RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #80 (Allen Iverson)

[eminence]

And I don't mean to say Sharman wasn't capable of any self-creation, just that he did less of it than Davies.

[eminence]

Simple, watching them play. Even in limited time it ain't hard to tell Ja from Bane and it ain't hard to tell Davies from Sharman.

Probably a good time to post videos. Here's one from some fella named 70sFan:

Watch on YouTube

A much longer set of clips from the same game. Though not the game the poster has it as (Sharman didn't play in the game the poster claims it is, and is quite clearly playing here).

Watch on YouTube

The fake sounds are ridiculous, but oh well.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Coming down the stretch here, some food for thought. Players from the 2020 project yet to be voted in and where they ranked:

Adrian Dantley (55)
Sam Jones (56)
Bob Cousy (63)
Allen Iverson (66)
Alex English (68)
Tony Parker (71)
Dominique Wilkins (73)
Kevin Johnson (75)
Bob McAdoo (77)
Shawn Marion (78)
Larry Nance (80)
Hal Greer (82)
Grant Hill (83)
Sidney Moncrief (84)
Chris Bosh (86)
Horace Grant (87)
Jeff Hornacek (88)
Billy Cunningham (89)
Dan Issel (90)
James Worthy (91)
Carmelo Anthony (92)
Terry Porter (93)
Cliff Hagan (94)
Jack Sikma (96)
Gus Williams (97)
Walt Bellamy (99)
Bill Walton (100)

Cousy shouldn't be on the list, he just got in.

Of the list, the ones I'm least convinced about:

Bellamy - I said it before, but I'm not sure any player ever accomplished less with the type of scoring numbers he had.
Melo - Volume scorer on iffy efficiency who didn't do much else.
Hill - Injuries derailed his career and I'm not as hawkish on his peak as some are.
Hornacek/Porter/Grant - All played their roles extremely well, I just have a hard time seeing them as Top 100 guys.
Marion - Just not convinced of his impact.
Sikma - I don't dislike the guy, but I'm not sure what elevates him to Top 100 status.
Greer - Maybe his non-box impact is just that great, but his box numbers are not all that impressive.

Thanks, fixed. My one thing with melo has always been wherever you rank nique, melo shouldn't be far behind. Their career resumes and statistical profiles are very similar.

I could be easily convinced to leave Nique off too. He was on my 'probably not' list until I took a closer look at the Hawks' team performance from 85-89. Some fairly high SRSs there, and that's really the only reason I'm still considering letting Nique in.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I'm in the opposite camp vs Sharman, as I don't really see the Sharman argument, he's a better shooter for sure, but I don't think it outweighs Davies playmaking/self creation edge and have Davies as the better offensive player overall.

What do we have this from? What do we truly know about Davies' "self-creation"? Or for that matter do we know that Sharman didn't do some "self-creation" too?

I'll give you playmaking, but Sharman was scoring quite a bit more on quite a bit better shooting efficiency (raw or relative). AND he has the better defensive reputation. AND he has a longevity edge (yeah: WWII). AND he's proven effective in a more competitive league, and appears to suffer less playoff drop-off in his late career. AND he's got a whole host of team success boxes ticked (that's somewhat luck, but it is what it is).

Other broad areas would seem to slant Davies (impact, accolades) to neutral (defense, longevity).

How do we know about impact? Accolades......I guess (weaker league).

As per above, I would argue defense and longevity do not lean neutral, but slightly in Sharman's favour.

It goes without saying that I agree with trex on this.

Davies was a lead guard known for his dribbling and passing, Sharman was an off-guard known for his shooting. We would thus expect that Davies was better at dribbling and passing while Sharman was better at shooting.

If we can take that as a reasonable discussion then what eminence is extrapolating is that Sharman probably needed that creation impact of Cousy in order to get his shots, while Davies provided that boost for himself (and Davies definitely did show the ability to score "at volume" at least in terms of what volume looked like in the '40s).

The questions whose guesses for answers are probably making folks diverge here then are things like:

How limited was Sharman's dribbling ability?
How much space did Sharman need to get his shot?
Do we have concerns about prime Davies' ability to score in Sharman's era?

I'll go on record and say that while I have great admiration for Sharman and have long been tempted to elevate him over Cousy, I've never felt like I had evidence to suggest he could have really done his thing without a good point guard, or been the point guard himself. Not saying he couldn't have, just saying, I feel like I'd be making an assumption in crediting him with that.

I would just point out that Reggie Miller got in 41 threads ago and he couldn't much create for himself either. Yes, he was better than Sharman(why he got in then and Sharman hasn't been seriously discussed until recently), but it's the similar archtype of the efficient volume scorer who couldn't handle the ball/create for himself much.

Or if you want someone closer to Sharman's level, there's Jeff Hornacek. He's not in yet this time, but he got in last time and he's been discussed this time. He needed to be assisted on a relatively high percentage of his shots. And FWIW, Hornacek's career average TS Add per year is 93.8, while Sharman's is 101.8. And Sharman has the hardware.

Re: longevity toward Sharman. Well, Davies actually played to a more advanced age in the NBA. Shorter pro career no doubt, but not a shorter basketball career (his military ball led directly to his pro career after the war). Not saying you're wrong to credit Sharman with greater longevity for purposes of this project, but just in terms of each guy's body, Davies might have actually put greater wear and tear on his body (barnstorming is no joke).

When looking at Davies' longevity, it's not just about how long he played or how many miles he had on his legs, it's about how much of his career do we have meaningful data for?

We have bbref data for his last seven NBA years, but even there we don't have minutes for 49, 50, and 51 or rebounds for 49 and 50.

For the five years before the NBA, we not only don't have minutes or rebounds, we also don't have assists or FGA either; no minutes means we can't have an adequate understanding of his scoring volume in those years, and no FGA means no FG%, no TS%, no scoring efficiency measure of any kind. Without minutes, assists or scoring efficiency, how can we be expected to draw any conclusions about what kind offensive player he was prior to the NBA other than looking at what he did in the NBA and extrapolating backwards?

I just feel like we are being asked to take an awful lot on faith about Davies' career where we don't have to take it on faith about Sharman. It's all there in black and white that he was the most efficient perimeter scorer of his era, that he was #1 in playoff WS/48 on two of his championship teams and #2 on another, that he played 680 out of a possible 723 regular season games for the Celtics and only ever missed two playoff games, etc.

Simple, watching them play. Even in limited time it ain't hard to tell Ja from Bane and it ain't hard to tell Davies from Sharman.

There's no meaningful scoring volume gap. There is a huge pace gap pre/post shotclock.

The longevity edge is... What? The half season in Washington? Davies played 10 years with the Royals, and Sharman played 10 years with the Celtics.

What have you got on Davies defensive rep? Fuzzy is the only person I've ever read discussing Davies defense at all (only very briefly), and he seemed fine with it - complemented his quickness and hands, but I'll be damned if I can find it now.

But those first three years with the Royals, prior to the NBA, he was playing WAY less games than he would in the NBA - 27, 32, and 48 to be exact. I don't know if that's because the teams played fewer games or because of the war or because of injuries or what, but in any case those numbers aren't very big.

Meanwhile, Sharman was an ironman who played something like 94% of all possible regular season games in his ten years in Boston.

[eminence]

But those first three years with the Royals, prior to the NBA, he was playing WAY less games than he would in the NBA - 27, 32, and 48 to be exact. I don't know if that's because the teams played fewer games or because of the war or because of injuries or what, but in any case those numbers aren't very big.

Meanwhile, Sharman was an ironman who played something like 94% of all possible regular season games in his ten years in Boston.

I use seasons over games because games aren't consistent (this benefits Sharman in the big picture, otherwise I suppose we could punish Sharman for playing 72 game seasons vs modern guys). The Royals played 34, 44, and 60 games those seasons. So 92.7% of possible RS games with the Royals over his 10 seasons.

In '46 there were some contract issues and in '47 he was coaching Seton Hall at the same time (24-3 that season). '48 I don't know of the cause.

Sidenote: Arizin was clearly above Sharman as a perimeter scorer in era. Not close. Sharman was the better shooter though.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

But those first three years with the Royals, prior to the NBA, he was playing WAY less games than he would in the NBA - 27, 32, and 48 to be exact. I don't know if that's because the teams played fewer games or because of the war or because of injuries or what, but in any case those numbers aren't very big.

Meanwhile, Sharman was an ironman who played something like 94% of all possible regular season games in his ten years in Boston.

I use seasons over games because games aren't consistent (this benefits Sharman in the big picture, otherwise I suppose we could punish Sharman for playing 72 game seasons vs modern guys). The Royals played 34, 44, and 60 games those seasons. So 92.7% of possible RS games with the Royals over his 10 seasons.

In '46 there were some contract issues and in '47 he was coaching Seton Hall at the same time (24-3 that season). '48 I don't know of the cause.

This is good to know. So the lesser number of games is not Davies' fault really, but still in absolute terms, Davies played 580 "major league games" vs Sharman's 711.

[eminence]

But those first three years with the Royals, prior to the NBA, he was playing WAY less games than he would in the NBA - 27, 32, and 48 to be exact. I don't know if that's because the teams played fewer games or because of the war or because of injuries or what, but in any case those numbers aren't very big.

Meanwhile, Sharman was an ironman who played something like 94% of all possible regular season games in his ten years in Boston.

I use seasons over games because games aren't consistent (this benefits Sharman in the big picture, otherwise I suppose we could punish Sharman for playing 72 game seasons vs modern guys). The Royals played 34, 44, and 60 games those seasons. So 92.7% of possible RS games with the Royals over his 10 seasons.

In '46 there were some contract issues and in '47 he was coaching Seton Hall at the same time (24-3 that season). '48 I don't know of the cause.

This is good to know. So the lesser number of games is not Davies' fault really, but still in absolute terms, Davies played 580 "major league games" vs Sharman's 711.

To each their own, but I'll measure each against the league they could play in (so 92.7% and 93.8% of team games respectively over 10 and 11 year periods).

[Doctor MJ]

Davies was a lead guard known for his dribbling and passing, Sharman was an off-guard known for his shooting. We would thus expect that Davies was better at dribbling and passing while Sharman was better at shooting.

If we can take that as a reasonable discussion then what eminence is extrapolating is that Sharman probably needed that creation impact of Cousy in order to get his shots, while Davies provided that boost for himself (and Davies definitely did show the ability to score "at volume" at least in terms of what volume looked like in the '40s).

The questions whose guesses for answers are probably making folks diverge here then are things like:

How limited was Sharman's dribbling ability?
How much space did Sharman need to get his shot?
Do we have concerns about prime Davies' ability to score in Sharman's era?

I'll go on record and say that while I have great admiration for Sharman and have long been tempted to elevate him over Cousy, I've never felt like I had evidence to suggest he could have really done his thing without a good point guard, or been the point guard himself. Not saying he couldn't have, just saying, I feel like I'd be making an assumption in crediting him with that.

I would just point out that Reggie Miller got in 41 threads ago and he couldn't much create for himself either. Yes, he was better than Sharman(why he got in then and Sharman hasn't been seriously discussed until recently), but it's the similar archtype of the efficient volume scorer who couldn't handle the ball/create for himself much.

Or if you want someone closer to Sharman's level, there's Jeff Hornacek. He's not in yet this time, but he got in last time and he's been discussed this time. He needed to be assisted on a relatively high percentage of his shots. And FWIW, Hornacek's career average TS Add per year is 93.8, while Sharman's is 101.8. And Sharman has the hardware.

Just responding to this because the rest of your post lays things out in pretty clear ways where folks will just agree to disagree.

On the matter of why Miller but not Sharman, well I think the clear things here are:

1. Reggie did his thing as the guy defenses were planning against, while for Boston I believe that was Cousy.
2. Reggie made 3's, Sharman made 2's. Yes different eras, but that also means different levels of value of off-ball shooters relative to other roles.
3. Reggie showed pretty remarkable longevity as a threat like this.

As I've said, I still have Sharman in my Top 100 so I don't say any of this to disqualify him, but I don't really see him as someone who rivals Miller.

[penbeast0]

Cousy shouldn't be on the list, he just got in.

Of the list, the ones I'm least convinced about:

Bellamy - I said it before, but I'm not sure any player ever accomplished less with the type of scoring numbers he had.
Melo - Volume scorer on iffy efficiency who didn't do much else.
Hill - Injuries derailed his career and I'm not as hawkish on his peak as some are.
Hornacek/Porter/Grant - All played their roles extremely well, I just have a hard time seeing them as Top 100 guys.
Marion - Just not convinced of his impact.
Sikma - I don't dislike the guy, but I'm not sure what elevates him to Top 100 status.
Greer - Maybe his non-box impact is just that great, but his box numbers are not all that impressive.

In terms of Marion's impact:
(a) Nash won his second MVP because when the supposed main scoring engine on the Suns went down (Amare), they plugged in a couple of solid role players (Kurt Thomas and Boris Diaw) and didn't miss much of a beat. Marion was the primary scorer as well as the primary defender on that team that went to the conference finals. Big impact on both ends.
(b) Marion didn't put up impressive impact numbers on his post-prime championship in Dallas but he had the primary job of guarding LeBron James in the finals and LeBron had his all-time fail

Both of course were team efforts as guys stepped up but that's prime Marion and post-prime Marion. It's fair to complain about his ugly shot, his limited handles, his complaining that he wasn't getting star treatment in Phoenix, but he was a guy who had an impact on both ends with tremendous versatility to play 4-2 at an All-Star level.

[eminence]

3 votes copied from last round, Dantley joining the ballot.

Vote #1: Allen Iverson
-Mostly winning out on longevity here for me. Walton's is non existent, and Hagan and Moncrief are bad by the measure.
-Dantley vs Iverson the real competition for me. I'm a bit more impressed by what Iverson did as his squads #1. Both (similar to Cousy) did better than one might expect as their role scaled down.
-ATG playmaker I don't see, but he was certainly better making plays for others than Dantley.

Vote #2: Adrian Dantley
-Not as much faith in him anchoring an offense as in Iverson, but similar general concept. Soak up a lot of usage as a good not great offensive star. Better scorer, worse playmaker.
-Did it for a reasonably long time.
-Fairly narrow decision over Moncrief here, Moncrief was a notably better player imo, but the longevity gap is substantial.

Moncrief #3, Hagan #4, Walton #5 on my current ballot. No chance Walton winds up receiving a vote from me, unlikely for Hagan, decent chance for Moncrief.

Nomination #1: Bob Davies
-Greatest guard of the 1st era of the league
-For starting late (age 26 season) has some decent longevity. I would consider him an Allstar+ level of guard for 8 seasons '46-'53, strong argument for #2 player in the world broadly over the period
-2x champ in a starring role
-Not directly part of his case, but he gets a moral bonus point from me for being an early advocate for league integration

Nomination #2: Tony Parker
-Don't feel emphatic about this one, but he certainly accomplished a lot.
-Played quality ball for a long time.
-Not particularly high on his peak, probably just Allstar level imo.

[trelos6]

Let's say

80-84 is Iverson, Dantley, Hagan, Walton, Moncrief.

I think based off nominations, Horford, Nance are looking strong after them.

So that creates 14 spots left.

I personally think that Shawn Marion should be there, as well as Terry Porter, Kevin Johnson, Mo Cheeks and Jerry Lucas.

Guy's I'll push for, but wouldn't be too fussed if they just missed the cut are: Jack Sikma, Gus Williams, Dominique Wilkins, Shawn Kemp, Grant Hill, Sam Jones, Marques Johnson, Connie Hawkins and Chris Bosh.

A few guys I'm thinking will miss the cut, but are close are: Bob McAdoo, Chris Webber, Vlade Divac, Jeff Hornacek, Tim Hardaway, Mookie Baylock, Tony Parker, Luka Doncic, Jayson Tatum.

[trex_8063]

Simple, watching them play. Even in limited time it ain't hard to tell Ja from Bane and it ain't hard to tell Davies from Sharman.

Thanks for the video; I wasn't aware of its existence. Have only watched a little so far (Davies not blowing my mind just yet).
fwiw, if this video was the primary source of drawing distinction between Davies and Sharman, that doesn't seem fair, as it would not yet be what I would call prime Bill Sharman: he's got the 3rd-lowest rTS% of his career this season (despite the league avg being the 2nd-lowest he would see), it's a middling PER for him and his single-lowest WS/48 of '52-'61......all while playing just 22 mpg.

From what I've watched so far, Sharman is active/aggressive defensively, though does get back-doored once early in the clip (though he generally seems attentive [you can often see his head swivelling back and forth between ball and man when he's guarding off-ball]).
On offense, he's moving almost constantly (perhaps the Reggie Miller comparison someone else made is apt), and he did put it on the floor in a scoring move at least once early on in the video (an actual jump-shot too).

As an aside: Bob Cousy can be seen shooting a little jump-shot at one point early in the film (for people who have said he never did/would). He misses badly, but jsia.

There's no meaningful scoring volume gap. There is a huge pace gap pre/post shotclock.

I don't know that I'd be willing chock all the difference up to pace (and efficiency) differences, though I suppose I'll concede it accounts for a lot.
I still see an edge to Sharman, though I won't quibble the semantics of "meaningful".

Davies' league-rank in ppg between '46-'55 ranged from tied for 2nd [in '47, when 14.4 ppg was good enough to do so, fwiw] down to 23rd [twice: in '48 and '55]. His AVERAGE league rank in that span was 13.1 (has four seasons ranked outside the top 15).

Sharman's league-rank in ppg ranged between 29th [in '52] and 5th [in '58]. He was strikingly consistent, though, with SEVEN consecutive seasons in the top 9 (only two seasons outside the top 15). Overall his average league rank was 11.1.

So unless going solely with peak rank, there does appear a very modest edge for Sharman.

And he does still have the efficiency edge: avg of '52-'61 [not weighted for games/minutes] is +4.52% rTS.
Davies' avg for '49-'55 is +2.6%.
The edge gets marginally bigger if I weighted seasons for minutes played in each year.

The longevity edge is... What? The half season in Washington? Davies played 10 years with the Royals, and Sharman played 10 years with the Celtics.

Fair enough. Like OldSchoolNoBull, I tend to note the total games played, too. If the seasons had been longer in Davies' time, would his body have held up to the added rigours? Maybe; perhaps even probably. But it's still a tiny unknown.

I also note that Sharman's production and efficiency seem to more or less hold up in the post-season, even late in his career. Whereas Davies falls off a cliff in the playoffs for ALL of his last three seasons.

It's not like he was significantly older: Davies was 35 years and 63 days in his final NBA game. Sharman was 34 years and 321 days in his. It's like 3.5 months difference.
And Sharman's came in a quickly advancing league that was already notably improved compared to any of these three seasons Davies had the huge drop-off in.
The shift in league quality is not at all unimportant to me.

What have you got on Davies defensive rep? Fuzzy is the only person I've ever read discussing Davies defense at all (only very briefly), and he seemed fine with it - complemented his quickness and hands, but I'll be damned if I can find it now.

I'll admit I know nothing of Davies' defensive rep (good or bad). Haven't heard anything at all about it. Positive comments have made their way through the years wrt Sharman's defense, however.


We'll probably have to agree to disagree on these two. I'm on team Sharman (and if Davies is "Ja", I think Sharman is more "Reggie" than "Bane" ).

[HeartBreakKid]

Shame I haven't had the chance to read the last few threads. I find the debates around 50s players fascinating. Only had time to give my vote and dip.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Induction Vote #1: Allen Iverson

Induction Vote #2: Adrian Dantley

I guess I'll pile on the Iverson majority here. Good arguments have been made in favor of his having impact beyond what his underwhelming efficiency might suggest.

I do hope Dantley gets in soon though, he's been on the ballot for awhile and keeps getting passed over.

Nomination Vote #1: Sam Jones

Nomination Vote #2: Bill Sharman

Looking at the nominees who have first place votes currently, I think Jones has more team success than Nance and more impressive individual numbers than Parker, so I guess I will give him my support this round.

I am supporting Bill Sharman again with my #2 vote.

Bill Sharman
Maybe the guy on the above list I see the least argument against.

To start with, he was one of the most efficient perimeter scorers of his era. In his eleven years in the league, he had an average rTS of +4.2 - including four 5+ and six 4+ seasons - and seven 100+ TS Add seasons. There pretty much wasn't a guard that efficient until West and Oscar came along(unless you count Arizin, who according to bbref was a SF). His season-by-season rTS:

+1.3
+2.7
+7.6
+8.9
+5.3
+5.0
+4.6
+3.6
+1.9
+4.3
+1.5

His efficiency was reasonably resilient in the postseason - as you can see below, his playoff TS only trailed his regular season TS by more than three points twice, and topped his regular season TS five times.

46.5/60.3
52.1/47.2
53.1/54.9
50.8/57.2
50.8/48.6
49.5/46.9
48.5/47.2
47.6/50.5
50.6/47.1
48.4/56.4

There is little data available with regards to it, but Sharman's peers - including his teammate Bob Cousy - considered him to be one of the best guard defenders of the era as well.

I'd also like to briefly point out that Sharman's 3.9rpg in the RS and 3.7rpg in the playoffs for his career, topping out at 4.7rpg in the 1958 RS and 5,4rpg in the 1955 playoffs. Those wouldn't normally be impressive rebounding numbers, but Sharman is listed at 6'1'! For him to even grab that many boards given his size is surely indicative of some combination of tenacity and athleticism.

We obviously don't have much to go by for overall impact in those days, but what we can see is that he posted strong WS/48 consistently in both RS and PO:

.148/.262
.201/.071
.202/.208
.150/.170
.157/.142
.207/.164
.189/.175
.154/,194
.198/.150
.169/.257

In 1953 and 1954, on the pre-Russell Celtics, Sharman was #2 on the team in WS/48 both seasons behind Ed Macauley(and ahead of Bob Cousy). Those teams posted 1.94 SRS/+2.5 Net Rtg(53 wins if we pro-rate to an 82-game season) and 1.97 SRS/+2.5 Net Rtg(47 wins if we pro-rate to an 82 game season). So before Russell even got there, Sharman was one of the most important parts of a decent playoff team.

And here is where his WS/48 ranked within the team for the four championship seasons he was a part of:

1957 - #1 RS, #1 PO
1959 - #4 RS, #2 PO
1960 - #2 RS, #4 PO
1961 - #3 RS, #1 PO

Now I probably shouldn't draw any specific conclusions from that, but broadly speaking it indicates that he was one of the most important players on four championship teams.

To sum up, based on the limited data we have, he was consistently one of the most efficient perimeter scorers in the game in his era, by reputation amongst his peers was a high-level perimeter defender, was a decent-to-good rebounder for his size, was one of the main guys on playoff teams before Russell arrived, played important roles on four championship teams(and another that made the Finals), he had decent longevity(especially for the era, eleven seasons without experiencing any significant decline), and was very durable to boot(in his ten years with the Celtics, he played in 680 out of a possible 723 reguar season games, which is 94%, and after missing two playoff games in his first year in Boston, he never missed any again).

...I wanted to share these excerpts from Bill Simmons' Book Of Basketball, specifically from his Pyramid player ranking. One is for Cousy, the other(the shorter one) is for Sharman.

I share these with the following acknowledgements:

1. Simmons' approach was not as empirical as ours(i.e. he, IIRC, didn't use any non-box stats, but then again, the book was written in 2008).
2. He is, of course, a legendary Celtics homer, so of course he's gonna love two Celtics.

Even so, he makes some points worth repeating here.

...

The NBA's best two-guard until Jerry West showed up; the first shooter to regularly crack 40 percent from the field and shoot 90 percent from the line; half of the most successful backcourt in the history of the league. Factoring in team success, individual careers, statistics, and total games played together, we haven't seen anything approaching Cousy and Sharman.(Lemme know when we'll see two guards from the same team make first-team All-NBA for four straight years.) When Sharman retired in 1961, only twenty-two noncenters had played 500 games or more at that time. Of those twenty-two players, Sharman ranked first in free throw percentage(88 percent) and second in shooting percentage(42.6 percent, just behind Bob Pettit); he was the only guard to crack 40 percent from the field. So Sharman was significantly better than any other two-guard from his era; the numbers, awards, and titles back this up, as does the fact that Sharman held off Sam Jones for four solid years. The six foot two Sharman even moonlighted as a third baseman in Brooklyn's farm system from 1950 to 1955, getting called up at the end of the '51 season and being thrown out of a game for yelling at an umpire, becoming the only player in major league history to get ejected from a game without ever actually appearing in one. Bizarre. But that gives you an idea of his athletic pedigree. He was also infamous for being the first player to (a)study opponents' tendencies and keep notes on them and (b) create a daily routine of stretching, exercising, and shooting and make a concerted effort to stick to that routine.

What doesn't live on historically was Sharman's defense. By all accounts, he was that decade's best lockdown defender and a feisty competitor who had more fights than Jake LaMotta. Jerry West once remembered being a rookie and making seven straight shots against an aging Sharman, then Sharman preventing an eight shot simply by taking a swing at him. As West told the L.A. Times years later, "I'll tell you this, you did not drive by him. He got into more fights than Mike Tyson. You respected him as a player." Sounds like my kind of guy. I'd tell you more, but Sharman retired when my mother was twelve.

The bolded parts(my emphasis) illustrate that not only was he one of the best scorers of his era(and if you believe the accounts/reputation, best perimeter defenders), but also that he was an outlier in terms of athleticism, work ethic, and basketball intelligence.

[eminence]

.

A quick note, the description on the video is wrong on what game it is. I've meant to go through and figure out which it is, but haven't spent the time. Only know that it's either '52 or '53, as Arnie Johnson was still on the Royals. But it can't be the January 1 game, as Sharman didn't play in that game according to available boxscores.

It's the only Davies vs Celtics game I've ever seen. Most of the Davies film I've seen is against the Lakers (70sFan, you should get in touch with the University of Minnesota their library seemed to have a decent sized collection of 50s Lakers microfilm - at least it did a decade ago).

[LA Bird]

Vote: Bill Walton
Nom: Larry Nance

Iverson is crushing this round so I'll save the Walton post for next round.

Re: Possible nominees
• Nance: Yes. But I have been reposting the same McHale vs Nance comparison to no avail...

Spoiler:

For example, these are the career stats of McHale vs Nance, another PF from the same era who is usually ranked far below him.

McHale: 30118 MP, 17.9 PPG, 7.3 RPG, 1.7 APG, 0.4 SPG, 1.7 BPG, 60.5% TS, 20.0 PER, 113.0 WS, 34.3 VORP
Nance: 30697 MP, 17.1 PPG, 8.0 RPG, 2.6 APG, 0.9 SPG, 2.2 BPG, 58.6% TS, 19.9 PER, 109.6 WS, 43.5 VORP

McHale is clearly a better scorer (especially in playoffs) but Nance is ahead, at least statistically, in all other areas. Hell, Nance's peak scoring average (22.5 ppg on 60.7% TS) is actually almost identical to McHale's in his one season without Bird (22.5 ppg on 60.8% TS) and one could argue Nance's style of scoring is more era portable and easier to build around. If we dig into non-box impact metrics, Nance is ahead in ElGee's prime WOWYR (+5.1 vs +3.6), career WOWYR (+5.6 vs +2.6), and generally looks better in Moonbeam's RWOWY graph too. As a counterpoint, McHale was among top of the league in the limited 1988 RAPM data from squared2020 (even above Bird) but the problem with that is we saw how the Celtics dropped off the following season without Bird. All in all, I think the gap between McHale and Nance is not that big and considering one is usually ranked in the 40s and the other in the 80s in all time lists, the question then becomes whether McHale is moving down, Nance is moving up, or a bit of both. Personally, I don't feel comfortable going super high for Nance yet which means I can't really justify putting McHale in my top 50 while staying consistent.

• Jones: Yes. Strong playoff numbers and key role on multiple title teams. Surprised he hasn't been nominated already considering he is a pretty uncontroversial player.
• Horford: Borderline. Feels like he gets a boost because he is still playing whereas someone like Divac is forgotten over time.
• Parker: Absolutely not. Unimpressive box score and impact stats and fell off in the playoffs. Basically the Klay Thompson of the Spurs trio and I don't think Klay should be in top 100 either.
• Davies: Yes and no. Only notable candidate besides Mikan from the late 40s so I wouldn't mind if he makes the list for more representation. But there is so little data from that period and the ones available don't seem to show Davies to be particularly dominant in the weakest era.
• Sharman: Borderline. Slightly stronger era than Davies and held up better in the playoffs (statistically at least). Probably the best SG of the 50s though I think Wanzer is close too.
• Tatum: Unknown. I usually finalize my player evaluation for young players after a few years so he's not on the list yet.

[Doctor MJ]

Personal vote:

Induction 1: Cliff Hagan
Induction 2: Bill Walton

So my championing of Hagan took a step back after some good arguments were made, but among the existing candidates he's a pretty clear choice at this point. He's the only player in the pool who a) played a starring role on a champion, and b) had decent longevity. I have greater faith in his ability to play a major role on a champion than Dantley or Iverson, and greater faith in his health than Walton by a good margin, and I do think his career just amounted to more than Moncrief.

Going with Walton for the second spot but have to say that he could fall out of that second slot fairly easily because of longevity problems.

Nomination 1: Jayson Tatum
Nomination 2: Larry Nance

I'll continue to side with Tatum. Other good candidates but Nance is getting traction and I'm absolutely a believer in the man on both sides of the ball.

[Doctor MJ]

Tallies:

Induction 1:
Dantley - 2 (beast, Clyde)
Iverson - 6 (trelos, trex, AEnigma, f4p, eminence, OSNB)
Walton - 1 (LA Bird)
Hagan - 1 (Doc)

Allen Iverson with the majority.
Allen Iverson is Inducted at #80.


Nomination 1:
Sam - 2 (beast, OSNB)
Nance - 3 (trelos, Clyde, LA Bird)
Parker - 2 (trex, AEnigma)
Davies - 1(eminence)
Tatum - 1 (Doc)
none - 1 (f4p)

No majority. Going to vote 2 between Nance, Sam & Parker:

Sam - (none)
Nance - (Doc)
Parker - (eminence)

Elimination of Sam would make no further difference:
Larry Nance 4, Tony Parker 3
Larry Nance is added to Nominee list.