RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #36 (Reggie Miller)

[trex_8063]

Willing to entertain the closing premise there if only because I see strong indicators that the team relied more on Thurmond than it did on Barry even in 1974 (and my confidence in that assertion grows with each preceding year).

That said, 1975 Barry was also demonstrably providing more value to his team than 1974 Barry, and I do not appreciate the implicit framing of Ray as some approximate equal to Thurmond while ignoring the numerous rotation changes on both teams (Thurmond missed time for the Warriors in 1974, Love and Van Lier missed time for the Bulls in 1975 and the roster was aging negatively, Wilkes was added to the Warriors in 1975 and most of the rest of the rotation was aging positively…).

He does get a lot of mileage out of that near loss in the conference finals, but on a similar note, he was unlucky to lose the conference finals the following year.

And yes, in saying that I recognise Baylor may have the least “lucky” playoff track record of anyone, but for as impressive as rookie Wilkes was, and for as reliable as Ray was, those presences do not rise to the bar of Jerry West for me.

Thank you for the reply; that's very fair and even-handed.


re: Ray v Thurmond
I made a vague allusion toward the other roster changes [including some you mention], and you're right that some of them could prove significant toward the teams' DRtgs.

fwiw, it wasn't my intent to suggest that Clifford Ray was Thurmond's equal [or superior]. I may have over-reached in my choice or words/data, out of eagerness to illustrate that Clifford Ray was actually very good defensively. My post does seem to imply Ray >/= Thurmond. I'd be lying if I said I truly believed that.

However, factoring in the roster changes and missed time [and the negative aging] you mention, we can ask ourselves how much of an effect those things had.
Looking at the two Bulls teams, for example.......
Suppose NVL didn't miss 10(ish) games in '75 and Bob Love didn't miss ~20, and Chet Walker didn't age a year.........how much of a boost does that provide to the Bulls' FULL-SEASON DRtg in '75? Does it make it -1.0 better? Maybe.
I'd be reluctant to suggest it would effect it too much more than that (suggesting -2.0, for example, would seem a bit excessive to me).

So those factors could account for the Bulls drop [they worsened by +0.8], and maybe a pinch more. But not MUCH more, imo.


Looking at the two Warrior teams.....
Thurmond had missed ~20 games in '74. How big of a change on their full-season DRtg did that missed time have? And how much is the addition of rookie Jamaal Wilkes in '75 worth [i.e. how much did it effect the '74 team to NOT have him around]? Was there positive aging with someone like George Johnson? How much for that?

Could these things account for somewhere in the vicinity of +1 to +2 change? Yeah, I could believe that. I'd be skeptical of much more than +2, personally (+3.0, for example, seems unrealistic to me).

Their defense in '75 DID in fact improve by -1.1. So again, it's at least pretty close to what we'd expect based on those roster changes OUTSIDE OF the Thurmond/Ray swap.


So I look at all of this and come away thinking that Clifford Ray, while not as good defensively as Thurmond in these years, IS perhaps in the same ballpark. Granted this is late-prime/early post-prime Nate Thurmond, but still........it's Nate Thurmond we're talking about. This is the guy we voted among the 10 greatest defensive centers of all-time, a guy I fully expect to be on this list somewhere in the next 35 threads.

That Clifford Ray may have been in the same ballpark defensively these years is to suggest that he was actually quite a good player. Combine that with the fact that the '75 Warriors were really hanging their hat on their defense in late playoff rounds.......


I'm not suggesting a Ray > Barry hidden phenomenon here, either. Again, I'm merely speaking to statements ["carried"] that imply Barry gets almost all the credit for this run, while his teammates were trash.

[homecourtloss]

Vote: Reggie Miller
ALT Vote: John Havlicek

Edit: Will stick with Havlicek here but feel even more confident about Manu here for future threads.

Three players here who showed great longevity through shifting eras in Miller, Havlicek, and Kidd, especially Miller and Kidd who were impactful in very different eras towards the ends of their careers in which the league environment was rather different than the one they first entered.

I love Reggie Miller’s overall efficacy including in the playoffs, which was basically inelastic other than some games played when he was 37 years old. It didn’t really matter how good the defense was, e.g., vs. the Knicks in 1994. I’ve posted some of his impact metrics before.

Havlicek provided a non-stop motor, defense, and volume scoring when playing with Russell and then was the best player on a team that won after GOAT Russell retired.

- Boston Celtics
Key players: Bill Russell, Sam Jones, John Havlicek, KC Jones, Tom Sanders, Bailey Howell



- Boston Celtics
Key players: John Havlicek, Dave Cowens, Jo Jo White, Paul Silas, Don Chaney, Don Nelson

[penbeast0]

He also scored more efficiently, which I do think reflects well given Pettit was typically the efficient one,

By what measure?

By how they played head-to-head. Even against the Celtics, Pettit was only slightly more efficient than 1959-63 Baylor on notably lower volume and against less potent defensive iterations of the team. Baylor was the better scorer in his prime, which also did not really extend beyond Pettit’s.

Baylor was a career 49.4% TS, 102 TS+ guy in the RS. 49.7% TS in the playoffs. Pettit was a 51.1% TS, 109 TS+ guy in the RS and 50.1% TS guy in the playoffs. He was more efficient than Baylor, and also better relative to his peers.

Why you think career averages are useful here? Baylor played 54 postseason games at an age older than Pettit was when his relevant postseason career ended (31, 1963), played tougher competition, played tougher defences… I feel like you are not actually bothering to try to understand the point. I think Baylor aged poorly, but if I am going to make mention of Baylor not keeping pace with the league’s development, then it seems worth mentioning that he looked better than the guy who multiple people praised for keeping up with league development before dropping off much more steeply and retiring early.

Pettit does have two MVPs and led his team to a title, but I suspect he would have accomplished none of that in Baylor’s position.

Even with a half-decade of Jerry West on his team before he retired?

Is he the leader with a half decade of Jerry West? Only at the start — and the start is when Baylor was at his own peak.

Pettit came into the league before, and Baylor right at the beginning, of the most rapid change in playstyle and efficiency before the adoption of pace and space. Possibly a bigger change as league-wide efficiency rose rapidly over a less than 5 year period as people moved from set shots to jump shots from outside and increased athleticism everywhere. That's why Pettit gets praised for keeping up; the difference from 64-69 wasn't as great.

Also, Pettit was something of an ironman, Baylor had more injuries plus he was called to serve in the military which hurt his team's ability to rely on him (though individually, his performance that year where he was not practicing with the team but flying in whenever he could to play was nothing short of amazing).

Finally, Pettit had a stronger defensive reputation than Baylor, though Trex (?) was posting some team Drtg results that implied that Baylor had a positive defensive impact as well.

[AEnigma]

Pettit came into the league before, and Baylor right at the beginning, of the most rapid change in playstyle and efficiency before the adoption of pace and space. Possibly a bigger change as league-wide efficiency rose rapidly over a less than 5 year period as people moved from set shots to jump shots from outside and increased athleticism everywhere. That's why Pettit gets praised for keeping up; the difference from 64-69 wasn't as great.

I recognise that. Baylor’s game was much more tied to physical advantages and his game was less valuable once those slid. But in that same sense, it is not a case of Baylor being suddenly caught off guard by league changes in 1964. The story of his career would have been similar in many eras, and indeed, for many of his rough stylistic successors, it kind-of was.

Also, Pettit was something of an ironman, Baylor had more injuries plus he was called to serve in the military which hurt his team's ability to rely on him (though individually, his performance that year where he was not practicing with the team but flying in whenever he could to play was nothing short of amazing).

Sure, but Baylor played more minutes per game, more seasons, and more total games.

Finally, Pettit had a stronger defensive reputation than Baylor, though Trex (?) was posting some team Drtg results that implied that Baylor had a positive defensive impact as well.

That has never really been my personal impression, nor has it been my impression that it was a particularly common assessment at the time either. If there are indeed contemporary suggestions to the contrary, that would be interesting to see.

[Dutchball97]

Now that Drexler is being brought up, how about George Gervin? I have Reggie, Drexler and Gervin very close to each other but I haven't seen many people even putting Gervin in the conversation yet.

[Doctor MJ]

Now that Drexler is being brought up, how about George Gervin? I have Reggie, Drexler and Gervin very close to each other but I haven't seen many people even putting Gervin in the conversation yet.

I have Gervin over Drexler.

In the case of Gervin, I think you can make a strong case for Gervin being the best regular season player, but he has remarkably little playoff success which raises questions. I wouldn't go so far as to say I think he gets "exposed" in the playoffs, but I have more confidence in Reggie's thing working for his team against the toughest competitors.

For Drexler, I'm pretty skeptical. The things coach Jack Ramsay said about him, the way the Blazers seemed utterly stuck until they brought Buck Williams in and Buck was the one acting as leader. I think in Drexler you've got a bit of a head-in-the-clouds goofball who also had ego to think he was better than Jordan, who realistically only was able to be the best player on Finals teams because he had one hell of a supporting cast around (Buck, Porter, Kersey, etc), to say nothing of a great coach (Adelman).

[falcolombardi]

I continue being painfully short on time so i will mostly copy my last post

Vote- reggie

Alt- manu

Nom- westbrook

Alt nom- pierce

Vote-reggie miller
All time level playoff scorer with great (offense) portability and strong longevity, and unlike other "old" players his style of play fits perfectly in any era old or new

Unlike some other great scorers who were not great passers or on-ball playmakers for their teams say adrian dantley or george gervin. Reggie actually has the big impact signals leading a team offense run on par with many guys way more awarded than him (such as barkley)

His teams were not weak as he generally had some combination of high level players as mark jackson, rik smits or detlef schremp , but were not stacked with stars either with reggie being by far the epicenter of a top offensive team for a really long time

Compar3d to the other guys here who have big flaws in either longevity, durability or have a era handicap applied to them to some degree. Reggie fits the more boxes for me

Alternate: i cannot in good faith vote davis here with a durability/longevity that makes kawhi look like AC Green. And i am unfamiliar with many of the guys proposed here like hondo

I will avoid voting an alternate for now

If alts are a requirement then i will go with ginobilii for now who has a really strong combination of prime, longevity and some tiebreaker points for doing his thingh in a fairly though era for perimeter players

My real vote would have been davis if i could get over his **** durability

My nomination is russel westbrook

Not the best aging curve being arguably one of the few ever players to get less skilled as he aged so longevity is so-so. But the average prime year was really good. In some ways the apex of the inneficient scorer with huge creation archetype

And unlike what a lot of people would expect,he was able to be half of the motor of some truly monstrous offenses.

He is also a player with serious fit limitations (mediocre defender, bad off ball, not a top end om ball decision maker so his ceiling will always be lower than true offense mega stars)

But on aggregate i think the value he provided to legit contending thunder teams fron 2013-2016 and then as a floor raiser in 2017 before he started a not so gentle decline is worth noticing.

For alt nom i am thinking ray allen, paul pierce and draymond are interesting noms, will back paul pierce as alt nom for now as he is getting some traction

[HeartBreakKid]

Not voting for Drexler for a very long time. Never really read a convincing argument about what makes him greater than his peers.

[HeartBreakKid]

My vote is for Anthony Davis - Seems like when he was healthy he's been a pretty consistent top 5 guy who is usually quite good in the playoffs. Is very good at playing off ball and he grew into one of the best defenders of his generation. I suppose his efficiency and defensive reputation make me feel that he should go over the remaining batch. Comparing him to Gilmore it seems like he gives similar things in regards to defense and scoring efficiency but is more versatile with his jump shooting and is a more capable passer.

My alternate vote is for Manu Ginobili

[Owly]

Now that Drexler is being brought up, how about George Gervin? I have Reggie, Drexler and Gervin very close to each other but I haven't seen many people even putting Gervin in the conversation yet.

I have Gervin over Drexler.

In the case of Gervin, I think you can make a strong case for Gervin being the best regular season player, but he has remarkably little playoff success which raises questions. I wouldn't go so far as to say I think he gets "exposed" in the playoffs, but I have more confidence in Reggie's thing working for his team against the toughest competitors.

For Drexler, I'm pretty skeptical. The things coach Jack Ramsay said about him, the way the Blazers seemed utterly stuck until they brought Buck Williams in and Buck was the one acting as leader. I think in Drexler you've got a bit of a head-in-the-clouds goofball who also had ego to think he was better than Jordan, who realistically only was able to be the best player on Finals teams because he had one hell of a supporting cast around (Buck, Porter, Kersey, etc), to say nothing of a great coach (Adelman).

Not speaking to Drexler "here" or anywhere particular but this seems harsh ...

Mostly extemporaneous thinking with a little checking on intangible related sources

"Goofball" doesn't really chime with much I recall. Latterly my reading is he's regarded as a quiet leader. Peak too (circa '92) it's still quiet, not rousing, the praise is less clear but by example.

Early on maybe not a great practice player but beyond clashing with Shuler (and not Drexler alone iirc) most reads are that he's fine.

"Better than Jordan ..." I don't know how often that stuff came up, how serious to take it. I also don't know how much the average NBA player or star has an accurate read on their play and to what extent self-confidence is a necessity and and what point it becomes more a handicap. I could hear arguments he could have been more dangerous with a better offensive IQ at times ... perhaps this is a gesture at that ... but I don't know whether this is really real and if it is if it matters, especially as [if true] the results are largely already baked in to what we see.

"Only able ..." well there's the Porter can of beans around "best" in the playoffs in that window... (though for the particular finals case iirc he's best in '91 maybe?)
But "only" .... I would imagine it's not hard to think of (worse) finals teams with players worse than Drexler as their best player (and worse casts). After '92 Barry and Cohn assert that Porter, Duckworth and Kersey had "subpar years" and Drexler doing all he did was how they got to a second final in three years, not looking that up or saying it's perfect or the full picture; it isn't.

Porter's great and great in the playoff generally.
Williams was probably underrated and has moved up my all-time list as I was moved on his D. His '92 playoffs isn't strong on the box-side. Actually, nor is '90.
For '92 Ainge is a very good 3rd guard.
Kersey is circa league average production, but with that attached to a reputation for somewhat weak BBIQ and mistake prone so probably worse than his box and sub-optimal as a role-player. He does hold up well in the finals years playoffs in terms of production.
Duckworth is a gaping wound as a starter. A bad defender. Awful passer ... yet saw himself as a scorer and wanted touches. Inefficient. Out of shape. Not highly regarded for intangibles. Typically worse in the playoffs.
Drazen (only '90) and C Robinson. Otherwise useful but among the more notable playoff shrinkers.

I don't think these aren't "good" casts. You don't have a team with the serious contention window the Blazers had 90-92 without good "casts".

Williams certainly helps them immediately (Blaylock, if still the pick, in Portland could be intriguing but probably not the right timeline for the Blazers contention window) but I'd want to be deeper in the weeds on everyone's contribution across all relevent years before buying in that Drexler was somehow disappointing.

Then too '95
a) I think impact signal (iirc via ElGee) for then is strong.
b) ... if he had actually been seriously bought in to the notion that he was better than Jordan ... I don't think he accepts/does the playoff team high OBPM, OWS job of solid efficiency, offensive glass, bit of passing all-round job on 23.5 usage to Hakeem's less efficient 35.9 usage.

I'm not sure of finals best player as a yearstick anyway ... all a bit ad hoc ... but whether or not he's here this seemed too dismissive of Drexler for my tastes.

[Rishkar]

Vote 1 Jason Kidd. Great longevity, high peak, and fantastic all around skillet. He could do everything at an elite level except scoring, which he did decently.
Vote 2 Hondo. I think he played better than Scottie Pippen, and was a key piece in the Boston dynasty before leading his own team to success (or co-leading with Dave Cowens I guess). Fantastic motor, incredible longevity for his era, good offense (not incredibly efficient, but helped the low firepower Celtics through his volume).

[rk2023]

Vote: Reggie Miller
Nomination: Elgin Baylor
Alternate Nomination: Russell Westbrook

Since he's garnering discussion in this thread and perhaps would be my next nomination after Wade/Joker, I'll put it out there that I think it's understated in the mainstream how damn good Reggie Miller was! He probably never reached an MVP-level of play, but 13 years of Miller being an offensive force (and one that ramped up insurmountably in the playoffs) is very impressive.

Here's some good for thought how good Reggie was, even at older ages:

Spoiler:

Reggie Miller in the Playoffs from 1990-99:
• 27.0 Points/75 on +11.3 rTS%

Kevin Durant in the playoffs from 2012-19:
• 29.0 Points/75 on +6.2 rTS%

Steph Curry in the playoffs from 2014-19:
• 28.0 Points/75 on +9.0 rTS%

James Harden in the playoffs from 2015-21:
• 28.1 Points/75 on +5.5 rTS%


3-year playoff stretches above +2 in ScoreVal (basically all-time level stuff)

Kareem 7x
Jordan 7x
Shaq 7x
Miller 7x
West 7x


The Pacers offenses were also typically spectacular with Miller, as he is one of 3 people ever in history to play on two separate teams with five-year stretches of +5 playoff offenses (Magic and Kobe are the other 2).

Heck, in 1999 the Pacers were the best offense in the NBA (+6.5 rORTG) as well as the best in 2000 (+4.4 rORTG) This is at 33 and 34 years old and Reggie was the best offensive player on those teams.


Reggie Miller in the 2000s Finals against an all-nba talent in Kobe (whose ankle injury might have him perform worse than his averages):

• 24.2 PPG
• 4.5 REB
• 3.7 AST
• 0.8 STL
• 58.8 TS%
• 37% From 3
• 98% From the Line (45-46)


And those numbers only cover the 90's decade. He was the best offensive player and player on a team that made to the Finals in 2000, despite not being close to his peak years.

In the Finals game 1:

Reggie Miller in G1 vs the Lakers of the 2000 finals: 7pts 1/16 FG (6.3%)


After the worse playoff game of his life he rebounded really well:

Reggie Miller in G2-G6: 27.8ppg on 47.7/40.5/97.6 shooting.


In the end:

Reggie Miller in the 2000s Finals against an all-nba talent in Kobe (whose ankle injury might have him perform worse than his averages):

• 24.2 PPG
• 4.5 REB
• 3.7 AST
• 0.8 STL
• 58.8 TS%
• 37% From 3
• 98% From the Line (45-46)

Kobe in the Finals in 2000 (Once again his ankle injury maybe made things significantly worse)

15.6 PPG
4.6 RPG
4.2 AST
1 Steal
41.1 TS%

Chasing Reggie around, probably was incredibly taxing for Kobe...

That's insanely impressive for a 34-year-old man. Reggie is the definition of consistency year after year.
The consistency for so long is just too much to pass over here.

I think his lesser volume playmaking and shot-creation holds him back from top-20 or so offensive players in NBA History for example (I think on-off reflects that - from what I've seen).. but the scoring potency Miller displayed from 1990-2002 (with a significant ramp up in PS goodness, as Colbinii pointed out earlier) made him a very good centerpiece to build around in that era. The Pacers became a solid offense upon Miller's breakout and didn't tail-off too much as they got defensive pieces and became a more serious playoff threat. Here's some more data significantly in Miller's favor once the calendar flips to April:
https://imgur.com/a/J4EMJ9h

Even as we got a more stable, more holistic sample - Reggie's scoring production and impact didn't show any significant dip with excellent team offensive data (not even a case of gimmicky rORTGs) to show for it. It's worth keeping in mind that we are analyzing within an era where outlier shot-making can hold more value ITO offensive separation because the league average efficiency marks would be lower than that of the modern-day. I still might not be as confident with Miller as the best player on a championship team, but he would be an absolute dynamite offensive co-pilot alongside a two-way force (eg. Hakeem, Duncan, KG) or a secondary offensive option - because of how well his scoring approach scales down.

[penbeast0]

Vote 1 Jason Kidd. Great longevity, high peak, and fantastic all around skillet. He could do everything at an elite level except scoring, which he did decently.
Vote 2 Hondo. I think he played better than Scottie Pippen, and was a key piece in the Boston dynasty before leading his own team to success (or co-leading with Dave Cowens I guess). Fantastic motor, incredible longevity for his era, good offense (not incredibly efficient, but helped the low firepower Celtics through his volume).

Which version of the Celtics do you consider low firepower (other than the years after Russell and before Cowens where they were bad)?

The early Russell version with Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Cousy, and Ramsey,
The later Russell version with Bailey Howell, Jones, and Don Nelson,
The early Cowens version with Cowens, JoJo White, and Don Nelson
The later Cowens version with Charlie Scott, Cowens, and White

I always hear the Russell critiques about how stacked the Celtics were with HOF talent that this counter take interests me.

[trex_8063]

Well, we're now past a third thru, and 35 is a nice round number (sort of).......thought people might be interested in some demographics of the top 35 (posted this in the #35 thread, too).

Avg # of seasons played by the top 35
15.6

# of Spots in Top 35 by Position (Average rank of those spots)
PG - *8.5 (20.8)
SG - *3.5 (16.4)
SF - 6 (20.3)
PF - 7 (19.3)
C - 10 (13.9)**

*couldn't decide on James Harden, so counted him as half SG/half PG. Jerry West counted as PG, btw, and Tim Duncan as PF.
**It truly is a big-man dominated game historically: that # for C's is with putting Duncan among the PF's (if I counted him as a C, that position would hold 11 of the top 35, with an average rank of 13.1).


# of Seasons played within each decade
40s - 3
50s - 13.4
60s - 46
70s - 47
80s - 78.1
90s - 108.7
00s - 105
10s - 116
20s - 30


Players per decade based on which decade they played the most seasons in [half credit if it's evenly split] (avg rank)
50s - 1 (16)
60s - 5 (14.2)
70s - 2 (15.5)
80s - 4 (14.1)
90s - 8 (21)
00s - 5.5 (12.4)
10s - 9 (23.9)
20s - 0.5 (26)

[tsherkin]

Vote 1 Jason Kidd. Great longevity, high peak, and fantastic all around skillet. He could do everything at an elite level except scoring, which he did decently.
Vote 2 Hondo. I think he played better than Scottie Pippen, and was a key piece in the Boston dynasty before leading his own team to success (or co-leading with Dave Cowens I guess). Fantastic motor, incredible longevity for his era, good offense (not incredibly efficient, but helped the low firepower Celtics through his volume).

Which version of the Celtics do you consider low firepower (other than the years after Russell and before Cowens where they were bad)?

The early Russell version with Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Cousy, and Ramsey,
The later Russell version with Bailey Howell, Jones, and Don Nelson,
The early Cowens version with Cowens, JoJo White, and Don Nelson
The later Cowens version with Charlie Scott, Cowens, and White

I always hear the Russell critiques about how stacked the Celtics were with HOF talent that this counter take interests me.

Just to touch on this...

Bailey Howell was never lower than 106 TS+ during the 1960s, and averaged just shy of 114. Only 3 of those years were with Boston and two of those were at 106 and 108, but dude could score for his era and his only year sub-106 TS+ was 1970 (33, 2nd-last season). Dude was a 54.5% TS guy then on the back of his draw rate and shooting 48.4% FG and 76.3% FT during the 60s. On basically 20/11/2. Much of that was with Detroit, of course, but like... as a Celtic? 18/8 in just shy of 31 mpg, 48% FG, 73.9% FT, .350 FTr, 52.8% TS, 106 TS+. A solid contributor.

Don Nelson actually led the league in TS% at 60% in his 2nd-last season at 14 ppg in 1975. He was a 48.4% FG dude in Boston, 54.6% TS. A 109 TS+ guy with the Celtics. He had two seasons of 109+ TS+ with Russell at the end of Russ' career, and four seasons of 100+ TSAdd with Boston overall.

Heinsohn was not amazing to begin with and didn't age well. 98 TS+ guy, 46% TS (played from 57 to 65). But not bad for the era or for Boston's playstyle, which emphasized pace and rebounding more than efficiency

As the league advanced, Cousy was basically quite inefficient from 58 onward: he didn't hit 100 TS+ after 57 until he came back for 7 games in 1970, and averaged 93.7 TS+ from 58-63, which is crap.

Earlier than that, he was better. 6 straight seasons of 100+ TS. Not particularly good, but better than later. Only 3 seasons of 10+ TSAdd. Had 4 seasons of -90 or worse and one of -100+ , which is terrible, needless to say. Definitely a gunner as a scorer, and not horridly effective. Considerations to that include Boston's pace, the rims of the time and the relative infancy of the game's skill development and such. Definitely not a dominant scorer by any stretch of the imagination... but also a major engine with his ball-handling and passing, which is worth noting and consideration as well. 52-57, Boston was actually 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, and 5th in league offense (of 8), which is also worth noting. They could have been better if he was a better scorer, but what they were doing worked, even if you ignore the value of Russ' D to their actual team success. That O was good in-era, it just didn't age well.

Ramsey was another dude who started out good and aged poorly. 107, 108, 114, , 100, 99, 101, 105, 96, 95 in TS+. And that's a reasonable and semi-graceful arc for a dude who ended his career in his early 30s during the mid-60s. He was fairly impressive early, and even logged a 141.9 TSAdd season before he started to fade.

Usual reminded, TSAdd and TS+ and whatever aren't complete pictures of a scorer, but we're talking a bout guns on a team, and the ability to score efficiently (even restricting our examination to 'relative to era') is still important.

Russ definitely didn't win without help on O. But later into the 50s, their O tailed off SHARPLY and was negative relative to league average from 57 onward. And then, it was mostly him bootstrapping their team as their archaic O didn't age well. 57 was their first title, and also their first good defense. And ayo, 56-57 was Russell's first season. Look at that. xD Russ himself was actually efficient through 1960, then sharply tailed off thereafter as the league raced past him on that end... but not on D, of course.

Boston makes for an interesting retrospective in that respect.

11 titles in 13 years. Offensive rank?

57: 5/8
59: 5/8
60: 5/8
61: 8/8
62: 7/9
63: 9/9 (Hondo's rookie season)
64: 9/9 (first season without Cousy; Franky Ramsey's last season)
65: 7/9 (Heinsohn's last season)
66: 8/9 (Don Nelson's first season w Boston)
68: 8/12 (Bailey Howell's 2nd season w Boston)
69: 10/14

Just some food for thought.

Oh, F me. I forgot about Sam Jones somehow! And KC Jones.

Sam Jones was a 17.7 ppg guy for Boston and a career 104 TS+ guy, 103+ in all but 2 seasons and 100+ in all but his last. He was a nice piece, had a pair of 100+ TSAdd seasons, didn't get in anyone's way, moved great without the ball and was a dirty bank-shot master. He had 40+ TSAdd in 9 of 10 seasons at one stretch. KC Jones played from 59-67 and was absolute, wretched dog-ass as a scorer but he had other value on the other end of the floor.

[OhayoKD]

Vote
1. Miller

-> Kind of a proto-Steph and came about as close to knocking off the bulls as anyone from the 90's
-> Led great offenses(better than Bird's)
-> One of the best playoff scorers ever

Nomination

1. Westbrook

Honestly weird he hasn't gotten discussion yet(and now that I think about he probably should have already been inducted by now)

but whatever, let's get this going

-> All-time Creator with all-time playoff elevation and all-time playoff impact
-> Was the most valuable piece on a team that thumped a 67-win team and took a 73-win team to 7, probably the best playoff performer in 2014 on a team which pushed the tiki-taka spurs without their best defender
-> Track-record of elevating against better opponents
-> Excellent cultural figure/teammate by all accounts, something which he leveraged to help OKC sign Paul George to a long-term contract, something they are still benefitting from
-> Great RS floor-raiser, 45-wins(full-strength) without KD with OKC's shallowest cast in 2015, and 2017 was even better
-> Saw a +9 srs team in 2013 turn into something like a +3 one when he was hurt
-> Excellent clutch player
-> Underrated longetivity, has been an elite playoff creator as early as 2010(when he elevated vs the eventual champions as he tends to do), had a strong 2023

Alt-nomination

2. Draymond

Will get into this more but he has the leas empirical question marks than Manu, the better real-world profile, arguably better RAPM/plus-minus, is more proven without Steph, and I'd say has the best series performance in the 2016 finals.

An important point to consider I think when using finals +/- is that Draymond has generally ran into much better finals opponents. Have not done it with the celtics(though I imagine they'd look good), but every other finals opponent Draymond has run into entered with a higher rolling srs/psrs than any finals opponent Manu has run into. The weakest, the 2015 cavs, came off a series where they performed at +16 vs the hawks with kyrie barely playing and no kevin love.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - John Havlicek
Vote 2 - Rick Barry

I think Havlicek is one of the more interesting players in NBA history. His entire approach to the game can be summed up in one word: workhorse. Fatigue was never a factor as he played big minutes and made a living off moving without the ball. Even with that being his strength, he was still a great playmaker for his position and had a solid first step. Defensively, he was quick getting into passing lanes and fought over screens quite well.

Havlicek made an impact from the very start to end of his career. He won finals MVP at the age of 33 and still played a role in the '76 championship run in his second to last season. His durability was top tier, playing in 80+ games in 11 of his 16 seasons, never missing significant time due to injury. He only missed 2.6 games per season for his career.

He made contributions to all 8 championships, but the below 4 are where he excelled the most in the finals:

'66 (7 games) - 23.3 PPG, 10 RPG, 4 APG, 42.7% FG, 89.7% FT (5.3 FTAs per game)

'68 (6 games) - 27.3 PPG, 8.7 RPG, 6.7 APG, 42,1% FG, 88.5% FT (8.7 FTAs per game)

'69 (7 games) - 28.3 PPG, 11 RPG, 4.4 APG, 45.7% FG, 84.7% FT (8.4 FTAs per game)

'74 (7 games, FMVP) - 26.4 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 4.7 APG, 1.9 SPG, 42.9% FG, 87.2% FT (6.7 FTAs per game)

A lot is made of his scoring efficiency, but he did have a decent stretch from '67-'74 where he scored at average efficiency (+0.3 rTS). He jumped from 50.2% TS in the RS to 52.3% TS in the PS during that span (26 PPG). Looking at how he consistently contributed in all areas of the game, scoring at average efficiency at that volume doesn't bother me. It's also encouraging that his volume and efficiency went up considerably in the playoffs. With the bulk of Havlicek's least efficient seasons coming early in his career, I'd say he just became a more polished player as he developed.

[ZeppelinPage]

Vote: John Havlicek
Alternate Vote: Rick Barry
Nomination: Elgin Baylor

I put an emphasis on playoff performance and Havlicek is an 8x champion that consistently played better in the playoffs on heavier volume. He was a well-rounded player and he rarely ever missed games throughout his career. I think there are some other players being talked about here that one could certainly make an argument for but the level to which Havlicek one before and after Russell does show his value. I'm surprised to see mention of Havlicek as a "chucker" because I think that undersells what he was doing. The Celtics rarely had many players that could handle a high volume of shots so he was having to shoot because few others on the team would. Havlicek shooting takes pressure off his teammates and allows a defensively focused team to do what they do best. Rick Barry is also someone I thought about--think his attitude issues are a little overblown and his defense was underrated. I think Havlicek's more consistent playoff performances edge him out but Barry was one hell of a passer that could shoot just as well as Hondo.

Elgin is next up here for me, incredible ability to carry the scoring load which, despite his efficiency, I find important to a team. He can rebound, defense, and is a very underrated passer when allowed to showcase that. There are a few bigs I am close to nominating here soon I just haven't had as much time to make a case for them.

[MrLurker]

When does Damian Lillard get mention here? Is Manu really better - I would have thought Lillard would be considered greater among guards

[Dutchball97]

Vote: Reggie Miller - pretty tough round with 7 candidates without a clear standout imo. I'm generally more of a peak/prime guy but this isn't an absolute, especially when I'm not sure the peak advantage of player A is enough to overcome a sizeable longevity/consistency/reliability advantage of player B. Reggie Miller is obviously player B in this scenario and when comparing him to the likes of Barry, AD and Manu I'm just a lot more confident in Reggie's ability to produce high level seasons year after year. Especially him rising up to the challenge in the post-season and continuing to be a relevant elite player well into his 30s raises him up quite a bit in my eyes.

Alternate: John Havlicek - consistency is key again here. Hondo doesn't have the most eye popping peak or prime but he was valuable for his entire long career and especially put in a lot of work in the play-offs, he was instrumental to the championship winning teams of the late 60s and early-mid 70s. I could be swayed for Kidd if someone could sell me on his year to year consistency but as it stands I trust Havlicek a bit more.