penbeast0 wrote:Owly wrote:Cavs series win, granting my limits in franchise specific expertise, seemed to have been somewhat of a big deal around the time and for a while after. "The Miracle of Richfield" it was called.
Stars got to three finals fwiw, though not necessarily in their strongest years. In the larger, RS, sample after Beaty's arrival, they run off 3 seasons north of 5 SRS. After three overlapping Colonels runs, the Stars have the next best 5 year SRS spell in the ABA (70-74 Stars, above 69-73 Pacers, above 71-75 Stars, above 68-72 Pacers, above 69-73 Stars.
I'm sort of willing to go along with titles as primary part of success. At the same time I think they're a way off the best. It'd be muddier crossing NBA and ABA SRS so I haven't tried it but I think their best years are in clearly the weaker league, I'd guess Daniels is a way down the NBA centers pecking order (ditto Netlolicky at PF). Not really a fan of what McGinnis gives though he's a later team. Only NBA suspended Brown (especially if we are tilting towards playoff contribution) really pops for me from them.
Somehow I don't think that's what it was called in the Washington papers, lol.
As far as the Pacers, their backcourt in their glory years never impressed me. Freddie Lewis was their main guard and he was a tweener who wasn't particularly a good shooter, distributor, or defender, but ok at all three. They went through several guards next to him but none that popped at all.
I think you underrate Daniels a bit; he's in the HOF now for a reason. I agree that the ABA was weaker but I was going for most successful and you can only play the schedule you are given. Daniels in the NBA, to me, would have been generally in or around the top 5 centers once he got to Indiana. He was an excellent rebounder, good scorer, weak playmaker, and worked hard on defense; not in Kareem's class but in that group just behind Cowens and McAdoo. Never seemed to slack off, like a more physical version of Alonzo Mourning without the shotblocking. McGinnis was a monster stat generator who I agree got overrated, especially with that shared MVP when Erving was clearly better. Neto was a decent and reasonably efficient scorer in the early ABA, though that was about it. Combine and 2 of those big men with Roger Brown and you had an excellent front line.
Don't think we're going to agree on Daniels (think we've been around this before).
Of course he's in the hall, he's of narrative significance (titles, ABA MVP) as well as good (though he's in 2012 in "circling back" way like DJ in 2010 or Gus Johnson in 2010 - I think there was an ABA committee at the time).
On weaker in the Daniels context I think he was at his strongest whilst the ABA was a second tier league. And I think if he was in the NBA he looks not just worse in the shade of titans of the game (Wilt, Russell, Jabbar) but a way down the pecking order versus Cowens, Lanier, Reed, Thurmond, Hayes, Unseld ... later Gilmore, McAdoo ... You'd have to look closer at individual years and the number of teams but it doesn't seem wild at first glance that he's a sub-median starter at the position in the NBA. Now it's a very competitive position. And maybe I can't quite justify that because in a given year there's injuries and Russell and Jabbar don't overlap but still. Beaty has less hardware but pushed his team to similar levels later on in the ABA, was otoh clearly more productive in box composites and had been good but ... he wasn't making the hall off his NBA career. I think I'd have to believe he was a non-box monster to push him up, maybe he was. If he had lasted better, or proven himself in the NBA or both ... if he had some impact signals like Zo does ...
At the margins circa average efficiency, FT% as an indicator of spacing and weak assist numbers would shade me negative.
On Pacers.
I said I'm cool taking them as case of success. They happened win titles as it actually happened. That can't be taken away and the title is the end goal. I just, given the thread title, think it's worth highlighting that I also think they were lucky to win as many as they did (not a dominant RS team, as alluded to by those 5 year runs in the prior post)
and the league was weaker. Put it this way the Bucks were dominating teams most nights in a tougher league over that era and, whilst playoffs add a larger element of luck, I'd be very surprised if the Bucks roster didn't look quite considerably better if put in their place.
