RealGM Top 100 #35

[Fencer reregistered]

At the moment, the nominations are widely split but I like most if not all of the nominees and could be convinced to vote for any of them here . . . . except for the one who has the most support, Iverson. Strange that.

Similar position here. Iverson's negative intangibles/disrespect are too strong for me.

[Dr Positivity]

I think Alex English and Bob Lanier should get more support... good attitudes, long productive careers. My second choice after Reed would probably be English.

[ronnymac2]

Teammate Andre Iguodala on Allen Iverson:

"When you see a teammate play with that much courage and heart, I think it brings out toughness in everybody. It has to, because when you've got the smallest guy on the court who is willing to do whatever it takes to win, it has to carry over to the other guys.

"I, as a big guy, look at it like I can't let this little guy show me up by being tougher than me. Therefore you come out and work harder. Allen brings out more toughness from everybody."

That's from the book, The Perfect Team. There are multiple anecdotes and quotes from players, teammates, scouts, and other people associated with the NBA in that book stating how amazingly resilient Iverson was.

Look, I'm not heavy into intangibles like some other posters. While I think intangibles are like, 50 percent of the game, I don't think we have any idea what each and every player's intangibles actually mean and how valuable they are to their specific team, so I'm not bothering with them in this project.

But Allen Iverson wasn't just a negative intangibles player. Did he have negative intangibles? Yes. He also had positive ones.

[Laimbeer]

Arguments for Cousy

13 consecutive all-stars
10 consecutive first teams
One MVP, seven top 10 finishes
6 titles
Led league in assists 8 consecutive years
Top ten in scoring 8 times
Celtic record from 22-46 to 39-30 rookie year
Celtics never made playoffs before arrival, made playoffs every year after arrival

Arguments against Cousy

He's inefficient

[therealbig3]

Arguments for Cousy

13 consecutive all-stars
10 consecutive first teams
One MVP, seven top 10 finishes
6 titles
Led league in assists 8 consecutive years
Top ten in scoring 8 times
Celtic record from 22-46 to 39-30 rookie year
Celtics never made playoffs before arrival, made playoffs every year after arrival

Arguments against Cousy

He's inefficient

Dude this just seems like trolling/baiting...Doctor MJ already replied to your post and said he clearly wasn't just using Cousy's efficiency as the sole reason for dropping him.

It's about overall impact. Cousy wasn't good on either side of the ball. How is he having more impact than guys that actually contribute a lot, either on defense or offense?

And his personal inefficiency isn't the only reason he wasn't a good offensive player...as the team's PG, his job was to run a good offense, but the Celtics had a bad offense. The reason they were so good was because of their defense, which had little to nothing to do with Cousy.

Honestly, it sounds more like the Celtics won, not because of Cousy, but in spite of him.

EDIT: That last sentence is harsh, and I don't actually believe that...but I think Cousy was and is grossly overrated.

[therealbig3]

The problem with this analysis is that Kevin Johnson already had 4 20-10 seasons before barkley and a 20-9 season after him

Since I spent about 4 of the 1500 words in the post on pts/ast stats, perhaps you may want to rethink what "this analysis" is about.

Well, I think I agree with colts18 here...not saying you didn't have a good post, and in fact, I'm a little surprised that KJ's numbers look like that without Barkley...but a key point of your post was that KJ didn't play that great when Barkley missed games, and then you gave us his numbers from 93-96 in games he played without Barkley...but you kind of make it seem like he wasn't capable of putting up big numbers and playing at an elite level without Barkley, when KJ's best years were 89-92 and 97, when Barkley wasn't on his team.

[Fencer reregistered]

I really, really question the "lousy offense" narrative for Cousy.

The year before Cousy joined the Celtics, they were 9th in the league in points scored. The year he joined, they were 4th. After that, they went on a long run of being #1, before finally declining to #3 toward the end of his career.

Obviously, that has a lot to do with pace. But it's suggestive of a team that did SOMETHING right at the offensive end. And by the way -- toward the end of Cousy's career, the Celtics were top 3 both in pts and in pts allowed.

Unfortunately, we don't have stats that separate offensive and defensive rebounding. But if we did, I bet we'd find that the Celtics had a whole lot of offensive rebounds. Heinsohn has also said that they had explicit rebounding schemes, something I'm pretty sure teams no longer do. So it's eminently possible that the Celtics' offense was not designed for FG%, nor for FT attempts, but for total points per trip down the floor, second shots included.

Do we have stats or other evidence that confirms how good they were on that basis?

I also note the conditioning point -- if you force the game into a track meet, it's to be expected that both sides will shoot sloppily. If I hurt my efficiency with the pace of the game, but hurt yours even more, that's a net benefit to me.

[ElGee]

The problem with this analysis is that Kevin Johnson already had 4 20-10 seasons before barkley and a 20-9 season after him

Since I spent about 4 of the 1500 words in the post on pts/ast stats, perhaps you may want to rethink what "this analysis" is about.

Well, I think I agree with colts18 here...not saying you didn't have a good post, and in fact, I'm a little surprised that KJ's numbers look like that without Barkley...but a key point of your post was that KJ didn't play that great when Barkley missed games, and then you gave us his numbers from 93-96 in games he played without Barkley...but you kind of make it seem like he wasn't capable of putting up big numbers and playing at an elite level without Barkley, when KJ's best years were 89-92 and 97, when Barkley wasn't on his team.

Well, you're reading into the bolded part. I agree that 97 may be his best year. I just assumed we all knew that, so it didn't even enter my mind to qualify it. The whole point of that section, which was premised by saying "maybe it's just bc Barkley was there" was to point out that even without Barkley **during those years**, KJ don't look like no Chris Paul. (he wasn't capable of it IMO) Not with the eyes. Not by raw stats. And not by team results.

I love that KJ is being discussed here at this point -- I have him coming up too. I think he's historically underrated. But ITO of his peak, or even his peak ability, I don't think of him in the elite PG club. My general impression of KJ is that he's a bit of a scoring PG, great at drive and dish, and while he exerts really good offensive value with that style, it's not the same as buoying all the players on the court when need be, or taking the game over with scoring when need be (better outside shooting would have done the trick). He's really good though...

[Doctor MJ]

No see this is the key thing: The Celtics' offense sucked before and after Cousy retired. They didn't win titles because they miraculously found a new offensive star, they won titles because their defense was so good, they didn't need their offensive players to be effective.

Russell famously said that he'd take a blow when needed on offense, but never ever on offense. I suspect the same was true of some of the other Celtics.

The Celtics' offense consisted of 7 plays, which the rest of the league all knew; when Auerbach led a barnstorming tour one offseason, Pettit suggested that the team just use the Celtics plays, since everybody else already knew them cold.

We don't have statistics to differentiate, for example, fast-break vs. half-court scoring, or whether there were a lot of "passes off the glass" on breaks leading to what passed for putbacks in those days. But we do know that Cousy was extremely well-regarded, and that contemporary accounts report the Celtics having an excellent fast break. So there's pretty good evidence that he made a powerful offensive contribution.

Think you've got a typo in there. Did you mean "but never ever on DEfense"? So basically the idea that Cousy's offense let others focus on defense yes?

So here's the general point in a nutshell:

Last year the best offense in the league had a ORtg of 112.3 and the worst had one of 101.6. This means that is that basically the difference between the best & worst offenses is on the order of 1 made/missed shot out of 20. The other 19 of 20 times, doesn't matter who your players are. Heroes or scrubs, the both basically succeed half the time.

And if you already have a terrible offense, there's basically nothing you can do to make it that much worse. We're not going to see a with an ORtg of 50. It's just not going to happen.

So this is why I have such a problem with the giving too much credit to Cousy. This was not a case of him leading his offense to mediocrity in Iverson fashion where you could at least say he was the difference between mediocrity and terrible. The Celtics won titles with the worst offense in the entire league, and they won titles just as easily with Cousy or without him.

[Doctor MJ]

Celtic record from 22-46 to 39-30 rookie year

I'll say up front that I'm avoiding having a major direct discussion with you on this Laimbeer. I really don't have time, and your irritating me. Nonetheless, this comment seemed so off the mark I felt I could quickly respond:

You speak of his rookie year, so 2 things:

1) When was Cousy's rookie year?
2) How many players who played that year do you see me saying Cousy was actually worse than?

[Lever2Beaver]

It's too bad Cousy didn't have a time machine handy
than maybe you'd respect what he did so oustanding

How can he be held to a standard non-existent
Your using the year he was born as the argument agiant him

It's really quite insulting to a person of my age
but there seems to a format unfolding at this stage

It's more important to get yours than sacrafice and hustle
the only surprise to me so far is you didn't underrate Russell

Otherwise I can't much see your means or your ends
It's not as if I stand alone, it's you who's bucking trends

Show me a list that's ben produced that evens resembles this
at somepoint creativity crosses a line and logic is amiss.

[Fencer reregistered]

No see this is the key thing: The Celtics' offense sucked before and after Cousy retired. They didn't win titles because they miraculously found a new offensive star, they won titles because their defense was so good, they didn't need their offensive players to be effective.

Russell famously said that he'd take a blow when needed on offense, but never ever on offense. I suspect the same was true of some of the other Celtics.

The Celtics' offense consisted of 7 plays, which the rest of the league all knew; when Auerbach led a barnstorming tour one offseason, Pettit suggested that the team just use the Celtics plays, since everybody else already knew them cold.

We don't have statistics to differentiate, for example, fast-break vs. half-court scoring, or whether there were a lot of "passes off the glass" on breaks leading to what passed for putbacks in those days. But we do know that Cousy was extremely well-regarded, and that contemporary accounts report the Celtics having an excellent fast break. So there's pretty good evidence that he made a powerful offensive contribution.

Think you've got a typo in there. Did you mean "but never ever on DEfense"? So basically the idea that Cousy's offense let others focus on defense yes?

So here's the general point in a nutshell:

Last year the best offense in the league had a ORtg of 112.3 and the worst had one of 101.6. This means that is that basically the difference between the best & worst offenses is on the order of 1 made/missed shot out of 20. The other 19 of 20 times, doesn't matter who your players are. Heroes or scrubs, the both basically succeed half the time.

And if you already have a terrible offense, there's basically nothing you can do to make it that much worse. We're not going to see a with an ORtg of 50. It's just not going to happen.

So this is why I have such a problem with the giving too much credit to Cousy. This was not a case of him leading his offense to mediocrity in Iverson fashion where you could at least say he was the difference between mediocrity and terrible. The Celtics won titles with the worst offense in the entire league, and they won titles just as easily with Cousy or without him.

Thanks for the catch! I fixed it in the original post.

As for substance -- what you're calling "the worst offense in the entire league" is the one that, in fact, scored the MOST points in the entire league. So I'm challenging your assessment, and bemoaning the lack of easy access to stats that would allow us to accurately judge just how good the Celtics' offense was or wasn't.

[Doctor MJ]

It's too bad Cousy didn't have a time machine handy
than maybe you'd respect what he did so oustanding

How can he be held to a standard non-existent
Your using the year he was born as the argument agiant him

It's really quite insulting to a person of my age
but there seems to a format unfolding at this stage

It's more important to get yours than sacrafice and hustle
the only surprise to me so far is you didn't underrate Russell

Otherwise I can't much see your means or your ends
It's not as if I stand alone, it's you who's bucking trends

Show me a list that's ben produced that evens resembles this
at somepoint creativity crosses a line and logic is amiss.

Oh I'm not using the year he was born against him, I'm just using it to give context.

People are wondering how I can be so bold as to rate Cousy drastically different than observers of the time did, and I'm pointing out that observers of the time rated him against players of the time. While I've made quite clear why I think those observers overrated Cousy, I've never said anything to indicate he wasn't one of the top players of the early NBA.

I think part of what's unfortunate here is the exclusion of George Mikan. Cousy's really the first pre-shot clock star we're talking about here, and it strikes people as too skewed for some of us to argue that we'd go through the entire Top 50 without any such pioneers.

But that's only got a risk of happening because Mikan got excluded from the project. I think people need to consider where they'd place Mikan. I've typically seen him as a guy ranking in the 30s behind the Ewings of the world. I respect opinions that have him higher, but if you really think Mikan was clearly superior to Ewing, I'd love to hear your argument because I've never heard one that makes any sense to me.

Now remember, Mikan is only 4 years older than Cousy, and their careers overlapped for about half a decade. And there wasn't a soul alive who thought Cousy had anywhere near the impact that Mikan did during that overlap. If Mikan is in the 30s (or maybe 20s), and Cousy wasn't anywhere near Mikan's level, how exactly do people think Cousy's getting drastically underrated here when he could still easily make the top 50?

Well, I ask, but I know the answer: Mikan's being compared with big black guys while guys who still look like Cousy are superstars today. Makes it much easier to just rate Cousy by saying "Well he must have had everything you could want for someone of his athleticism, and that's still good enough today, he's probably like Nash with better longevity!".

And that's where it's just so terribly inadequate to paint in such broad strokes. A guy like Nash is a superstar today because he's miraculously able to create GOAT level offenses even with relatively modest talent while along the way establishing himself as one of the greatest shooters of all time. People think Cousy could be similar because his team won so much, but it was all because of the defense.

You're perplexed at how I could "underrate" Cousy and not underrate Russell, but the answer is quite clear: What Boston did was astounding, but I'm not satisfied with sprinkling brownie points randomly across the various men in green. I want to figure out what it was about them that made them so dominant, and credit the players involved in that. That thinking very quickly leads one to appreciate the Celtic defenders, which means praising Russell while staring skeptically at the teams so-called offensive wizard.

[Fencer reregistered]

I found a site full of Russell era Celtics box scores, but most games don't have rebound figures.

http://www.risingabovetherim.com/boxscores

When they're there, the Celtics often have a thumping advantage in the stat.

[ronnymac2]

I found a site full of Russell era Celtics box scores, but most games don't have rebound figures.

http://www.risingabovetherim.com/boxscores

When they're there, the Celtics often have a thumping advantage in the stat.

Awesome find.

[Fencer reregistered]

I found a site full of Russell era Celtics box scores, but most games don't have rebound figures.

http://www.risingabovetherim.com/boxscores

When they're there, the Celtics often have a thumping advantage in the stat.

Awesome find.

It's pretty cool.

If you just want to leaf through some box scores impressionistically, the "report" column in the matrix gives you a guide as to which box scores are rich in which kinds of stat.

[Fencer reregistered]

I just remembered something that could be a major wrinkle on efficiency considerations for the old days -- centers at times would literally hang back to protect against fast breaks. Chamberlain was quoted in one of the articles posted in an earlier thread saying he did that in LA, for example. I also recall Walton doing it in college in a US vs. USSR game.

That could affect offense efficiency considerations, in numerous ways. First, if your own center is hanging back, your offense will naturally be less potent. Second, if your opponent's center is hanging back, your offense may also be less potent for that reason. Third, if your opponent's center decides whether or not to hang back depending upon whether he fears your fast break, then running the break aggressively -- even if it does little for your offensive numbers -- could help your DEFENSIVE stats by taking the opposing center part way out of the offense.

[penbeast0]

Sorry, I didn't realize this was coming up last night/this morning, thought it was tonight.

My count so far:

Vote:

Gervin-7 (Snakebites, ElGee, DavidStern, FJS, TMACFORMVP)+ SDChargers#1, Doctor MJ

Pierce-3 (Fencer reregistered, therealbig3, Dr Mufasa)

Dominique-1 (JordansBulls)

McGrady-1 (ronnymac2)

Kidd-2 (drza)+ lukekarts

McHale +fatal9

D12-1 (penbeast0)



Nomination:

Iverson-4 (JordansBulls, ronnymac2, DavidStern, FJS) + drza

KJ-2 (therealbig3, TMACFORMVP)

Moncrief-1 (penbeast0)

Miller-1 (mysticbb) +DoctorMJ

Mourning-1 (Snakebites)

Cousy-1 (Fencer reregistered) + SD Chargers#1

Paul-1 (ElGee)

Reed-1 (Dr Mufasa) + lukekarts

Zo +fatal9

[Laimbeer]

Celtic record from 22-46 to 39-30 rookie year

I'll say up front that I'm avoiding having a major direct discussion with you on this Laimbeer. I really don't have time, and your irritating me. Nonetheless, this comment seemed so off the mark I felt I could quickly respond:

You speak of his rookie year, so 2 things:

1) When was Cousy's rookie year?
2) How many players who played that year do you see me saying Cousy was actually worse than?

1)50-51
2) None I recall, but if you're saying you don't consider any player of that era Top 45, we need to give Cousy the Mikan treatment.

[Doctor MJ]

1)50-51
2) None I recall, but if you're saying you don't consider any player of that era Top 45, we need to give Cousy the Mikan treatment.

That's a fine and understandable opinion. I personally was against giving Mikan the Mikan treatment though, and the only reason things look so skewed on my votes (i.e. none in the Top 45) is because of said treatment.

Let's also note that we've already had 3 players from the 50s voted in and in Mikan a 4th player that would have made it. It's not so distorted as you think.