RealGM Top 100 List #44

[Dr Positivity]

Just a note on Cowens...

The biggest holdup against him seems to be his efficiency. It's a warranted concern. But here's an interesting fact: In 72, 73, 75, and 76, Cowens ranked higher than Havlicek and Jo Jo in FG%/eFG (they're the same without 3s). His TS% was lower because he didn't get to the FT line much because he was stationed away from the basket for a big, but I'm sure they were happy to trade a few FT line trips and TS% points for floor spacing at C which is rare and important now but would be even moreso in a non 3pt line spot up guys league, high post passing, screen setting, etc. His FG% compared to league average

71 - -2.7%
72 - +2.9%
73 - -0.4%
74 - -2.2%
75 - +1.8%
76 - +1.0%

It's not that good, but it doesn't look as bad as his TS%. The Celtics FG% ranks are 71 - 12/17, 72 - 9/17, 73 - 14/17, 74 - 11/17, 75 - 9/18, 76 - 17/18. Their FT/FGA was usually awful. Yet they still were one of the best teams in the league in that span with 2 titles years + 68 W and 60 W seasons without one. So what you've got is a team who's shooting the ball pretty poorly but doing everything else right. We don't get rebounding %s until 74 but when we do, the Celtics rank 1st in both DRB and ORB in 74, 1st in DRB and 4th in ORB in 75, and 2nd in DRB and 1st in ORB in 76. Their D eFG rank from 71 on are 6th, 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 5th.

So what you've got is a premeire defense and rebounding team - by which it would follow that Cowens indeed was the key to the team. Probably both by his tangible d and rebounding and the massive energy level anchor he was to the team. With Cowens and Havlicek on the team, they were made to be one of the all time wear you don't with relentlessness teams and I think that matters. He was still one of their best offensive options on the team, especially if you consider he spaced the floor at C, something that is rare and valuable even now, but even more valuable when you don't have the 3pt line to do your spacing for you + had high post passing and screen setting which is always valuable + he started fastbreaks which was obviously a huge part of their team and possibly helped wear out teams for their defense

Most importantly, I just think the Celtics results are so huge that you have to think "Damn, I think Dave Cowens is doing something right." The number of players who've been more succesful than Cowens as the best guy is like less than 15. It's debatable whether that means anything, but I'd think if you proved you can be the best guy on elite teams, it's very likely that can be repeated across situation. Furthermore, we know that Cowens value specifically to that Celtics team really was huge, for a lot of the apparant reasons Russell was to his ones on a lesser level. Without the rebounding and defensive anchor they would be an avereage team and that's exactly what we saw in '70. So if you give points on the basis of "How valuable was he to HIS team", Cowens gets a bigger bump for the same reason Isiah did. On different teams Isiah and Cowens aren't as valuable, but to those teams, they were essential. Cowens probably moreso than Isiah in that department because Dumars and an average PG with that d and rebounding could still be elite, while without Cowens the Celtics lose those rebounding stats and likely lose a lot of their speed

I'd be fine going for KJ or Zo here too, but I don't like anyone else's resumes enough to vote over Cowens

[Dr Positivity]

I really like Unseld's game and his stats aren't as bad as they'd seem, he actually ranks top 10 in WS 5 times and two of this biggest strengths, screens and outlet passes, generally don't show up statistically for him at all. He's on my list sometime soon, probably over Rodman

Tentatively...

Vote Cowens

Nominate Pau Gasol

Torn between English, Allen, Pau, Lanier, Unseld. Seems to me Pau has the most complete game

[penbeast0]

Cowens v. Unseld. Without look at the numbers since your point is about team success. The Celtics with Cowens won 2 rings in 10 years while missing the playoffs 3 times. Over 11 years for Unseld starting in 69, the Bullets only won one ring but made the finals 4 times (2 more than any other team in the decade) and never missed the playoffs until Wes's 12th year (by which time Cowens had quit, moved to MIL then quit again). Now it may be Elvin Hayes but Havlicek was rated a lot higher here than Hayes and Jojo White is at least in the same tier of very good but not great supporting players as Chenier then Dandridge -- The Celtics did have one year without Havlicek in that stretch where Cowens was made player/coach to no avail . . . then they got Larry Bird so it's not like Unseld had better teammates with any consistency.

Just a note on Cowens...

The biggest holdup against him seems to be his efficiency. It's a warranted concern. But here's an interesting fact: In 72, 73, 75, and 76, Cowens ranked higher than Havlicek and Jo Jo in FG%/eFG (they're the same without 3s). His TS% was lower because he didn't get to the FT line much because he was stationed away from the basket for a big, but I'm sure they were happy to trade a few FT line trips and TS% points for floor spacing at C which is rare and important now but would be even moreso in a non 3pt line spot up guys league, high post passing, screen setting, etc. His FG% compared to league average

71 - -2.7%
72 - +2.9%
73 - -0.4%
74 - -2.2%
75 - +1.8%
76 - +1.0%

It's not that good, but it doesn't look as bad as his TS%. The Celtics FG% ranks are 71 - 12/17, 72 - 9/17, 73 - 14/17, 74 - 11/17, 75 - 9/18, 76 - 17/18. Their FT/FGA was usually awful. Yet they still were one of the best teams in the league in that span with 2 titles years + 68 W and 60 W seasons without one. So what you've got is a team who's shooting the ball pretty poorly but doing everything else right. We don't get rebounding %s until 74 but when we do, the Celtics rank 1st in both DRB and ORB in 74, 1st in DRB and 4th in ORB in 75, and 2nd in DRB and 1st in ORB in 76. Their D eFG rank from 71 on are 6th, 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 5th.

So what you've got is a premeire defense and rebounding team - by which it would follow that Cowens indeed was the key to the team. Probably both by his tangible d and rebounding and the massive energy level anchor he was to the team. With Cowens and Havlicek on the team, they were made to be one of the all time wear you don't with relentlessness teams and I think that matters. He was still one of their best offensive options on the team, especially if you consider he spaced the floor at C, something that is rare and valuable even now, but even more valuable when you don't have the 3pt line to do your spacing for you + had high post passing and screen setting which is always valuable + he started fastbreaks which was obviously a huge part of their team and possibly helped wear out teams for their defense

Most importantly, I just think the Celtics results are so huge that you have to think "Damn, I think Dave Cowens is doing something right." The number of players who've been more succesful than Cowens as the best guy is like less than 15. It's debatable whether that means anything, but I'd think if you proved you can be the best guy on elite teams, it's very likely that can be repeated across situation. Furthermore, we know that Cowens value specifically to that Celtics team really was huge, for a lot of the apparant reasons Russell was to his ones on a lesser level. Without the rebounding and defensive anchor they would be an avereage team and that's exactly what we saw in '70. So if you give points on the basis of "How valuable was he to HIS team", Cowens gets a bigger bump for the same reason Isiah did. On different teams Isiah and Cowens aren't as valuable, but to those teams, they were essential. Cowens probably moreso than Isiah in that department because Dumars and an average PG with that d and rebounding could still be elite, while without Cowens the Celtics lose those rebounding stats and likely lose a lot of their speed

I'd be fine going for KJ or Zo here too, but I don't like anyone else's resumes enough to vote over Cowens

[lukekarts]

Luke, does this mean you are agreeing with the Cousy vote as well?

Yeah sorry should've been more specific, vote and nomination Cousy / Walton

[Doctor MJ]

Without look at the numbers since your point is about team success. The Celtics with Cowens won 2 rings in 10 years while missing the playoffs 3 times. Over 11 years for Unseld starting in 69, the Bullets only won one ring but made the finals 4 times (2 more than any other team in the decade) and never missed the playoffs until Wes's 12th year (by which time Cowens had quit, moved to MIL then quit again).

This is not a rebuttal to what you wrote. Just got me thinking, the 70s are a decade of such parity, which teams had the most actually strong years? So here's the list of franchises with most years of SRS 3 or higher:

Milwaukee 5
Boston 4
Chicago 4
Golden State 3
Lakers 3
New York 3
Philadelpha 3
Phoenix 3
Portland 2
San Antonio 2
Washington 2

Kind of amazing given that the '60 Celtics did it all 10 years, and in the '80s, the Lakers did it 10 times, and both the Celtics and Bucks did it 9 times.

[ElGee]

vote: Chris Paul

nominate: Bob Lanier

K - looked at English closer. Watched an old game from 85. I'm finding English vs. James Worthy to be an interesting debate. The few games I've seen of prime English I'm not seeing a standard 25-5-5 player ITO of impact and role. Fat Lever was really good as was Issel and it was an efficient, well-run offense.

English is being crazy overrated here. I see absolutely no evidence he was in the same strata as Marques Johnson. Peak may not be much different from Allen (I'm taking Ray) but Allen has longevity pretty handily, and I think I'd easily rather build around his skillset.

Really I'll go Allen, Marques, Sam Jones, Penny...pretty much anyone of those guys over people I'm having a hard time cracking my top-65.

[penbeast0]

One thing struck me as funny . . . Washington has only 2 years above SRS 3 but 4 finals appearances and one ring (SRS 0.82) . . . .and yet their primary scorer has a rep as a massive playoff choke artist.

Without look at the numbers since your point is about team success. The Celtics with Cowens won 2 rings in 10 years while missing the playoffs 3 times. Over 11 years for Unseld starting in 69, the Bullets only won one ring but made the finals 4 times (2 more than any other team in the decade) and never missed the playoffs until Wes's 12th year (by which time Cowens had quit, moved to MIL then quit again).

This is not a rebuttal to what you wrote. Just got me thinking, the 70s are a decade of such parity, which teams had the most actually strong years? So here's the list of franchises with most years of SRS 3 or higher:

Milwaukee 5
Boston 4
Chicago 4
Golden State 3
Lakers 3
New York 3
Philadelpha 3
Phoenix 3
Portland 2
San Antonio 2
Washington 2

Kind of amazing given that the '60 Celtics did it all 10 years, and in the '80s, the Lakers did it 10 times, and both the Celtics and Bucks did it 9 times.

[therealbig3]

It would be a real travesty if Cousy got voted in over Paul imo. Paul is on his way to being one of the truly super-elite PGs of all time, right up there with Magic, Oscar, and Nash. Cousy doesn't touch that.

Not seeing what's so special about Marques Johnson...what puts him above Grant Hill? Johnson started off with 4 seasons with great efficiency, but after that, he missed a lot of time with injuries and his scoring efficiency was never anything that great. He wasn't a big time assists guy, although his rebounding was solid...but it wasn't better than Hill's.

I don't really see what puts Johnson over Hill, and I don't really see how English is being overrated. 25/5/5 guys aren't exactly common, especially with good efficiency. He had some monster playoff performances, and he was always healthy, and he has a great 9-year run.

And as for Iverson, he's been getting consideration from some people...what puts him over Paul or KJ?

[colts18]

For the paul supporters, Doesn't it concern you that Paul had the worst SIO in ElGee's sample? In fact, he was the only guy in the negative which mean his team did better when he was injured than when he was healthy.

[Doctor MJ]

For the paul supporters, Doesn't it concern you that Paul had the worst SIO in ElGee's sample? In fact, he was the only guy in the negative which mean his team did better when he was injured than when he was healthy.

Well here we get into the nature of +/- vs SIO.

Advantage of +/-: More details. SIO is about as coarse of a statistic as you can possibly get. I always take those numbers with far more of a grain of salt than I do +/- with any significant sample size.

Advantage of SIO: You don't actually get to see what a supporting cast can do without their star until they've had a chance to do it some games without that star entirely.

Caveat there though: Sometimes games without stars can get distorted in either direction. A supporting cast may take it upon themselves to prove they're good without their star and expend significantly more energy per game than they otherwise would have. Or a team may just decide to tank the year since their star is out.

With Paul, given that both his box score stats and +/- stats say he's a superstar, I think it's unwise to put significant weight behind SIO unless you want to pair that with a nuanced opinion you already have from watching Paul.

[penbeast0]

Tell the truth, that doesn't bother me that much. I've seen him play and know he's a good player at both ends and a good team player. On the other hand, he doesn't seem to have a GREAT team effect the way Nash did . . . and the way Moncrief did on Milwaukee's defensive intensity (they did stay great for a year when he went down with injury as both Paul Pressey and Ricky Pierce had All-Star caliber years). Combine that clear defensive edge with Moncrief's superior scoring (better efficiency and equal volume -- a more balanced offense rather than Paul's featuring role to arguably balance out the pace advantage) and you have a better peak than Paul's and since Paul has no longevity advantage yet, Moncrief should be on the list first.

[Doctor MJ]

Tell the truth, that doesn't bother me that much. I've seen him play and know he's a good player at both ends and a good team player. On the other hand, he doesn't seem to have a GREAT team effect the way Nash did . . . and the way Moncrief did on Milwaukee's defensive intensity (they did stay great for a year when he went down with injury as both Paul Pressey and Ricky Pierce had All-Star caliber years). Combine that clear defensive edge with Moncrief's superior scoring (better efficiency and equal volume -- a more balanced offense rather than Paul's featuring role to arguably balance out the pace advantage) and you have a better peak than Paul's and since Paul has no longevity advantage yet, Moncrief should be on the list first.

Ah something else to me noted:

The final frontier of player stats is essentially coaching stats. We know leaders can instill a fervor in their team even when they are not on the court, but how to measure it in any meaningful way?

This was one of the more frightening things about KG in Boston: His defensive +/- was off the charts, and you had his teammates saying that his intensity made them play harder just knowing he could see them. It's entirely possible +/- stats underestimated KG...even when they say better things about him than box score stats.

[Laimbeer]

Vote: Bob Cousy
Nominate: Dolph Schayes

[therealbig3]

To all the people voting for Cousy, what exactly is his argument over Paul? I agree that it's a little weird that people are just voting Cousy without any real explanation, even though he's been discussed ad nauseam and the best arguments were against him.

What is his argument against Paul specifically? Or against KJ?

[Fencer reregistered]

Guys, seeing a lot of votes for Cousy without many nominations for Schayes or Arizin. What are you guys thinking exactly? Were you paying attention when I went on in detail showing Schayes had arguably a better career and that Arizin's game translates better to the modern era? If you disagree, this conversation would be much better if you gave your argument as to why I was wrong. If you never say anything, then it just seems to me you weren't paying attention and really have no idea whether Cousy was a better player than his contemporary rivals.

My argument, as I've copied and pasted a few times, is that Cousy had GOAT-level impact on the course of the game. Mikan, Russell, or Jordan ahead of him? Easy to justify, although personally I only agree with Russell. Anybody else? I'd disagree pretty emphastically.

[therealbig3]

Tell the truth, that doesn't bother me that much. I've seen him play and know he's a good player at both ends and a good team player. On the other hand, he doesn't seem to have a GREAT team effect the way Nash did . . . and the way Moncrief did on Milwaukee's defensive intensity (they did stay great for a year when he went down with injury as both Paul Pressey and Ricky Pierce had All-Star caliber years). Combine that clear defensive edge with Moncrief's superior scoring (better efficiency and equal volume -- a more balanced offense rather than Paul's featuring role to arguably balance out the pace advantage) and you have a better peak than Paul's and since Paul has no longevity advantage yet, Moncrief should be on the list first.

How doesn't he have that great team effect? ElGee posted this before:

We can look at his team's offense with him on the court at 82games:
2007 109.7 +8.7
2008 116.0 +15.4
2009 113.6 +16.4
2010 110.7 +4.1
2011 110.4 +11.6

In the 08 playoffs, New Orleans had a 113.5 ORtg with Paul (+16.7).
In the 11 playoffs, New Orleans had a 106.7 ORtg with Paul (+22.9).

He's had quite a large effect on the Hornets' offense.

Just for comparison's sake, if Paul played 48 mpg, here's where the Hornets would rank offensively year by year:

2007: 5th
2008: 1st
2009: 2nd
2010: 8th
2011: 8th

I mean obviously if every team's best offensive player played 48 mpg you'd see much better offensive results, but with Paul on the floor, you're getting an excellent offense, that's the point I'm trying to make. Without him, the Hornets look lost offensively.

I think that shows a big team offensive impact.

[therealbig3]

Guys, seeing a lot of votes for Cousy without many nominations for Schayes or Arizin. What are you guys thinking exactly? Were you paying attention when I went on in detail showing Schayes had arguably a better career and that Arizin's game translates better to the modern era? If you disagree, this conversation would be much better if you gave your argument as to why I was wrong. If you never say anything, then it just seems to me you weren't paying attention and really have no idea whether Cousy was a better player than his contemporary rivals.

My argument, as I've copied and pasted a few times, is that Cousy had GOAT-level impact on the course of the game. Mikan, Russell, or Jordan ahead of him? Easy to justify, although personally I only agree with Russell. Anybody else? I'd disagree pretty emphastically.

But just because something came first doesn't mean it's the best.

If Cousy didn't exist, someone else was bound to step in and usher in the modern PG. Cousy shouldn't get a boost for being in the right place at the right time. The fact is he wasn't a better basketball player than a bunch of PGs that have played after him.

Personally, I think the whole point about Cousy doing his thing on offense, no matter how inefficiently, allowed for offensive rebounds and allowed for Russell to do his thing on defense is basically grasping at straws, an effort to try and put together a decent argument for Cousy, but doesn't really make much sense. If you're a good offensive PG, you should run a good offense. Cousy didn't. If you're like Jason Kidd, and you can make up for your offensive flaws somewhat with great defense, then good...but Cousy was openly called out by his own coaches for being a poor defender.

[Fencer reregistered]

Guys, seeing a lot of votes for Cousy without many nominations for Schayes or Arizin. What are you guys thinking exactly? Were you paying attention when I went on in detail showing Schayes had arguably a better career and that Arizin's game translates better to the modern era? If you disagree, this conversation would be much better if you gave your argument as to why I was wrong. If you never say anything, then it just seems to me you weren't paying attention and really have no idea whether Cousy was a better player than his contemporary rivals.

My argument, as I've copied and pasted a few times, is that Cousy had GOAT-level impact on the course of the game. Mikan, Russell, or Jordan ahead of him? Easy to justify, although personally I only agree with Russell. Anybody else? I'd disagree pretty emphastically.

But just because something came first doesn't mean it's the best.

I'm going by the selection standards at the top of every post in this project.

You, evidently, are not.

To each his own.

[lorak]

To all the people voting for Cousy, what exactly is his argument over Paul?

For example the same argument as it was pro Miller - longevity.
Cousy also led very good offenses all the time (Love2Beer's post about Celtics FG% and PPG) and was MVP on championship team. And from game tape evidence, even one whole game with Cousy, we see that he was really amazing as playmaker. Yes, bad shot selection (but that was "tactic" at the time), no left hand (but so was West for example), but the rest was great.

[lorak]

It would be a real travesty if Cousy got voted in over Paul imo.

This project is full of travesty. It started with Wilt between Magic and Bird and then it get worse. TMac as #37, Miller as # 42and so on... IMO of course ;]

Seriously guys, more and more I'm confused with criteria use in this project. Sometimes it seems longevity, sometimes peak, sometimes awards and general narrative, sometimes +/- , sometimes "how his skill would translate today?" and so on, but nothing is use constantly and that created bizarre results at several spots.