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
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:
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) [note: other sources have him lower]; 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 by that same source: that was as the leader in ppg and apg (18.3 and 7.7, with +1.2% rTS and only 2.6 topg) for a +6.3 rORTG [#1 in league].
Other years lag behind; still, he's got really solid longevity to augment some of these bullet points. While I don't think he peaked any higher than roughly All-NBA 2nd Team level, I think [as far as CORP evaluations are concerned] he's got probably SIX seasons "All-Star level" or better, and a whopping ELEVEN at "Sub All-Star" or better (that's equal/more seasons than the entire careers of Walton and Moncrief), and probably FOURTEEN as at least Avg/role player (more than the full careers of all other candidates).
Anyway, he's perhaps comfortably my preferred candidate among this group.
Alternate vote: Larry Nance Sort of a "best of the rest" pick, and probably comfortably so now that Sam Jones is gone. 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 > Moncrief > Hagan > Walton (with Hagan and Walton being very close)
Nomination: Shawn Marion Alt Nomination: Al Horford
I'd like to nominate KJ and Nique also, though no traction yet. Chris Bosh or Horace Grant as well. May switch depending upon who other posters are nominating.
VOTE: Larry Nance, Sr. Alternate: Tony Parker Nomination: Al Horford AltNom: Shawn Marion
AEnigma wrote: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.
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.
Alternate Vote Sidney Moncrief -- One of my all time favorites and both a defensive superstar and a tremendous offensive player. However, short prime and greater than average slip in playoff efficiency are problems. Defensively in the playoffs, I remember him just taking Otis Birdsong of New Jersey and Dennis Johnson of Boston completely out of the game when he was in there, but I also remember Andrew Toney making him look very ordinary. Still, don't see anyone else I rank higher of the choices.
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.
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: Walton > Parker > Hagan
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.
Some other things going on, but wow......really dried up all of a sudden on this thread. Only four posts (at least all of them are votes). This one ends tomorrow morning, too.
trelos brought him up (I've mentioned him as well), but I'm gonna ask an up-front question: are the scandals of his personal life shying some people away from Kevin Johnson as a nominee? Because I'm honestly surprised he's not even a candidate yet.
I think it is highly likely KJ gets in next round.
The “scandals” kill a lot of enthusiasm but seems to be consensus that he was a great player who should probably be either the next point guard off the board or at worst one of the next three point guards.
Part of low discussion this round is how several of us kept the conversation going in the prior round for a day after it concluded. Also waiting on several typical voters still. Might be our first one-page thread, but proud that we went at least 82 players before that happened.
At this point it's really about who has support so here are players i think would be odd(considering who has been inducted, nomianted, and general case). Would be interested to see if anyone has interest in them.
Marc Gasol Horace Grant Luka Doncic Al Hoford Jayson Tatum Hagan
I think it's odd how skewed towards the players drafted in the 60's and 70's this list has been the last two times, so I'm skeptical of more inclusions form there.
In order of preference: Marc Gasol Horace Grant Walton Luka Doncic Hagan Hoford
Smalling voting pool now, so if there's some conensus on some names here, induction can come out of nowhere(lowry)
I am moderately open to Marc, but only seven postseasons as a true starter (2020 is completely nominal) hurts, even if I would take his peak season over the peaks of other versatile centres like Vlade or Sikma.
OhayoKD wrote:At this point it's really about who has support so here are players i think would be odd(considering who has been inducted, nomianted, and general case). Would be interested to see if anyone has interest in them.
Marc Gasol Horace Grant Luka Doncic Al Hoford Jayson Tatum Hagan
)
Marc Gasol - wouldn't object strongly, though doubt I'd support him unless the candidate pool is not to my liking.
Horace Grant - leaning on meaningful longevity and cumulative value in my criteria, yes, definitely. I think he was a better/more valuable player than he's often given credit for in the mainstream, and he was able to mesh himself seamlessly into multiple contender teams, has at least 14 seasons as a fair/decent role player, and damn near a decade as at least a solid starter-level player (peaking roughly All-NBA 3rd Team level). For me, and especially given his relevance on so many good teams, make him a solid inclusion.
Luka Doncic - not this round for me (again: meaningful longevity and cumulative value), especially with the way his impact often seems to lag behind his box. I'm sure he's EASILY in there for me by 2026 project.
Al Hoford - yes, I'd like to see him included; he'd be nearby Horace Grant for me.
Jayson Tatum - Not for me (again: longevity).
Cliff Hagan - sort of the same boat as Marc Gasol. I'd not object strongly, but I likely will not be supporting him unless I really am underwhelmed by the other candidates. Were it up to me, he'd be a "close but no cigar" type of player. For me, just too many reservations relating to era and lagging impact signals. He's sort of like Adrian Dantley---but of a notably weaker era---to me.
Were I ranking my preference among them it would be:
Vote #1: Tony Parker -Good longevity, peak not that far below competition (fringe All-NBA level) -Important role on a historically notable team -Manu is the toughest competition for a backup in terms of on/off numbers
Vote #2: Larry Nance -Fairly narrow choice over Moncrief -Good in all areas -Most of his career was prime
Nomination #1: Bob Davies -1st great guard, #2 overall of the first era -8 years at a star level ('46-'53) -2x champ
Nomination #2: Shawn Marion -Could come back and change this one, but I slightly prefer Marion over Nique/Horford, if some other players get support I could see going with them (Grant/Bosh are two I like off the top) -Great in that #2 role when he was happy to accept it
Not overly excited about this ballot. I'm going with Moncrief because I think as a two-way player he's perhaps the highest peak on this ballot outside of Walton, even if his playoff numbers are inconsistent.
For my second vote, since this round is all Nance/Parker, I'll go with Nance because his individual numbers just look better than Parker's.
Nomination Vote #1: Bill Sharman
Nomination Vote #2: Al Horford
You all don't need to hear my Sharman arguments for the hundredth time. Some of you say you support him for Top 100 and I hope you eventually will.
I'd probably put at least ten names ahead of any of the nominees who currently have first-place votes, but if I have to pick one, I guess I'll go with Horford. Five ECF appearances, higher cumulative RAPM than Marion via J.E.(4.0 vs 2.5), effective on both sides of the ball. Not super excited about it, but I'm just not sold on Marion as a Top 100 guy.
OhayoKD wrote:At this point it's really about who has support so here are players i think would be odd(considering who has been inducted, nomianted, and general case). Would be interested to see if anyone has interest in them.
Marc Gasol Horace Grant Luka Doncic Al Hoford Jayson Tatum Hagan
)
Marc Gasol - wouldn't object strongly, though doubt I'd support him unless the candidate pool is not to my liking.
This is probably the one I'd nominate now in an ideal world so I'll just point out(again), especially considering our recent inducftion of Cousy
1. He was a clear cut best guy on a team that was generally and as a one-off in greater proximity to a title(c2-1 up on the eventual champs before teammate injury)
2. Had more evident impact on Toronto in his post-prime with a cleaner skillset to team correlation(great rim protection)
3. Then was able to anchor a contender even when Kawhi left
At least peak/prime wise I think he's one of the best players left, though I haven't done an in-depth career accumulation note
Horace Grant - leaning on meaningful longevity and cumulative value in my criteria, yes, definitely. I think he was a better/more valuable player than he's often given credit for in the mainstream, and he was able to mesh himself seamlessly into multiple contender teams, has at least 14 seasons as a fair/decent role player, and damn near a decade as at least a solid starter-level player (peaking roughly All-NBA 3rd Team level). For me, and especially given his relevance on so many good teams, make him a solid inclusion.
Am fine to nominate him now if there's support.
Al Hoford - yes, I'd like to see him included; he'd be nearby Horace Grant for me.
Well he might have the votes so I guess I'll go for him.
Cliff Hagan - sort of the same boat as Marc Gasol. I'd not object strongly, but I likely will not be supporting him unless I really am underwhelmed by the other candidates. Were it up to me, he'd be a "close but no cigar" type of player. For me, just too many reservations relating to era and lagging impact signals. He's sort of like Adrian Dantley---but of a notably weaker era---to me.
Wasn't he the best player on a title team? Not many of those lying around
Were I ranking my preference among them it would be:
Not an ideal pick but the current crop of nominees is kid of underwhelming imo. After all the hubaloo about modern and recency bias over the last few threads, it's wierd to me no one takes an issue with the 80's and 90's still getting way more representation than any other decade in terms of inductees who have played and peaked and current nominees, including the 10's and 2000's which took place after foreign talent doubled within a span of 6 years and kept increasing.
Is no one going to push for a course correction here?
But I digress. LA Bird made Walton's case better than I could so...
Spoiler:
LA Bird wrote:Walton is one of the most polarizing player on all time rankings so I don't really expect this writeup to change the minds of most voters. But I did switched sides myself so maybe one or two of you might also join me in the Walton camp after reading this.
The first thing with Walton is the number of seasons. Many will immediately disqualify him from a career list because he played too little but not all seasons are equal. Like LeBron said, 2 points isn't always 2 points. Similarly, 2 seasons isn't always 2 seasons. ElGee's CORP method has become quite popular on this board but I don't think many still grasp the difference between an all time level peak like Walton's and 'regular' superstars. If we refer to the graph below, the equivalent of a +7 season is about 3 seasons in the top 10, 4.5 seasons as an All Star, or 10+ seasons as an average starter. Walton's short peak loses him the debate against any elite player with a sustained peak but those guys have all been voted in a long time ago. We have reached a point in the project where some of the candidates were rarely or even never top 10 in any season. Rodman was inducted recently - how many top 10 and All Star level seasons did he have in his career? How about Horford who is likely to be nominated soon? The number of seasons matter in a career comparison but so does the value of each season.
Estimating peak Walton as a +7 player might seem high but arguments for his impact at his peak is pretty ironclad. He was the clear leader on both offense and defense for a title team that completely fell apart without him. Walton is the WOWY GOAT in ElGee's dataset with a +10 net difference in 77/78 (raw MOV change without any teammate adjustment is even higher at +12) and he is ~100th percentile in Moonbeam's RWOWY graphs. Furthermore, the team's second best player was another big in Maurice Lucas, and they had a good backup center in Tom Owens so there is no question either if Walton's impact metrics were inflated by poor replacements. He is arguably the best passing center besides Jokic, one of the top 3 defensive rebounders ever by era-relative percentage (which synergizes perfectly with his outlet passing), and he is among the GOAT defensive players. Walton's skillset checks all the boxes you would expect from an impact monster and he has the numbers to back it up too. And since this is a career not peak list, I should also point out Walton consistently had massive impact outside of his peak years.
This is often overlooked but Walton actually played more than just 77/78/86. Obviously, him missing the 79-82 seasons is a giant red flag but unless we are penalizing players for missed potential, those years just get a zero from me. Now, from the team's point of view, was he a negative contract because he was getting paid a lot for nothing? Of course. But salaries and contracts are not a consideration in this project. The best player and the best player relative to salary (ie the most underpaid) are separate topics. Moving on to the seasons where Walton actually played over half the games, we get 76/84/85, three more years where he averaged 58 games per season. It is not a lot of games but we normally still count seasons of that length for other players. For example, 96/97/98 Shaq over three years averaged 55 games per season and I don't believe anybody is writing off those years because he didn't hit a threshold in games played. Such seasons get valued less than full 82 game seasons but they still usually get some credit.
Other than the numbers of games, the next thing with non-peak Walton is his minutes per game. He did play less but I think there is too much emphasis on the number of minutes itself rather than his impact in those minutes. Which, if we are being honest, seems a bit inconsistent for a board that already voted for a career 6th man in Ginobili at #39 because of his high impact in low minutes. Looking at samples with more than 10 games, Walton's raw WOWY scores were consistently quite strong even during his non-peak years (outside of an ugly rookie season)
By the same measure, Dantley had 3 prime seasons with a negative raw WOWY (1980: -0.1, 1983: -2.0, 1988: -2.0) and Hagan, as trex_8063 pointed out before, often saw his teams perform better without him too. In other words, if we remove any preconceptions about his health, these forgotten years of Walton still provided more lift for his team than prime Dantley and Hagan did. The box scores are not as favorable to Walton but then again, his box score stats were never that impressive even at his peak. Still, a 13/10/3 slash line is comparable to some of the prime seasons of non-scorers like Unseld and Draymond. Walton is often penalized for having a GOAT-level peak because seasons which would otherwise be viewed as prime for lesser players get written off as meaningless for him, which in turn makes his already short career look even shorter than it really is.
1986 is the only non-peak season of Walton that gets any recognition but it is still underrated in my opinion. Winning 6MOY is nice but it relegates him to a mere footnote as just a good bench player when his impact was so much more. The Celtics saw a bigger jump after adding Walton than the Sixers did with Moses or the Warriors with Durant.
The Walton team stands far above the rest despite the starters in 86 playing fewer minutes than in 85 and 87. The only other roster change in 86 was swapping Quinn Buckner for Jerry Sichting but that doesn't explain the improvement on defense or why the team fell back down to earth in 87 with Sichting still playing. Walton was the difference maker that elevated the Celtics from great to GOAT team status. I am guessing Walton's naysayers will still bring up his low minutes off the bench as rebuttal but focusing on minutes alone is pointless without evaluating his contribution in those minutes. There is no guarantee that a 40 minute starter would have more impact than a 20 minute reserve just because he played more. And once we move pass the labels, it's obvious to see how big of a difference Walton made to the Celtics.
TLDR • Walton's peak is so much higher that one season from him is equal to the top 3 or more seasons of the other candidates. • His non-peak impact signals are still better than prime Dantley, Hagan and he had 3 of those years averaging at ~60 games. • He added All Star level lift to the Celtics as a ceiling raiser despite overlapping with an existing All Star at the same position.
Impact portfolio only really cleanly topped by Lebron and Russell, a dominant championship, and an MVP, not to mention a key role in a second dominant championship is better than what everybody else on the board has to offer.
Nomination
1. Al Hoford
2. Horace Grant
Going with these two as they seem to have the most traction, but will make a case some other players I think more deserving than most of the current nominees(and maybe even a couple inductees).
1. Horace Grant
Not neccesarily the most deserving player, but with Sam Jones being pushed for a while now, I'd say Grant's case is probably a better version of Jones':
Spoiler:
OhayoKD wrote:
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
I've pointed this out before, but these box-numbers likely don't give Grant his full credit as a co-primary paint-protector on Chicago:
(if you want to check, 20 possessions are finished through 19:42 amd 40 are finished through 49:52)
Note it was very hard to make out players(besides pippen whose got a nasty case of roblox head), so i could be misattributing here and there though I used jersey numbers, names, commentator[url][/url]s, and head/body shapes the best i could. I also counted "splits" for both parties(which is why the numbers don't add up to 40)
Distribution went
Pippen/Grant 14 each
Purdue 6 or 7
Cartwright 4
Armstrong/Jordan 1 each
FWIW, Grant seemed more significantly more effective than Pippen but otoh, Pippen was trusted to deal with laimbeer far more than anyone else
All that aside, what's notable here is that it's the non-bigs who are checking rim threats the most. Not the centres. With one of the two deterring attempts, sometimes on an island, the rest of the team was enabled to try and force turnovers with suffocating pressure.
FWIW, Chicago postseason defense tended to be closer to their postseason offense than one might think.
Horace Grant also probably deserves at least some credit for the 2001 Lakers dramatically improved postseason defense(and overall) performance relative to their 2000 iteration(their rim-protection numbers in particular were significantly).
Probably fair to say he played a "key role" on 4 champions and 5 finalists with three distinct cores(though there was common ground between all 3 teams). Nothing mind blowing in terms of rs impact(similar to Sam Jones and Sharman), but there's a consistent trend in terms of playoff results:
-> Chicago improves drastically overnight as he and pippen see their roles increase in 1990, looks similar to the 91 Bulls in the first two rounds per M.O.V iirc -> Chicago has their worst playoff run of the dynasty with his depature(despite looking pretty good without him in the RS) -> Magic go from a first round out to a finalist(though the "real nba finals" was arguably in the West) -> Lakers go from one of the worst champions ever to statistically maybe the best
All these teams specifically see their defense and ability to protect the paint rise and drop with his arrival and depature in the postseason.
I think if we're going to have the jones and sharmans inducted, Grant should also probably be there as well. Replication across contexts and a more clear connect between team performance and the nature of his contributions are advantages for him here I think.
TLDR: While both have eh rs profiles, unlike Sam Jones, Horace Grant has a consistent pattern of joining teams and seeing their playoff performance jump, and leaving teams and seeing their playoff performance fall, with his specific contributions correlating with the side of the floor the team jumps the most in. He also had one chance taking up a bigger role in 1994 and played like a legit no.2 on a contender. Sam Jones has no track record to speak off without the biggest impact outlier in history. Moreover, while the Bulls clearly missed Grant vs the Magic when he left, the Celtics went on their most impressive two-year playoff run with Sam Jones as a 6th man beating the 68 Lakers(highest mov ever with west), the 68 Sixers(wilt + a team that was good without him), the 69 Lakers(merger of 2nd and 3rd best team in the league, core that won a championship soon after), and the 69 Knicks(rotation that won the next year's championship and made three finals, winning two in short order). All in all, I'd say there are bigger questions around Sam Jones replicability than Grant and don't really see why Sam Jones should go ahead.
2. Marc Gasol
This omission is really weird to me:
-> Was the clear best player on a fringe contender, most notably going 2-1 up on the eventual champion 2015 Warriors before their point guard got hurt. -> Post-prime, was the clear-cut defensive anchor on a toronto side that won a title and then contended without their best player on the back of an all-time defense: Said defense becomes all-time when he comes, and returns to mediocrity when he leaves. Team immediately turns from contender to fringe playoff team -> Was correctly identified as the best defender in the league in 2013, and an all-time menace for opposing bigs(giannis, gasol) even post-prime -> Was helping the Lakers post the best defense and rs record and srs in the league before injuries derailed their 2021 campaign
The comparisons that come to mind are are
already inducted Sam Cousy who -> did not co-lead a team as close to winning as what Gasol led -> did not show the same level impact post-prime on a winner
already getting inductee votes larry nance -> did not co-lead a team as competitive as the grizzlies -> never won -> not as clear-cut of a defensive anchor
Bill Sharman -> same as cousy except without the MVP
Gasol has yet to get a single nomination vote, I don't get it at all. Probably should have been inducted already tbh.
3. Iggy A few years as the star(and defensive anchor) of playoff teams, and then post-injury played a key role for 3 championships and 6 final apperances over two teams. Since championship role-players are in vogue right now...
Also strong rapm for what it's worth.
4. Luka Donicic
Better peak than anyone left on the board besides Walton and argument for being the best in a vacuum. His longetivity is a knock but he was pretty much better than anyone here besides Bill in his second year in the league if not his first and while people may not be overly impressed by the round finishes and rs record, on a series to series basis, Luka's Mavs have done pretty well:
-> went toe to toe with "maybe win the title if kawhi is healthy" clippers with kawhi -> beat "best record over the last 5 years" suns a year removed from their final run
Mavs have been a fringe contender with Luka in the playoffs and haven't been a good team without him in the regular season if you go by game instead of "few minutes without". If Walton is getting serious inductee consideration, Luka deserves some nomination love I think.
With Jones and Cousy getting some traction, i'll copy and paste some of the counterpoints offered in the #72 thread that I do not think have been satisfactorily addressed:
Skepticism on Sam Jones and Bob Cousy
Spoiler:
OldSchoolNoBull wrote: As an era-relativist, I get irked when the only(or predominant) argument someone can come up with for one player over another is "tougher era".
I also take issue with "reasonably equivalent offensive production" when Sharman was significantly more efficient relative to his competition.
Ultimately though, my real gripe isn't that you might take Jones over Sharman(though I disagree with it), it's the fact that Sharman didn't make the Top 100 at all last time(or the time before that) while Jones made it both times. I just want to make sure Sharman is in the conversation because I don't see any argument for him not to make the list if Jones is in.
Or we can exclude both
Sam Jones does look better by WOWY, mostly by default:
In ’61, Sharman missed 18 games and the Celtics were (again) better without him.
This trend would hold throughout most of Russell’s career. In ’66, Sam Jones missed eight games and Boston’s performance didn’t budge. Jones missed 11 more contests in ’69 and the team was about 2 points worse without him. All told, as the roster cycled around Russell, his impact seemed to remain
I would have pause considering either for the top 100 simply because they were on championship teams. I also know some voters here have put stock into moonbeam's version of psuedo-rapm where Russell is the gold standard regularized and torches the field to a degree no one else across history does with his raw inputs(doubles 2nd place Wilt iirc over a certain stretch). Lots of emphasis on points and ts add on average offenses seems odd. Sam Jones defense has been praised but he is a guard and the defenses don't actually seem to care too much about whether he's there or not. 1969 is probably not fair since it's 6th man Sam Jones, but 1966 Sam Jones put up one of his highest point totals and fg percentages so if that version is not making a signficant impact, why is he being voted in here, let alone Sherman?
Honestly would be wierd to be putting more of Russell's teammates on this list than last time when we have a bunch of new evidence/argumentation suggesting Russell is more valuable individually than people were crediting him as the last go around and we have a bunch of new players to consider. Do these players actually warrant being considered over 100 other nba players?
Am pretty open to Cousy since he was post-prime with his own unimpressive signal and I assume he did something to earn the MVP but...
trex_8063 wrote:
Will first emphasize that your above comments appear to specifically delineate Cousy's post-prime. And I'll also acknowledge that the league/game progressed faster than Cousy did as a player.
That said, the limited/noisy impact metric from the very same source (Ben Taylor) reflects decently upon Cousy: his prime WOWYR is +4.4, career +3.9.
As always, when using these sorts of numbers I think it can be worthwhile to check what the sample here is. I don't know what exact years are factored into prime, but up until 1957, Cousy doesn't really miss time with the exception of 52 and 51 where the Celtics see a +1.3 SRS improvement when Cousy joins. I don't highlight that to criticize rookie Cousy, but rather to highlight a potential discrepancy:
With how WOWYR works(this is true in general when you take stretched singals vs concentrated ones but WOWYR's "adjustments" compound this considerably), that +3.9(and perhaps to a degree the +4.4) is disproportionately operating off that 1951 and 1952 wothout sample and transposing it as part of the off for all the other years(where cousy barely misses time) as well. Also note, unlike Moonbeam's version, the much larger sampled +1.3 mark is not factored in at all.
In other words, that score, mantained over a very small per-season sample, is likely significantly inflated by 9 games coming with a much weaker cast from Cousy's first two years.
I am also somewhat concerned with the lack of success in this pre-russell prime period where the team does not make a single final in a very weak league winnig a grand total of 4 series. The term "offensive dynasty" is thrown around for the Cousy years, but success on one side of the court is really not the point.
The Celtics having goat-level defenses is cool, but it matters to the degree it helped produce the most successful team ever, not because the goat defense isinofitself of extreme importance. Good on them for having the best offenses pre-Russell, but does it really matter if they weren't the all that close to being the best team?
eminence wrote: On Cousy.
I think his early career WOWY signal is unfortunately impossible to pin down.
He/Macauley arrive in Boston at the same time, the league contracts from 17 to 10.5 teams, both the without and with samples have large gaps between their ratings/win% (in opposing directions). It all combines to make the '50 vs '51 Celtics comparison very difficult, though I think it's clear the two combine with Red to turn the franchise around (they were absolute garbage their first four seasons and turned into a consistent .500+/playoff squad).
He then misses a grand total of 1 RS game prior to '57.
Agreed that 'offensive dynasty' oversells the Celtics of the period (hey, sometimes we're all sellers). They were a decent to good team, built around a strong offense. Related - I believe they only won 3 series over that period (you may have counted the '54 round robin as two wins).
0-2 vs Knicks '51 1-2 vs Knicks '52 2-0 vs Nats '53 1-3 vs Knicks '53 2-2 '54 Round Robin (2-0 vs Knicks, 0-2 vs Nats) 0-2 vs Nats '54 2-1 vs Knicks '55 1-3 vs Nats '55 1-2 vs Nats '56
For comparison the other Eastern conference squads from '51-'56 (not counting tiebreakers). Knicks 6 series wins Nats 8 (counting the '54 round robin as 2 wins) Warriors 2 (their '56 title)
A worse but healthier version of the Lob City Clippers.
My current sentiment on inclusion in the top 100 for both is Cousy as a maybe(entirely on the basis of him winning an MVP really), and Sam Jones as a no. The former does not have notable team-success in the "prime" we don't have substantial data for and Russell's Celtics play better without him in the post-period.
For the latter, we have a peak signal where the Celtics do not drop-off without him, a marginal bit of lift in the year he's a 6th man, and is his claim to fame is scoring prowess on an average offense with the possiblity that this is a result of scheme(which still only works if we assume Sam Jones had substantially better impact than what can be discerned statistically).
Possible he's just gotten unlucky with the games he's missed, but the evidence for Jones being top-100 worthy just isn't there I think.
Reasonable minds can differ, but I don't have Gasol as clearly the best player on the Grizzlies for that run, and would tend to lean slightly towards Conley over Gasol.
Continuing to support Hagan the best alpha of the bunch with decent longevity. Siding with Nance for the second spot. Very impressed by him, and think he could have definitely played a key role on a champion.
Nomination 1: Jayson Tatum Nomination 2: Shawn Marion
Continuing to support Tatum who quietly has accomplished considerably more than people realize. I posted bins of Cheema's 5-year RAPMs before, to say Tatum shows up considerably more impressively than the guys gaining traction here.
Reluctantly siding with Marion for the 2nd spot. I like Al Horford a lot, and can certainly see arguments for him over Marion, but I don't really see Horford as good enough to really be in the conversation.
Vote 1 - Tony Parker Vote 2 - Sidney Moncrief Nomination 1 - Shawn Marion Nomination 2 - Bill Sharman
Parker has solid longevity on one of the best sustained stretches of team success in league history. While his impact relative to other spurs may have been uneven, I think he peaked pretty highly and is deserving at this point in the project. At his best he was a killer off the dribble, crafty finishing in the paint and a respectable shooter.
I think he was a pretty impactful player for 11 seasons. 
These can be seen on his career PIPM graph.
