RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #37 (John Havlicek)

[iggymcfrack]

One thing I've noticed about all these guys who played in the ABA like Barry, Gilmore, Dr. J, etc., is that it's pretty consistent that their ABA numbers look like an all-time peak and their NBA numbers look very meh in comparison. When you consider that the difference between the '70s NBA and the modern NBA is 5-10x the difference between the '70s NBA and the '70s ABA, it really makes you question their era resilience and how they'd adjust to a larger talent pool. Honestly, outside of Kareem and Dr. J, I'm not sure anyone who peaked in the '70s would even be a top 10 player today. Would Havlicek or Barry even peak as high as Pascal Siakam or Jaylen Brown? I'm not convinced.

At some point, you've gotta reward people just for being the best of their era, but I think the pendulum has swung way too far in favor of these older guys. If there's any statistical case at all that Anthony Davis was more dominant in-era in his 11th best season than Havlicek was in his best and AD plays in a WAY HARDER era, then he should be a slam dunk. Honestly, Manu and Westbrook should be going ahead of these '70s guys too. Probably even Embiid and Tatum. They just don't look that great, even against weak competition.

[Clyde Frazier]

One thing I've noticed about all these guys who played in the ABA like Barry, Gilmore, Dr. J, etc., is that it's pretty consistent that their ABA numbers look like an all-time peak and their NBA numbers look very meh in comparison. When you consider that the difference between the '70s NBA and the modern NBA is 5-10x the difference between the '70s NBA and the '70s ABA, it really makes you question their era resilience and how they'd adjust to a larger talent pool. Honestly, outside of Kareem and Dr. J, I'm not sure anyone who peaked in the '70s would even be a top 10 player today. Would Havlicek or Barry even peak as high as Pascal Siakam or Jaylen Brown? I'm not convinced.

At some point, you've gotta reward people just for being the best of their era, but I think the pendulum has swung way too far in favor of these older guys. If there's any statistical case at all that Anthony Davis was more dominant in-era in his 11th best season than Havlicek was in his best and AD plays in a WAY HARDER era, then he should be a slam dunk. Honestly, Manu and Westbrook should be going ahead of these '70s guys too. Probably even Embiid and Tatum. They just don't look that great, even against weak competition.

All I'll say is you have to distinguish early ABA being a weaker league vs later ABA basically being comparable to the NBA at the time. All of the top players in the ABA were successful out of the gate in their first NBA seasons post merger. Calling the NBA versions of Barry, Dr. J, Gilmore, Gervin, etc "meh" even in comparison to their ABA play is a real overstatement. Be it team success or individual play, they more than proved their worth in the NBA over several seasons. It wasn't a one note either.

I know how you feel about modern players vs past eras, and I don't think there's much point in trying to change your mind there. I do feel the above clarification was necessary though.

[tsherkin]

One thing I've noticed about all these guys who played in the ABA like Barry, Gilmore, Dr. J, etc., is that it's pretty consistent that their ABA numbers look like an all-time peak and their NBA numbers look very meh in comparison. When you consider that the difference between the '70s NBA and the modern NBA is 5-10x the difference between the '70s NBA and the '70s ABA, it really makes you question their era resilience and how they'd adjust to a larger talent pool. Honestly, outside of Kareem and Dr. J, I'm not sure anyone who peaked in the '70s would even be a top 10 player today. Would Havlicek or Barry even peak as high as Pascal Siakam or Jaylen Brown? I'm not convinced.

At some point, you've gotta reward people just for being the best of their era, but I think the pendulum has swung way too far in favor of these older guys. If there's any statistical case at all that Anthony Davis was more dominant in-era in his 11th best season than Havlicek was in his best and AD plays in a WAY HARDER era, then he should be a slam dunk. Honestly, Manu and Westbrook should be going ahead of these '70s guys too. Probably even Embiid and Tatum. They just don't look that great, even against weak competition.

What about George Gervin?

21.9 ppg dude over 269 games in the ABA. 28.0 ppg dude with 4 scoring titles over his first 8 seasons in the NBA.

Absolutely ripped the league apart in the NBA. 28.5 ppg over his first 7 NBA postseasons, leading the playoffs in scoring in 5 straight appearances. Scored 33+ ppg over two different postseasons. Has a pair of 32+ ppg NBA seasons.

Seems a consequential omission.

[Doctor MJ]

One thing I've noticed about all these guys who played in the ABA like Barry, Gilmore, Dr. J, etc., is that it's pretty consistent that their ABA numbers look like an all-time peak and their NBA numbers look very meh in comparison. When you consider that the difference between the '70s NBA and the modern NBA is 5-10x the difference between the '70s NBA and the '70s ABA, it really makes you question their era resilience and how they'd adjust to a larger talent pool. Honestly, outside of Kareem and Dr. J, I'm not sure anyone who peaked in the '70s would even be a top 10 player today. Would Havlicek or Barry even peak as high as Pascal Siakam or Jaylen Brown? I'm not convinced.

At some point, you've gotta reward people just for being the best of their era, but I think the pendulum has swung way too far in favor of these older guys. If there's any statistical case at all that Anthony Davis was more dominant in-era in his 11th best season than Havlicek was in his best and AD plays in a WAY HARDER era, then he should be a slam dunk. Honestly, Manu and Westbrook should be going ahead of these '70s guys too. Probably even Embiid and Tatum. They just don't look that great, even against weak competition.

What about George Gervin?

21.9 ppg dude over 269 games in the ABA. 28.0 ppg dude with 4 scoring titles over his first 8 seasons in the NBA.

Absolutely ripped the league apart in the NBA. 28.5 ppg over his first 7 NBA postseasons, leading the playoffs in scoring in 5 straight appearances. Scored 33+ ppg over two different postseasons. Has a pair of 32+ ppg NBA seasons.

Seems a consequential omission.

Yup. Then there are guys like Moses Malone and Bobby Jones who got better arriving in the NBA.

I think what's going on involves a few things:

1. The early ABA is not the late ABA. We even have games over time against the NBA on this and see it gong from the NBA dominating to the ABA winning majority.

2. There was something raising ORtg in the ABA relative to the NBA that had nothing to do with absolute defensive quality, else we wouldn't see a team like Denver emerge as the best defense in the league when they went to the NBA after NOT being the best in the ABA. Fine to point to things like spacing differences between the leagues, but I think we also have to ask about just differences in officiating norms.

3. Fit matters a ton, and specifically in the case of Erving him getting ripped off a perfect fitting Nets team to be placed on a horrendous fitting 76er team resulted in diminishing returns in Philly, while the Nets completely fell off a cliff.

[Joao Saraiva]

VOTE: John Havlicek

To put it simple, Bill Russell didn't build that dinasty alone. We can give him all the credit in the world and even put him as the GOAT, but nobody wins alone and he's no exception. So I feel it's time for us to select another Celtic.

Very good all arround player, good scoring wise despite not a great ts%, but the average wasn't nearly as high as today's so I think he was OK in that regard. Good rebounder and playmaker too.

I'd probably vote for Dwight here but as I understand he's in the nominations only.

Alternate vote Jason Kidd

Nomination Dwight Howard

[tsherkin]

3. Fit matters a ton, and specifically in the case of Erving him getting ripped off a perfect fitting Nets team to be placed on a horrendous fitting 76er team resulted in diminishing returns in Philly, while the Nets completely fell off a cliff.

Minutes played and role also matter. Erving shot less as he arrived in the NBA. When he started shooting more, his scoring rate obviously rose back toward his ABA rates. He has 3 straight seasons of 25 PTS36 in the NBA... he posted only 2 such in the ABA, despite his gaudier per-game numbers. Hitting a team with George McGinnis taking 18+ FGA/g after being on a Nets team where no one else took more than about 15 mattered.

[Owly]

One thing I've noticed about all these guys who played in the ABA like Barry, Gilmore, Dr. J, etc., is that it's pretty consistent that their ABA numbers look like an all-time peak and their NBA numbers look very meh in comparison. When you consider that the difference between the '70s NBA and the modern NBA is 5-10x the difference between the '70s NBA and the '70s ABA, it really makes you question their era resilience and how they'd adjust to a larger talent pool. Honestly, outside of Kareem and Dr. J, I'm not sure anyone who peaked in the '70s would even be a top 10 player today. Would Havlicek or Barry even peak as high as Pascal Siakam or Jaylen Brown? I'm not convinced.

At some point, you've gotta reward people just for being the best of their era, but I think the pendulum has swung way too far in favor of these older guys. If there's any statistical case at all that Anthony Davis was more dominant in-era in his 11th best season than Havlicek was in his best and AD plays in a WAY HARDER era, then he should be a slam dunk. Honestly, Manu and Westbrook should be going ahead of these '70s guys too. Probably even Embiid and Tatum. They just don't look that great, even against weak competition.

All I'll say is you have to distinguish early ABA being a weaker league vs later ABA basically being comparable to the NBA at the time. All of the top players in the ABA were successful out of the gate in their first NBA seasons post merger. Calling the NBA versions of Barry, Dr. J, Gilmore, Gervin, etc "meh" even in comparison to their ABA play is a real overstatement. Be it team success or individual play, they more than proved their worth in the NBA over several seasons. It wasn't a one note either.

I know how you feel about modern players vs past eras, and I don't think there's much point in trying to change your mind there. I do feel the above clarification was necessary though.

So reacting to both sides otoh here...

Distinction between early and late ABA is important ... early on there's virtually nobody the NBA it's banned guys, sub-NBA guys and maybe a first round pick like Mel Daniels. In the second year there's some Barry but Hawkins doesn't play the full season and then is gone. Later the league is smaller, it got the jump on taking underclassmen to steal good young talent and has guys that jumped.

Do ABA numbers look a bit soft ... in general yes but it depends on the specifics

Barry's early ABA composites are much better than elsewhere and I say that's because of a weak league. Very early Gilmore dominates over weaker league and weaker bigs but is still highly productive (including versus other ABA years) in the NBA despite weaker casts pulling down some box-aggregates. Erving has a lot going on but I have been drawn towards a cynical view on his NBA self overall, even when he gets more productive, given the weak impact signal.

Cunningham's box and efficiency spikes iirc and Beatty looks a lot better versus early-mid ABA bigs. Weaker play and lack of size probably helped Hawkins and Haywood too. Jim McDaniels and Marvin Barnes looked like more in the ABA than the NBA. Caldwell Jones was much more able to score in the ABA than the NBA. I'd say McGinnis looks better ABA than NBA.

Charlie Scott's superficial numbers look better but then aren't that different on "advanced" box-composites.

But then many later guys otoh ... Gervin, Thompson (though there is an inital blow to his production), Lucas, Bobby Jones, Twardzik, Issel, Roundfield, M. Malone ... some are very young and improving it's not an easy, transparent process to disentangle that from the effects of competition ... look good ... sometimes better ... in the NBA than the ABA.

And fwiw, whilst I'm confident ABA bigs were substantially weaker not only Nater and Paultz but Len Elmore and Tom Owens and Robisch, maybe some others stuck around in the NBA for a while despite not being stars in the ABA. Owens might be one of those guys looking better in the NBA otoh. So they weren't all just bodies.

[LA Bird]

What about George Gervin?

21.9 ppg dude over 269 games in the ABA. 28.0 ppg dude with 4 scoring titles over his first 8 seasons in the NBA.

Absolutely ripped the league apart in the NBA. 28.5 ppg over his first 7 NBA postseasons, leading the playoffs in scoring in 5 straight appearances. Scored 33+ ppg over two different postseasons. Has a pair of 32+ ppg NBA seasons.

Seems a consequential omission.

Yup. Then there are guys like Moses Malone and Bobby Jones who got better arriving in the NBA.

Breaking news: Players don't peak when they are 20 years old

There are the big names like Erving, Gilmore, Haywood, Barry, and McGinnis who all declined and then you also got guys like Jimmy Jones, Mack Calvin, Marvin Barnes and Ralph Simpson who went from ABA stars to being irrelevant the second they moved to the NBA. In addition, you have the NBA players like Barry (again), Beaty, Cunningham, and even a retired Hagan whose numbers all spiked once they moved to the ABA. OTOH, I don't recall a single example of an NBA star who moved over and got worse in the ABA. You could debate whether the difference in numbers was due to the quality of the players or the rules in the league itself but it's kind of hard to deny ABA stats are a little inflated when you look at all the example of players switching leagues in the middle of their primes. Gervin is the closest to a counterexample but it took until his 2nd year in the NBA to take off and he was still only 23 when left ABA.

[tsherkin]

Gervin is the closest to a counterexample but it took until his 2nd year in the NBA to take off and he was still only 23 when left ABA.

He also saw a major leap in shooting volume after his first season in the NBA, and then in his second, immediately won the first of 3 straight scoring titles and 4 in 5 years.

So I don't know how much of that was needing to adjust versus needing the Spurs to figure out that they wanted to run him the ball all game long.

[LA Bird]

On a different note, for people who are high on Ginobili, how big is the gap between him and Nash? Team performance and non box impact are usually Nash's strongest arguments but Ginobili was even better on both fronts especially once we look at postseason data. Nash obviously still wins on durability but he also didn't play as heavy minutes as other superstars which lessens the key weakness Ginobili had. If one has Ginobili ranked over Nash as POY in 2005, that's also potentially the peak argument there. If we follow this line of thought, it feels like the two should be ranked closer to each other? In which case either Nash is currently overrated or Ginobili is underrated (or both)? Thoughts?

[Owly]

What about George Gervin?

21.9 ppg dude over 269 games in the ABA. 28.0 ppg dude with 4 scoring titles over his first 8 seasons in the NBA.

Absolutely ripped the league apart in the NBA. 28.5 ppg over his first 7 NBA postseasons, leading the playoffs in scoring in 5 straight appearances. Scored 33+ ppg over two different postseasons. Has a pair of 32+ ppg NBA seasons.

Seems a consequential omission.

Yup. Then there are guys like Moses Malone and Bobby Jones who got better arriving in the NBA.

Breaking news: Players don't peak when they are 20 years old

Suspect this is known by all parties.

But if the suggestion is that ABA was always significantly weaker and then Moses and B Jones and Lucas and Twardzik and Gervin and Nater and Roundfield and Brian Taylor at a glance all look at least a little better (haven't checked closely). Knight stays about the same. Owens after a year peaks in the NBA. Gilmore depends on the metric and never re-hits early ABA heights but arguably spends a lot of time around his late ABA level of production though weaker teams make WS look worse. It's not like there aren't any ABA players that hold up well enough without age as a mitigator. And if it were significantly weaker then their improvement should be hidden by the opponent performance gap.

There are the big names like Erving, Gilmore, Haywood, Barry, and McGinnis who all declined and then you also got guys like Jimmy Jones, Mack Calvin, Marvin Barnes and Ralph Simpson who went from ABA stars to being irrelevant the second they moved to the NBA. In addition, you have the NBA players like Barry (again), Beaty, Cunningham, and even a retired Hagan whose numbers all spiked once they moved to the ABA. OTOH, I don't recall a single example of an NBA star who moved over and got worse in the ABA.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/caldwjo01.html
PER: 17.3 to 15
WS/48: .132 to .036 !!

Pogo Joe was coming off somewhat of an outlier peak but I'd say he looks worse than the year before too.
His scoring efficiency goes very much in the other direction than the general trend.

You could debate whether the difference in numbers was due to the quality of the players or the rules in the league itself but it's kind of hard to deny ABA stats are a little inflated when you look at all the example of players switching leagues in the middle of their primes. Gervin is the closest to a counterexample but it took until his 2nd year in the NBA to take off and he was still only 23 when left ABA.

Per above I would say ABA numbers would tend to be a little soft but that's an average and it depends on the particular context. And whilst, as noted, it's complex untangling other factors, it's not like it's Gervin alone who actually looks better in the NBA.

fwiw not hugely into Calvin but '76 and '77 numbers look similar or better in NBA. Injury in '76 but then we get into how much it recovers etc.

[Owly]

3. Fit matters a ton, and specifically in the case of Erving him getting ripped off a perfect fitting Nets team to be placed on a horrendous fitting 76er team resulted in diminishing returns in Philly, while the Nets completely fell off a cliff.

Minutes played and role also matter. Erving shot less as he arrived in the NBA. When he started shooting more, his scoring rate obviously rose back toward his ABA rates. He has 3 straight seasons of 25 PTS36 in the NBA... he posted only 2 such in the ABA, despite his gaudier per-game numbers. Hitting a team with George McGinnis taking 18+ FGA/g after being on a Nets team where no one else took more than about 15 mattered.

Certainly he was less featured and that team had a lot of players wanting shots. Injury is sometimes speculated on.
The problem for Erving is his impact (as best we can tell) didn't appear to (consistently) bounce back.

(or if his apparent 80s impact is akin to his impact in the ABA - and I'm not saying it was - that would be bad news for Erving and a suggestion he was more generally worth significantly less than his numbers)

[tsherkin]

Certainly he was less featured and that team had a lot of players wanting shots. Injury is sometimes speculated on.
The problem for Erving is his impact (as best we can tell) didn't appear to (consistently) bounce back.

(or if his apparent 80s impact is akin to his impact in the ABA - and I'm not saying it was - that would be bad news for Erving and a suggestion he was more generally worth significantly less than his numbers)

I dunno. They went from a 46-win team 11th and 8th on O/D, losing in the first round to a 50-win team, 6th and 4th on O/D losing in the Finals in his first season. And that's with him not playing his big-time ABA minutes, but < 36 mpg. Then 55 wins and 1st/8th and the ECFs, then 47 and 18th/2nd, then he starts scoring in volume again and boom, 59 wins, 13th/1st and a Finals appearance, losing to rookie Magic's Lakers. 62 wins, losing to Bird's Celtics, 8th and 2nd in 81. 58 wins, 5th and 7th, lost to the Lakers in the Finals in 82, and you know the rest.

How much of that was getting Bobby Jones and Mo Cheeks in 79, the development of Darryl Dawkins, improved rebounding from Caldwell Jones and then Andrew Toney coming onboard in 81... well, that's worth discussing, for sure.

But he seemed to have pretty reasonable impact right away.

[Doctor MJ]

On a different note, for people who are high on Ginobili, how big is the gap between him and Nash? Team performance and non box impact are usually Nash's strongest arguments but Ginobili was even better on both fronts especially once we look at postseason data. Nash obviously still wins on durability but he also didn't play as heavy minutes as other superstars which lessens the key weakness Ginobili had. If one has Ginobili ranked over Nash as POY in 2005, that's also potentially the peak argument there. If we follow this line of thought, it feels like the two should be ranked closer to each other? In which case either Nash is currently overrated or Ginobili is underrated (or both)? Thoughts?

Thoughts? Yup. Ginobili has a case over Nash, and that's another facet of Ginobili being underrated in general.

Re: Nash. I don't think there's necessarily a lot of room for Nash being overrated based on this - I think Nash, like pretty much everyone else, is easier to evaluate than Ginobili, and we place him where we place him.

[Owly]

Certainly he was less featured and that team had a lot of players wanting shots. Injury is sometimes speculated on.
The problem for Erving is his impact (as best we can tell) didn't appear to (consistently) bounce back.

(or if his apparent 80s impact is akin to his impact in the ABA - and I'm not saying it was - that would be bad news for Erving and a suggestion he was more generally worth significantly less than his numbers)

I dunno. They went from a 46-win team 11th and 8th on O/D, losing in the first round to a 50-win team, 6th and 4th on O/D losing in the Finals in his first season. And that's with him not playing his big-time ABA minutes, but < 36 mpg. Then 55 wins and 1st/8th and the ECFs, then 47 and 18th/2nd, then he starts scoring in volume again and boom, 59 wins, 13th/1st and a Finals appearance, losing to rookie Magic's Lakers. 62 wins, losing to Bird's Celtics, 8th and 2nd in 81. 58 wins, 5th and 7th, lost to the Lakers in the Finals in 82, and you know the rest.

How much of that was getting Bobby Jones and Mo Cheeks in 79, the development of Darryl Dawkins, improved rebounding from Caldwell Jones and then Andrew Toney coming onboard in 81... well, that's worth discussing, for sure.

But he seemed to have pretty reasonable impact right away.

2 things
1) We have his plus/minus and therefore, with some approximation on pace, his on-off for his NBA career. It's not in absolute terms bad. It is quite a way off what one might anticipate for where he's rated generally and has been ranked here.
1a) Fwiw, the "boom" sees Jones (strongly) and Cheeks (marginally) better than Erving by on-off. Mind you Jones and many rotation Sixers had been better the previous year ('79) where the Sixers had been very slightly better in the minutes with Erving off the court. And already the bad fit had gone by that point. So he the impact stuff does look better than the year before for him. Just not nearly so good as it does for Jones. If +3.0 on-off on a good team is indeed bouncing back to where his impact was in the ABA then I'd refer back to my original post parentheses ... otherwise ... ,as before, the impact doesn't bounce back to close to where we might imagine it had been.
2) You cut your own post out but my post talks about how his 80s improvement in production that you noted isn't matched by him ever really getting back to big impact of the type we might assume he has in the ABA. I'm not sure how impact in '77 really relates to that. Maybe if you're just trying to do the full picture ... it just felt to me like you're trying to sell Erving here and there wasn't really a discussion going about right away impact. But, fwiw '77 is, by a considerable distance his strongest 1970s 76ers on-off at +6.0 and team leading (followed by two seasons at circa 0). Given the weakness of '78 and '79 one could argue with an aspect of my phrasing in that there was some bounceback (better impact numbers on a better team) but as alluded to in parenthesis it is likely not nearly to imagined ABA levels (where I think people likely imagine he's the driving force of a two time champ - and certainly on the box side he looks it). Even here, he is rarely team leader ('82) and multiple players consistently look better than him (Jones, Cheeks, fwiw latterly Malone) in this area.

But this is tangential to the ABA point which is somewhat tangential to the general thread purpose.

[tsherkin]

1a) Fwiw, the "boom" sees Jones (strongly) and Cheeks (marginally) better than Erving by on-off. Mind you Jones and many rotation Sixers had been better the previous year ('79) where the Sixers had been very slightly better in the minutes with Erving off the court. And already the bad fit had gone by that point. So he the impact stuff does look better than the year before for him. Just not nearly so good as it does for Jones. If +3.0 on-off on a good team is indeed bouncing back to where his impact was in the ABA then I'd refer back to my original post parentheses ... otherwise ... ,as before, the impact doesn't bounce back to close to where we might imagine it had been.

Roster changes were of notable consequence, yep.

2) You cut your own post out but my post talks about how his 80s improvement in production that you noted isn't matched by him ever really getting back to big impact of the type we might assume he has in the ABA. I'm not sure how impact in '77 really relates to that. Maybe if you're just trying to do the full picture ... it just felt to me like you're trying to sell Erving here and there wasn't really a discussion going about right away impact.

Nah, I was mostly just talking through the arc of Philly's improvement once he got there. In the end, what I found was that their greatest success came with Bobby Jones and Andrew Toney which, as you noted, sort of changes the fit angle. They got a lot better on D as time progressed and that made a difference. He did get them to the Finals in his first season with the Sixers, of course, and then 3 more times in the next 6 seasons, with an additional pair of trips to the ECFs, though. Philly was quite a bit more successful immediately after his arrival.

How that correlates with his +/- data is another thing, of course and we've already discussed the positively-evolving roster over that span.

I guess I wanted to sort of address the idea that he wasn't having an impact and then sort of drop him into some context of how Philly performed with his arrival, in and out of his high-rate scoring seasons in the NBA.

But this is tangential to the ABA point which is somewhat tangential to the general thread purpose.

I mean with Erving already voted in, fair. As far as the ABA, I think it's been fairly clearly established that it improved over time. The ABA existed for just less than a decade, so it's no surprise that there's boom/bust in terms of talent/competition. Started with 11 teams, finished with 9... but two of those 9 "ceased operations prior to end of season." I think it's clear that the good players went to the NBA and continued to be good. They may have even improved, if they hit the NBA young enough.

It's just a weird situation and hard to evaluate.

[OhayoKD]

Vote
1. Artis Gilmore

One and Done made a good case:

Spoiler:

I think it’s almost time to vote for Gilmore.

Unlike fellow MVP and 11 time-star Pettit, Gilmore led his team to a title in a much tougher league. The ABA in 1975 was probably stronger than the NBA. Gilmore has a skill set that would absolutely translate today. When I look at Gilmore, I see a guy who physically resembles a stronger, slightly shorter version of Kareem. His huge arms and relative fluidity would make him an excellent rim-roller, who in a pinch could score in other ways in and around the rim. His short jump shots and hook look surprisingly clean, even if I don’t know how often they went in.

It’s easy to look on youtube and find extensive footage of Artis dunking on Kareem and playing great against the showtime Lakers, on just horrible Chicago teams that clearly didn’t put anything much around him. There’s even a game of the NBA stars against the ABA stars, where Gilmore matches up very well physically with 1972 Wilt. If we were in the top 10 that would mean nothing, but we’re now nominating people who will be 30 or higher all-time.

Statistically, Gilmore compares favourably to say Moses, who is already in.

Moses per 100 from 1979-84: 31.6/18.2/2, 2 blks, 115 Ortg/103 Drtg, 578 TS%
Gilmore per 100 from 1975-79: 27.5/17.1/3.4, 3 blks, 113 Ortg/97 Drtg, 601 TS%

Yeh, Moses scores a bit more, because of a play style he wouldn’t be able to replicate today. Otherwise though I’m not seeing much difference between him and Gilmore, except Gilmore’s style would be even more valuable today, and his team mates and situation was in general far worse than Moses. Moses doesn’t even really have Gilmore beat on longevity. Gilmore played 1329 games and was an all-star still at age 36. Moses last all-star season was at age 33, and if we take away his completely irrelevant final 3 seasons he drops from 1455 games down to 1372 games, though I guess Gilmore’s last few seasons weren’t terribly relevant either. Moses has maybe more longevity, depending on how you look at it, because he started earlier. But it’s not enough to matter.

I am more impressed by Gilmore than I am with guys like Ewing or Stockton, the latter wasn’t even a real star. The former seems to be perpetually overrated. Gilmore wishes he had all the help Ewing did.

2. Hondo

-> Great longevity, one of the all-time minute leaders/
-> Good enough peak to co-lead a title-team
-> Good playoff elevation, especially for his pre-prime

Not really the best player left, but his longevity is good enough here I think

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.

[penbeast0]

Here's something I read quite a few years ago:

NBA-ABA Conversion Charts

year min sco reb ast SS#
1968 .38 .64 .80 .90 782
1969 .73 .72 .85 .90 125
1970 .46 .80 .88 .90 611
1971 .74 .86 .90 .95 365
1972 .91 .90 .92 1.0 529
1973 .97 .91 .92 1.0 316
1974 .61 .92 .94 1.0 347
1975 .87 .92 .95 1.0 358
1976 .80 .92 .96 1.0 3425

The Minutes column is (NBA Min)/(ABA Min) -- averaged over the
sample for that year. In 1968, several players' rates are compared
to their last previous NBA season, which in some cases were 2-4
years prior.

Sco, Reb, and Ast are actually derived from averages of several
estimates: straight average, minutes-weighted, 3-year average, and
3-year/weighted by minutes. Then just smoothed over. 'Min' are not
smoothed, merely averaged.

Assists are so jumpy, I just crudely estimated them.

SS# is the sample size in player-games considered. Most years
(3-400 player-games) are equivalent to only 4-5 full player-seasons.
(The small 1969 sample is largely one guy, Rick Barry.)

The year of reference is the ABA season played. Whether Player X was in the NBA in 1971 and the ABA in '72; or in the ABA in '72 and NBA in '73; or in both leagues in '72; his numbers are averaged into the 1972 lot. Provided he had significant minutes in both appearances.
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/APBR/message/16704

I've fired up the old growler and scribbled the conversion rates,
for your perusal. There's a lot of uncertainty, and the numbers go
in fits and starts; but there's a trend or two.

year min sco reb ast SS#
1968 .38 .64 .80 .90 782
1969 .73 .72 .85 .90 125
1970 .46 .80 .88 .90 611
1971 .74 .86 .90 .95 365
1972 .91 .90 .92 1.0 529
1973 .97 .91 .92 1.0 316
1974 .61 .92 .94 1.0 347
1975 .87 .92 .95 1.0 358
1976 .80 .92 .96 1.0 3425

The Minutes column is (NBA Min)/(ABA Min) -- averaged over the
sample for that year. In 1968, several players' rates are compared
to their last previous NBA season, which in some cases were 2-4
years prior.

Sco, Reb, and Ast are actually derived from averages of several
estimates: straight average, minutes-weighted, 3-year average, and
3-year/weighted by minutes. Then just smoothed over.

Assists are so jumpy, I just crudely estimated them.

SS# is the sample size in player-games considered. (The small 1969
sample is largely one guy: Rick Barry.)

Since 1970 was the biggest sample year between the ABA's beginning
and end; and it's the last year I'm calling it "minor-league", lets
examine the sample of comers/goers who were in the ABA that year:

Haywood, Melchionni, Barnhill, Raymond, Dove, Orms, Niemann, Olsen,
Hamilton, Warlick, Kron, Workman.

If you've only heard of the first couple, don't feel lost; these are
in descending order of ABA minutes for 1970, and most were not
impact players.

Of this dirty dozen, only Tommy Kron got fewer ABA minutes than he
had in the NBA.

Of the 12, only Hamilton and Warlick (bit players, too) had a better
effective shooting % in the NBA.

Those same 2 were the only ones with better scoring rates in the NBA.

Melchionni and Barnhill had better rebound rates in the NBA, along
with Kron. These guys were guards with few rebounds in either
league.

Only Warlick had a better assist rate in the NBA.

In all, their minutes more than doubled in the ABA (or halved, if
they were going the other way). Eff% averaged 8% higher in the
ABA. Scoring rates were only 74% as good in the NBA; Rebounding
87%; Assists 68%.

These are per-minute rates. Compounded by the doubling of minutes,
the actual production was more than twice as great in the ABA.

From this type of evidence (playerstats standardized year-by-year),
I can't agree that ABA competition was equal to NBA competition, in
1970.

But if you scroll back up to the chart, you'll see within 2 years
the competetive difference had been cut in half.


And the 1976 figures should be strengthened for the ABA. Last year
we pretty much concurred that the dual effects of contraction (to
1977 NBA) and joining new teams might account for the majority of
the difference.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1: Manu Ginobili

Watch on YouTube

Y'all have seen my argue blue in the face on Manu. Think I'll just leave it in Ben's hands here.

Induction Vote 2: John Havlicek

As I've alluded to, I find Hondo very hard to forget about. An absolutely remarkable career, that could be viewed as being much like Ginobili's but with far greater longevity. While I'm obviously more blown away with how Ginobili plays, I certainly understand those having Havlicek ahead here.

[iggymcfrack]

Induction Vote 1: Manu Ginobili

Watch on YouTube

Y'all have seen my argue blue in the face on Manu. Think I'll just leave it in Ben's hands here.

Induction Vote 2: John Havlicek

As I've alluded to, I find Hondo very hard to forget about. An absolutely remarkable career, that could be viewed as being much like Ginobili's but with far greater longevity. While I'm obviously more blown away with how Ginobili plays, I certainly understand those having Havlicek ahead here.

Finally watched that Ginobili video. Very entertaining!!! Loved the film analysis of all the different angles he would use with his hips and knees as well as the more hardcore data driven stuff. I kinda wonder how close his peak was to Kobe's.