP over Zelmo reads as an outright bad choice to me — although I think Cunningham was clearly more historically significant before their respective ABA switches, and also as previously stated, I think Willie Wise was the standout during the Stars’ title run.

I don't think we'd say that Cunningham was actually the more established player before '68-69 when he takes on a starring role and becomes an MVP candidate, and in those 1969 playoffs, Zelmo handles himself quite well while Billy's team immediately loses.

Re: Wise the stand out for Stars' title. Really? I'm curious what sways you in that direction. Zelmo was the stronger MVP vote getter, the winner of the playoffs MVP, the clear star of the finals Game 7, and the guy who all-in-one stats favored in both RS & PS. Additionally, Wise on the previous year's mediocre teams while Zelmo was a new addition on the new Star team that was just plain outstanding in its success all year long.

- I am considering Baron Davis who as noted has the best RAPM track record of any modern player not yet in.

To a point. Is his RAPM case that much stronger than the case of someone like Jrue Holiday, who has provided a much longer career and been the #2 on a title team?

Excellent question. In my bin spreadsheet for Cheema's 5-year numbers that goes through 2021, Baron has a clear lead:

Top 5: Baron 1, Jrue 0
Top 10: Baron 5, Jrue 0
Top 30: Baron 10, Jrue 5

Now, I think Jure would look considerably better if we had numbers going through 2023, but I doubt it would be enough to match Baron.

In terms of longevity, you're right that Jrue has the edge. Additionally we've seen Jrue be a dream teammate taking on different roles as needed. If I'm building a champion I'd feel more comfortable in Jrue as a beta than in Baron as an alpha.

Connie

Sad thing about Connie is that he, like Walton or Penny or McAdoo, should be sorted as more of a Peaks Project player, but because of the ABA environment he never gets too much respect there… even though I would probably take him over Elgin Baylor at minimum and think he has decent arguments over Barry and Pettit as a basketball player, even if his championship is understandably weighed much less.

Yup, there's definitely some sad when it comes to Connie. Of course, that's part of what makes him so dear to my heart.