Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal
WintaSoldier1 wrote:... Will return with a update on my view of Bob Lanier after watching some tape of him
What's your overall summary of Davies?OhayoKD wrote:1. Draymond Green
-> Superstar impact by every approach throughout prime
-> Playoff-Riser
-> Centerpiece of an arguably era-best defense
-> Cornerstone of an all-time dynasty
-> Best-in-league calibre defender
-> One of the few two-way floor-generals in history
Nomination:
1. Bob Davies
As I am mainly using an era-relative framework it feels like a good time to reach into Mikan's era
2. Bill Walton
A little too good to not at least be in the discussion, even if he's a hard-sell for a career-value approach
LA Bird wrote:OhayoKD wrote:Nomination:
1. Bob Davies
As I am mainly using an era-relative framework it feels like a good time to reach into Mikan's era
If we are looking purely at team success, the early Rochester Royals were definitely a strong dynasty. The question though is how significant of a role Davies played in that success. He had one big scoring year in 47 which saw him winning the league MVP but in the two surrounding NBL seasons, there were multiple teammates who finished above Davies in All League selections. WOWY analysis on Davies' 29 missed games in 1946-48 would be very useful but I don't think we have any game by game records from that period. We do, however, have WOWY numbers in the 16 games he missed in 1950-53 and the Royals had a +8.63 MOV while going 11-5 (three of the losses in OT including a legendary 6OT game). Obviously not a huge sample for his missed games but it seemed like the Royals were still playing at an elite level without Davies.
And then on the box score side, Davies simply doesn't look that impressive once we have more numbers from 1949 onwards. Unlike Cousy who was racking up assist titles almost every year, Davies only finished top 3 in assists per game once in his career. When the Royals won the championship in 51 with Mikan injured, it was their PF Jack Coleman not Davies who led the team in assists in the playoffs (Coleman had a 14/28/8 statline in Finals G2). Davies was not a volume scorer, peaking at 16.2 ppg and he was not an elite FT shooter either, peaking at 79.5%. Davies' numbers absolutely cratered in the postseason during his last 3 seasons (18.4 PER, 0.156 WS/48 -> 8.7 PER, -0.018 WS/48) but even before that, he didn't rank that highly within the team in the playoffs (4th, 9th, 5th, 2nd in WS). For that era, I think it's hard to make the argument for Davies going above Cousy and the gap only widens if people are factoring in other "legacy" points like accolades and rings.
Sidenote: For some reason, there is very little information about Davies' 2 professional seasons with the ABL before joining the Royals. He only played 9 out of 38 possible games and his teams both year were trash but he didn't exactly crush that league despite the weak competition as one would probably expect.
OhayoKD wrote:LA Bird wrote:Spoiler:
Seems fair, Who should I be loooking at as the 2nd best Mikan-era player then
LA Bird wrote:OhayoKD wrote:Nomination:
1. Bob Davies
As I am mainly using an era-relative framework it feels like a good time to reach into Mikan's era
If we are looking purely at team success, the early Rochester Royals were definitely a strong dynasty. The question though is how significant of a role Davies played in that success. He had one big scoring year in 47 which saw him winning the league MVP but in the two surrounding NBL seasons, there were multiple teammates who finished above Davies in All League selections. WOWY analysis on Davies' 29 missed games in 1946-48 would be very useful but I don't think we have any game by game records from that period. We do, however, have WOWY numbers in the 16 games he missed in 1950-53 and the Royals had a +8.63 MOV while going 11-5 (three of the losses in OT including a legendary 6OT game). Obviously not a huge sample for his missed games but it seemed like the Royals were still playing at an elite level without Davies.
And then on the box score side, Davies simply doesn't look that impressive once we have more numbers from 1949 onwards. Unlike Cousy who was racking up assist titles almost every year, Davies only finished top 3 in assists per game once in his career. When the Royals won the championship in 51 with Mikan injured, it was their PF Jack Coleman not Davies who led the team in assists in the playoffs (Coleman had a 14/28/8 statline in Finals G2). Davies was not a volume scorer, peaking at 16.2 ppg and he was not an elite FT shooter either, peaking at 79.5%. Davies' numbers absolutely cratered in the postseason during his last 3 seasons (18.4 PER, 0.156 WS/48 -> 8.7 PER, -0.018 WS/48) but even before that, he didn't rank that highly within the team in the playoffs (4th, 9th, 5th, 2nd in WS). For that era, I think it's hard to make the argument for Davies going above Cousy and the gap only widens if people are factoring in other "legacy" points like accolades and rings.
Sidenote: For some reason, there is very little information about Davies' 2 professional seasons with the ABL before joining the Royals. He only played 9 out of 38 possible games and his teams both year were trash but he didn't exactly crush that league despite the weak competition as one would probably expect.
LA Bird wrote:OhayoKD wrote:LA Bird wrote:Spoiler:
Seems fair, Who should I be loooking at as the 2nd best Mikan-era player then
Depends on your definition of Mikan's era. If we are talking late 40s, there is nobody else who really stands out enough to warrant a top 100 placing. Kurland is almost guaranteed a spot if he had turned pro but there is so little information about his AAU career that it's impossible to rank him. Of the players starting from the early 50s, Schayes/Arizin/Cousy would all be above Davies. Most likely Groza too but he got banned from the league after only two years so his longevity is non-existent. That's six players from that era better than Davies and even if we exclude Kurland/Groza on a careers list, four players born within a 5 year period is still good representation considering the size of the league back then. I don't think Davies deserves a spot on a top 100 list unless there is stronger evidence linking his individual value to the Royals' success as a team.
penbeast0 wrote:WintaSoldier1 wrote:... Will return with a update on my view of Bob Lanier after watching some tape of him
Focus on his defense, that's where the big disparity in opinion lies. Everyone concedes his offensive skills but was he bad, below average, average, or above average at the other end is the question.
LA Bird wrote:OhayoKD wrote:Nomination:
1. Bob Davies
As I am mainly using an era-relative framework it feels like a good time to reach into Mikan's era
If we are looking purely at team success, the early Rochester Royals were definitely a strong dynasty. The question though is how significant of a role Davies played in that success. He had one big scoring year in 47 which saw him winning the league MVP but in the two surrounding NBL seasons, there were multiple teammates who finished above Davies in All League selections. WOWY analysis on Davies' 29 missed games in 1946-48 would be very useful but I don't think we have any game by game records from that period. We do, however, have WOWY numbers in the 16 games he missed in 1950-53 and the Royals had a +8.63 MOV while going 11-5 (three of the losses in OT including a legendary 6OT game). Obviously not a huge sample for his missed games but it seemed like the Royals were still playing at an elite level without Davies.
And then on the box score side, Davies simply doesn't look that impressive once we have more numbers from 1949 onwards. Unlike Cousy who was racking up assist titles almost every year, Davies only finished top 3 in assists per game once in his career. When the Royals won the championship in 51 with Mikan injured, it was their PF Jack Coleman not Davies who led the team in assists in the playoffs (Coleman had a 14/28/8 statline in Finals G2). Davies was not a volume scorer, peaking at 16.2 ppg and he was not an elite FT shooter either, peaking at 79.5%. Davies' numbers absolutely cratered in the postseason during his last 3 seasons (18.4 PER, 0.156 WS/48 -> 8.7 PER, -0.018 WS/48) but even before that, he didn't rank that highly within the team in the playoffs (4th, 9th, 5th, 2nd in WS). For that era, I think it's hard to make the argument for Davies going above Cousy and the gap only widens if people are factoring in other "legacy" points like accolades and rings.
Sidenote: For some reason, there is very little information about Davies' 2 professional seasons with the ABL before joining the Royals. He only played 9 out of 38 possible games and his teams both year were trash but he didn't exactly crush that league despite the weak competition as one would probably expect.
LA Bird wrote:Depends on your definition of Mikan's era. If we are talking late 40s, there is nobody else who really stands out enough to warrant a top 100 placing. Kurland is almost guaranteed a spot if he had turned pro but there is so little information about his AAU career that it's impossible to rank him. Of the players starting from the early 50s, Schayes/Arizin/Cousy would all be above Davies. Most likely Groza too but he got banned from the league after only two years so his longevity is non-existent. That's six players from that era better than Davies and even if we exclude Kurland/Groza on a careers list, four players born within a 5 year period is still good representation considering the size of the league back then. I don't think Davies deserves a spot on a top 100 list unless there is stronger evidence linking his individual value to the Royals' success as a team.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/54441341/usa_today_10030059.0.jpg)
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:Induction Vote 1: Dwight Howard
Induction Vote 2: Bob Lanier
This round seems like it's coming down to Dwight and Lanier. I'll be honest, I'm a bit surprised to see Lanier potentially leapfrog a number of guys who've been on the ballot longer.
It's tough. I very much admire Lanier's game and acknowledge the terrible situation he was in in Detroit, and he does have a longevity advantage in terms of impact, but the lack of team success in perhaps one of the least competitive eras in the league's history(I am an era-relativist, so I don't usually talk about strength of era, but here I feel it's warranted) even in his terrible situation makes gives me pause, and peak-for-peak, I think you can argue statistically that Dwight was a more efficient scorer and a more impactful defender, so I'm going with Dwight. I am a bit nervous here as I believe my vote is a tie-breaker at this moment in time, but there it is.
Nomination Vote 1: George Gervin
Nomination Vote 2: Paul Arizin
It's honestly getting silly that Gervin hasn't been nominated yet. He was inducted #37 in 2020 and we're about to cross #50 and he's not nominated yet. This is a fairly shocking drop. He's at minimum a top 10 SG all time. How far is he going to fall?
As for Arizin, in era-relative terms, I think he was better statistically and had more team success than Payton, and since these are the two with traction right now, I'm going with Arizin.
Doctor MJ wrote:LA Bird wrote:OhayoKD wrote:Nomination:
1. Bob Davies
As I am mainly using an era-relative framework it feels like a good time to reach into Mikan's era
If we are looking purely at team success, the early Rochester Royals were definitely a strong dynasty. The question though is how significant of a role Davies played in that success. He had one big scoring year in 47 which saw him winning the league MVP but in the two surrounding NBL seasons, there were multiple teammates who finished above Davies in All League selections. WOWY analysis on Davies' 29 missed games in 1946-48 would be very useful but I don't think we have any game by game records from that period. We do, however, have WOWY numbers in the 16 games he missed in 1950-53 and the Royals had a +8.63 MOV while going 11-5 (three of the losses in OT including a legendary 6OT game). Obviously not a huge sample for his missed games but it seemed like the Royals were still playing at an elite level without Davies.
And then on the box score side, Davies simply doesn't look that impressive once we have more numbers from 1949 onwards. Unlike Cousy who was racking up assist titles almost every year, Davies only finished top 3 in assists per game once in his career. When the Royals won the championship in 51 with Mikan injured, it was their PF Jack Coleman not Davies who led the team in assists in the playoffs (Coleman had a 14/28/8 statline in Finals G2). Davies was not a volume scorer, peaking at 16.2 ppg and he was not an elite FT shooter either, peaking at 79.5%. Davies' numbers absolutely cratered in the postseason during his last 3 seasons (18.4 PER, 0.156 WS/48 -> 8.7 PER, -0.018 WS/48) but even before that, he didn't rank that highly within the team in the playoffs (4th, 9th, 5th, 2nd in WS). For that era, I think it's hard to make the argument for Davies going above Cousy and the gap only widens if people are factoring in other "legacy" points like accolades and rings.
Sidenote: For some reason, there is very little information about Davies' 2 professional seasons with the ABL before joining the Royals. He only played 9 out of 38 possible games and his teams both year were trash but he didn't exactly crush that league despite the weak competition as one would probably expect.
So, some thoughts based on things I think I know (but which could prove to be bad information).
Davies, like most of the basketball talent at the time, was in the military during World War II, and was playing most of his basketball there. I don't know much about his ABL play, but feel pretty confident that there was nothing "under the radar" about him at that time. When Les Harrison put together the Rochester Royals, Davies was his must-get. It wasn't just that he was good at competitive basketball, but that his dribble & playmaking was wildly entertaining, which would be critical for the Royals since they made most of their revenue by barnstorming until they left the NBL and joined the BAA/NBA, and the new league forbid this. Because of this, the Royals would soon enough leave for a bigger city, which would not have been necessary had they been able to stay as barnstormers.
In that first Royals season - '45-46, the first season after the war - Davies had a bumpy start fitting in with the other talents Harrison had acquired. Harrison talked about it in terms of the other players learning to play with Davies rather than the other way around, but nevertheless benched Davies at times early on because the other guys were arguably the second best team in the league without Davies. The style that Davies brought was all about pace. Davies turned the court into a race track leading the team in transition.
From my recollection of the box scores - which used to be up somewhere on APBR but I can't find them right now - Davies progressed through the season and the offense ended up shifting from George Glamack as the focus to Davies, and that Davies would have clearly been the Finals MVP had one existed at the time.
I'll say that my assessment was that Al Cervi was the real MVP of the team both that year and the following when some sources say Davies was named NBL MVP (other sources say it was Cervi, and frankly given Davies' missed time, it seems like it should have been Cervi). Cervi was a fine scorer in his own right, but what set him apart was his defense which was absolutely suffocating, and which completely dismantled the star - Bobby McDermott - who had been seen as the best player in the league for several years. McDermott was the greatest of all long-distance set shooters with a range that went well past the modern 3-point line, so what Cervi did is just stuck to him like glue wherever he was on the court. Took tremendous motor and endurance, but you need separation to take get the ball and take a set shot, and McDermott struggled mightily to get that space when Cervi was on him.
Before I move on I'll give a shout out to future HOF Knicks coach Red Holzman who worked very well as a #2/3 primacy guy for the Royals both in their initial Glamack-oriented offense and in the subsequent Davies-oriented scheme (whereas Glamack faded out quickly with Davies' emergence).
Ah heck, I'll also shout out football legend Otto Graham who was also a core member of that championship team.
Moving on, the first big change to the Royals happened with the arrival of center Arnie Risen for the '47-48 season. Risen was an established star on lesser teams and got brought in not just because he was good, but because the Royals were clearly struggling in the wake of George Mikan. Risen would not prove equal to the task of course, but I'd say he was the second best center in the league over the next few years.
As I say that though, the reality for Risen is that he didn't get the accolades you'd expect if people thought he was the actual best player on the Royals. It wasn't just he failed to make 1st team - which would have been understandable given Mikan's presence - but that he only rarely made 2nd team twice, whereas Davies made 1st team as a guard as a matter of course.
Cervi, incidentally, would end up leaving the team over money. In a nutshell, he thought he deserved to get paid like Davies, and boss Harrison disagreed. Now, Cervi was considerably older so even on a purely rational basis, building around Davies made sense. But I also think a factor here was that Davies wasn't just getting paid for his competitive value but his box office value which was in an entirely different league compared to Cervi.
Fast forward a few years and you have a Davies-Risen led core winning an NBA title after a Mikan injury opened the door, and while it matters that they got lucky, the fact that Davies was the face of the team during both the NBL and NBA championships, and neither Cervi nor Risen were there for both, make Davies the clear cut top Royals of the time period in my book. One can argue that other experience puts Cervi or Risen over Davies, but honestly the only one I'd seriously consider is Cervi.
Last: Shout out to Bobby Wanzer who becomes the other major guard on the Royals after Cervi exits. Wanzer was a Davies protege from Seton Hall and a better scorer (and as with all the other guys, a weaker playmaker). I can see an argument for Wanzer over Cervi or Risen, but I think Davies pretty clearly is the more accomplished player between the two Pirates.
Looking over your post:
What about Davies not getting more assists? I think it's a style of play thing. While Davies was the floor general out there, the Royals played in a scheme that was read & react which would later provide the template for Holzman's Knicks, Jackson's Bulls & Kerr's Warriors down the branches of this tree of influence. This wasn't anything like a heliocentric style...whereas I'd say Cousy was arguably the original helio, dominating the ball.
I don't think it's at all clear Cousy was the more effective passer over Davies. I do think Cousy getting so many more assists than his contemporaries was about the role he was allowed to play more so than him hitting passes other guys couldn't see. Further, we know that Cousy showed problematic judgment when it came to calling his own number too much and falling into ugly shooting efficiency. Davies by contrast would remain a positive TS Add guy through his final season as a 35 year old, and would be the floor general on a team that was the league's first offensive dynasty based on my estimation of best ORtg, and even in that final year, the offense would be above league average. And then Davies would retire, and the offense would just fall off a cliff.
This then to say that while I'm cautious about putting Davies over a guy like Hagan (or Arizin), I do have him above Cousy. I think Cousy had some massive issues in his game that the basketball world of the time just overlooked because the Celtics kept winning titles, and I think he'd have been a more valuable player if he'd understood that he really shouldn't be his team's main shooter.
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:It's honestly getting silly that Gervin hasn't been nominated yet. He was inducted #37 in 2020 and we're about to cross #50 and he's not nominated yet. This is a fairly shocking drop. He's at minimum a top 10 SG all time. How far is he going to fall?
Doctor MJ wrote:Cool to see folks talking about the earlier eras.
Here's a link to a post ranking early players for contention from before the project.
The list order I had was:
1. George Mikan
2. Bob Davies
3. Arnie Risen
4. Jim Pollard
5. Slater Martin
6. Paul Seymour
7. Vern Middelsen
8. Bobby Wanzer
9. Ed Macauley
10. Neil Johnston
I'll note that Al Cervi is not on that list, but has an argument to be #2 among greatest players on the list. Cervi was older - made his NBL debut in the '30s, and never actually played in the NBA, but played in the NBL during the BAA's existence.
