Read GM Top 100 List #25

[JerkyWay]

If no one nominated Iverson so far, there's no argument for Cousy being nominated. Iverson was Cousy of his era, just better. Yes, he was dominant player at his position and an innovator, but why is that such valuable here? You guys excluded Mikan (ok, shot clock thing is there), but his case was pretty similar to Cousy's - lack of real competition/stackted teams. If someone forgot about that, Cousy played with Bill Sharman for most of his career and Sharman was the second best guard in mid 50s. Ed Macauley was there, too, "dominant" center of his era. That's why Cousy averaged so many assists (that's not really impressive for a "pure" PG - Oscar averaged more a couple years later).
Of course, he was terribly inefficient and didn't win anything until the arrival of Bill Russell. It's a shame we don't have TPG stats for that era.

I wonder why we haven't seen Sam Jones or Hal Greer being nominated, yet, if there's Cousy talk as of now.

[Laimbeer]

I wonder why we haven't seen Sam Jones or Hal Greer being nominated, yet, if there's Cousy talk as of now.

Why the comparison to Cousy? They were never dominant at their position.

Sam Jones - no first teams, .067 MVP shares.
Hal Greer - no first teams, .006 MVP shares.
Bob Cousy - 10 consecutive first teams, .882 MVP shares

[Dr Positivity]

By the way, from the "Huh I always liked Paul Pierce but didn't think about him as top 40-50 because of preconceived notions about who's in there, but you're right, he has a very strong case" - What about Pau Gasol?

I suppose the thing separating him from Pierce to me is that he has some injured seasons - 56 Gs in 05, 59 in 07, 66 in 08, 65 in 10. Combined with playing a few less years than a Pierce, he doesn't give as much longevity wise. If it wasn't for that I wouldn't separate Gasol from Pierce, their careers match up fairly well. You've got a very good resume with underrated years in Memphis carrying the Grizzlies to 45-50 Ws with mostly role players as a 1st option, then going to LA and pushing them to dominance playing on a jacked team. I don't think he's a true #1 on a title team guy, but we've nominated virtually all of those except for the Walton, Howard and McAdoos who don't have the years at their crazy high level. He's an excellent big man who scores at a high efficiency, is a terrific passer, rebounds and is an extremely underrated defender and had strong team results in both Memphis and LA on that end. He's right in that best 2nd options ever, can fit as a 1st option class for me. ElGee mentioned we're talking about top 8-12 in the league guys a lot now like Stockton and Pippen, well Gasol fits in there as well, obviously slightly lower than them but he fits. I'd If we're comparing him as a player to guys on the board like Pierce, Cowens, Kidd, Gervin, McHale, I do give serious consideration to whether rather have Gasol on my team over them do to the value of a big man who does all he does (though I'd lean towards voting him below those guys because of the 50-65 G seasons and slightly less longevity)

[colts18]

Tell me the argument that Pierce has over Kidd?

Pierce: 1 top 10 MVP finish, 0 top 5, #106 MVP shares, 1 2nd team, 3 3rd team,
Kidd: 5 top 10 MVP finish, 2 top 5, #32 in MVP shares, 1st team, 1 2nd team, 4 1st team all defense, 5 2nd team all defense

[JerkyWay]

It was an intentional exaggeration, kind of a joke. I just don't see your point with Cousy right now. That's too high for him. Believe me, I respect Bob Cousy as much as possible, he's a grandfather of modern point guards...He just wasn't that good. Respectively to an era - yeah, but he's not that impressive when compare him to next generations of PGs. PGs era began in the early 70s with Walt Frazier and Tiny Archibald. Oscar and West weren't a true PGs, they were prototypical combo guards or even point forwards (Oscar).
Best pure point guards from the sixties are Lenny Wilkens and...Guy Rodgers. I'm not sure if Cousy was significantly better than Wilkens...And Wilkens is far from being top 10 PG.

[Laimbeer]

It was an intentional exaggeration, kind of a joke. I just don't see your point with Cousy right now. That's too high for him. Believe me, I respect Bob Cousy as much as possible, he's a grandfather of modern point guards...He just wasn't that good. Respectively to an era - yeah, but he's not that impressive when compare him to next generations of PGs. PGs era began in the early 70s with Walt Frazier and Tiny Archibald. Oscar and West weren't a true PGs, they were prototypical combo guards or even point forwards (Oscar).
Best pure point guards from the sixties are Lenny Wilkens and...Guy Rodgers. I'm not sure if Cousy was significantly better than Wilkens...And Wilkens is far from being top 10 PG.

Okay, got it on the joke now.

Now I'll bite on Wilkens, too. What makes you think he's in Cousy's class? Never made any type of all-NBA team. Cousy was obviously very respected in his time, continually making first team as well as getting some MVP love. IIRC, four points have won MVPs, Cousy is one, the other three are on our list.

As far as the point guard era beginning after his time, okay, but that's because he was ahead of his time. I think you're disqualifying him with a broad brush.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I'm going with Baylor here. He's not very efficient, but that had a lot to do with his style of play in the 60's era. Post-merger, Baylor would likely have decent efficiency due to his ability to attack the rim. Even in his own era, he was quite dominant at his position.

Vote - Baylor

Nomination - Kidd

[Gongxi]

I was initially pushing for Baylor to get a nomination maybe before Ewing, almost certainly before Pippen, but my mind has definitely been changed. Did I officially vote, or just say I was leaning towards Ewing? Either way, that's my vote.

Cowens for nomination, just to be consistent.

[Fencer reregistered]

I wonder why we haven't seen Sam Jones or Hal Greer being nominated, yet, if there's Cousy talk as of now.

Why the comparison to Cousy? They were never dominant at their position.

Sam Jones - no first teams, .067 MVP shares.
Hal Greer - no first teams, .006 MVP shares.
Bob Cousy - 10 consecutive first teams, .882 MVP shares

Cousy was a MAJOR innovator in league history -- transition offense. He deserves extra credit for that.

How MUCH extra credit he deserves is, of course, up in the air.

He also had important intangibles, IMO, second only to Auerbach among the white guys on the Celtics in protecting the team from the era's poisonous race relations. I base that on Russell saying how important Cousy's support in the face of racism was to him; how close Russell came to snapping in the face of racism; and how important Russell and later Sam Jones and other black guys were to the Celtics.

If we say that the Celtics' success with a bunch of black guys was crucial to teaching the league that it needed to advance racially, that makes Cousy a nice cog in perhaps the most important transition in basketball's history.

His game itself was "poor man's Rajon Rondo."

[Fencer reregistered]

Tell me the argument that Pierce has over Kidd?

Pierce: 1 top 10 MVP finish, 0 top 5, #106 MVP shares, 1 2nd team, 3 3rd team,
Kidd: 5 top 10 MVP finish, 2 top 5, #32 in MVP shares, 1st team, 1 2nd team, 4 1st team all defense, 5 2nd team all defense

Contributed more to offense, contributed more to defense.

Except in offense and defense, Kidd has a strong case over Pierce.

[Fencer reregistered]

Vote: I really don't have strong feelings about this one; I could see any of Havlicek, Baylor, Pippen, or Ewing.

That said, the arguments for Baylor and Ewing still feel to me like they overrate the guys, based on what I think of them (ditto Frazier), so if those guys are voted onto the list at this point, it won't be with my help.

That makes it Havlicek vs. Pippen for me.

I'll go with Pippen, not because I'm convinced that's right, but because he seems to have a better chance of winning this round. I'll happily change to Havlicek based on vote count.

[colts18]

Tell me the argument that Pierce has over Kidd?

Pierce: 1 top 10 MVP finish, 0 top 5, #106 MVP shares, 1 2nd team, 3 3rd team,
Kidd: 5 top 10 MVP finish, 2 top 5, #32 in MVP shares, 1st team, 1 2nd team, 4 1st team all defense, 5 2nd team all defense

Contributed more to offense, contributed more to defense.

Except in offense and defense, Kidd has a strong case over Pierce.

I don't see the case in defense at all. Pierce's teams from 2000-2007 pre Big 3 averaged a rank of 14.1 in D rating and had 2 top 10 finishes, 1 top 5. In that span, Kidd's teams averaged a 4.6 ranking with 7 out of 8 top 10 finishes, 6 top 5 finishes, 4 top 3 finishes, 2 1st place finishes. These 2 first place finishes happened in 02 and 03 in the middle of Duncan's prime.

[Fencer reregistered]

Tell me the argument that Pierce has over Kidd?

Pierce: 1 top 10 MVP finish, 0 top 5, #106 MVP shares, 1 2nd team, 3 3rd team,
Kidd: 5 top 10 MVP finish, 2 top 5, #32 in MVP shares, 1st team, 1 2nd team, 4 1st team all defense, 5 2nd team all defense

Contributed more to offense, contributed more to defense.

Except in offense and defense, Kidd has a strong case over Pierce.

I don't see the case in defense at all. Pierce's teams from 2000-2007 pre Big 3 averaged a rank of 14.1 in D rating and had 2 top 10 finishes, 1 top 5. In that span, Kidd's teams averaged a 4.6 ranking with 7 out of 8 top 10 finishes, 6 top 5 finishes, 4 top 3 finishes, 2 1st place finishes. These 2 first place finishes happened in 02 and 03 in the middle of Duncan's prime.

I was being a bit flippant. But I do think you're comparing periods when Kidd's PF was Kenyon Martin and Pierce's was Antoine Walker.

Also, Pierce's centers included Vitaly Potapenko and Mark Blount. At least Tony Battie was also in the mix for a while.

[Fencer reregistered]

By the way, for what it's worth, I think the key guys establishing the Players' Union were Heinsohn, Cousy, and West. I wouldn't be surprised if Baylor ranked up there too. Heinsohn and Cousy were the first two presidents. Celtics and Lakers players were central to the all-star game job action that got the owners to recognize the union.

[therealbig3]

Well, I don't think Pierce has a case over Kidd on defense at all. Kidd is the clearly better defender, but I think Pierce is clearly the better offensive player. And I think the gap offensively is bigger than the gap defensively, because Pierce is a good defensive player in his own right, while Kidd has serious flaws as an offensive player.

It's close though.

[therealbig3]

ElGee's post has convinced me.

Vote: Pippen

I'm actually surprised at myself, in fact, at how much Barry and Baylor are falling on my personal list. And I'm still working out Kidd vs Isiah vs Payton vs Stockton...they all have arguments over each other, and I don't know what order to put them in.

[therealbig3]

Also, Laimbeer might have a heart attack when he reads this but:

Can you make the case for T-Mac over Isiah? Better peak, better defender, better passer, better rebounder, better scorer, for his position probably a comparable playmaker, and a pretty awesome ball handler (didn't commit a lot of TOs)...and before LeBron, was probably the closest thing to a volume-scoring Pippen. His defense on Dirk in the 05 playoffs was outstanding.

And not just Isiah, but also over guys like Kidd, Stockton, and Payton? The knocks on T-Mac is longevity, playoff failures, and inefficient scoring. But compared to Kidd, Payton, and Isiah, T-Mac is pretty comparable in terms of efficiency, while volume scoring on a whole other level. As a playmaker, he's been one of the best playmakers at his position ever. To this day, he's still got great court vision and passing ability, which allowed him to average over 5 apg per 36. Similar to Pippen, I think he's close to a PG-type impact offensively.

In terms of longevity, T-Mac has 7 All-Star caliber seasons in which he played 65+ games. He has another season in which he played 47 games, which was also an All-Star caliber season. Houston went 27-20 with him that year, they went 7-28 without him.

In terms of playoff failures, he goes from 20/6/5 on 52% TS to 29/7/6 on 52% TS in the playoffs.

I kind of dismissed T-Mac vs Pierce before, but I now think T-Mac has a solid case...both of them might deserve a top 35 spot though.

[ronnymac2]

Why isn't Rick Barry being voted in here!!!??? Why isn't he even getting votes??!!

[ronnymac2]

Look at what you've made me do...

All right, so what are Barry's weaknesses? His offensive efficiency gets called into question, and with good reason. He lacked the percentages that The Big O and The Logo bandied, though at times he reached volumes that neither of those two ever reached. But he isn't being compared to those two players- they are clearly superior.

Barry started off in his rookie year as a 26/10 player with average efficiency. In just his second year, his offensive responsibility increased, and he flourished, averaging 35 points per game (Won the scoring title) and placed 9th in the league in TS percentage (53 percent). He also averaged 3.6 assists. His team made the Finals that year. His efficiency did drop in just his first playoff appearance, but he did score about 35 per game, and his team only lost in six to a GOAT team, the 1967 Sixers.

Then he moved to the ABA. Admittedly, this version of the ABA isn't as strong as that league would become in the mid-70's. Barry lost an entire year of playing ball because of the league switch, and he didn't play in many REG SEA games when he got there (87 through first two seasons). However, he scored at a crazy volume and led the league in TS percentage.

His 1970, 1971, and 1972 playoffs were individually dominant. He averaged 40/10/3 on 60 percent TS in the 7 games in 1970. He averaged 34/12/4 on over 62 percent TS in 6 games in '71. Then he dropped 31/6/4 on 56 percent TS in 18 games as his team went to the Finals.

He had a sub-par year in 1973 during his return to the NBA, but bounced back with a strong 1974 campaign, averaging 25/7/6/2 (no three-point line anymore like there was in the ABA). He shot over 45 percent from the field.

Everybody knows about 1975. After this post, I'm going to copy and paste stats from the 1975 playoffs that ElGee was kind enough to post in the 1975 RPOY thread. He was amazing. He averaged 30/6/6 while leading the league in steals. In the playoff he dropped 28/5/6/3.

In 1976 and 1977, he had excellent years of well-rounded play as well and was a dominant playoff performer.




Now, this is important. From 1974-1977 (we have offensive ratings from '74 on), Rick Barry's Warriors finished 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, and 4th in offensive rating. Barry's abilities as a passer/playmaker and role as a floor spacer and attention-getter should not be overlooked here. Barry didn't have reliable secondary scorers (though his help does get underrated at times). Barry also played a key role on his team's 5th place finish in defensive rating in 1975 (Barry was the guy who forced turnovers in GS's vaunted trapping defense that year), and they placed 1st in 1976 in defensive rating.


The guy was tough. He averaged over 12 FTAs per game in 1967 Finals while prime Wilt and one of the strongest enforcers in the league, Luke Jackson, patrolled the paint. He averaged 8 FTAs per game in the 1975 Finals while Wes Unseld and Elvin Hayes patrolled the paint.

I wrote this description of Barry's game in the 1975 RPOY project:

Barry is amazing. He's like a combination of Kobe and Ray Allen. He has Ray's quick release and ability to move without the ball/off screens to spread the floor. He has 2010 Kobe's ability to drive and draw fouls on the perimeter despite average athletic ability. He also takes questionable shots sometimes like Kobe- and like Kobe, he makes some unbelievable ones. He's got great vision for playmaking. His touch passes are amazing; the Bird comparisons make sense to me now. Rick has a nice mid-range game and an effective driving hook shot.



Now, with his penchant for at times taking Kobe-like shots, his efficiency doesn't look amazing considering the era (though he did shoot about 45 percent for his NBA career, a similar percentage that Kobe has). However, he didn't have the 3-point line in his best NBA years to lift his TS percentage up.

The guy had one of the most complete and effective offensive arsenals ever. During the mid 1970's, those offensive capabilities produced excellent team results despite unimpressive percentages and a lack of a secondary scorer on the team. I believe his passing/playmaking, volume-eating, ability to spread the floor, point-forward skills, and ability to make use of screens effectively (a la Ray Allen, though not to the same extent) had great effects on his team's offense. Positive ones.

Rick Barry was tough as hell and rarely disappointed individually in the playoffs. I'd want him on my side.

Career resume? He's got a scoring title (averaged over 35 ppg), a championship, a Finals MVP and 5 all-nba first teams (along with 4 all-ABA first teams and an All-NBA second team). That resume looks somewhat similar to Dwyane Wade actually.

[ronnymac2]

Seriously, this guy was an offensive genius. He lead some of the best offenses in the league, all without a really good secondary scoring option. AND they were excellent on the other side of the ball, too.

He was a great Finals performer and has as about as much longevity as Dwyane Wade (with a similar career resume).

Most importantly, he was better than Scottie Pippen. He was a better basketball player. Shouldn't being a better basketball player count for something? Hell, it should count for everything...