RealGM Top 100 List #44

[Doctor MJ]

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.

It's true you have. My reaction is more toward seeing people en masse vote for Cousy without any mention of Schayes in the nomination spot (with the exception of Laimbeer). I'm just not convinced people have coherent mindsets here.

Since you're asking me what I think about GOAT influencers, I'm going to get into stuff a little bit. I want to say up front I think you've been a solid and open minded contributor to the project, and I'm not the one running this show so I don't get to say "You're doing it wrong" with any authority.

But have you thought about what it said that Mikan was removed from this project? Do you really think it makes any kind of sense to give Cousy a boost for treading new ground early on in what many would call "The George Mikan Era" when we've specifically been told not to consider this an all-NBA history project?

I would also note that the other stars of that era I've mentioned to put Cousy in perspective certainly have had spearheading influence as well. How could they not? They were the NBA's first stars? In terms of influence, I really don't know if Cousy warrants more esteem than Arizin. Arizin pioneered the jump shot, which became the standard by the time he retired. That's a pretty big deal. You say Cousy invented the point guard position, but what does that mean exactly? Modern players who behave like Cousy did (shoot a lot at poor efficiency) get called combo or zero guards. If Cousy doesn't even qualify as much of a point guard by modern standards, how much influence did he actually have?

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Eh well look. This is a group project. There's going to be compromise.

I'm also not the boss here so I try not to step on toes about "who's doing it wrong" though I may bring it up occasionally.

I am though try to shake some trees when it comes to each of us trying as hard as we can to have a coherent rubric for ourselves. I've talked quite a bit about Cousy vs his contemporaries because I know that in the past there's this tendency for Cousy to get ranked WAY higher than someone like Schayes. Last time Cousy was in the 20s, Schayes was in the 70s. Despite the fact that if you actually look at how they did against the competition they were up against, it's highly debatable whether Cousy was even better. Schayes certainly kicks Cousy's butt if you look at it from a RPOY point of view.

Favoring Cousy over Schayes based on a theory about translating to the modern era is perfectly legit as a part of your decision making process, but the gap between these two is so huge I'm convinced that many people would vote Cousy in before Schayes even entered their mind and without any understanding of what Schayes game actually was. That to me really hurts the projects credibility. So I want these things on people's minds, and I want them to make explicit statements about how they are thinking.

When I see a person just jump in, leave a Cousy vote with no commentary, and make no mention of Schayes in the nomination spot, it drives me up the wall a bit, because I think every single Cousy supporter should have Schayes all over their mind right about now, and if they aren't mentioning him, that probably isn't the case. Which means they are voting Cousy simply because they think he's more singular than he was, and they've basically let the fact that he got to play with Bill Russell sway them indirectly a massive amount.

[lorak]

Shcayes wasn't as dominant as Cousy.
I would rather vote for Arizin or Greer (so underrated here, but he was better than Reggie...) than Schayes.

[Doctor MJ]

Shcayes wasn't as dominant as Cousy.
I would rather vote for Arizin or Greer (so underrated here, but he was better than Reggie...) than Schayes.

You just assert that? Expound man.

Schayes scored more, more efficiently, had the rebounding edge, had the PER & WS edge, and saw that gap widen in the playoffs.

Cousy meanwhile has a slight edge in MVP shares, but that includes his lone MVP happening when Russell arrived, and doesn't include the years before the MVP, during which I have a real hard time imagining someone saying Cousy had a clear edge over Schayes. Schayes did after all actually win a title as the star of a team in that time frame.

Cousy does have a large edge in assists though. So there's always that...

EDIT: I also feel like Greer is coming out of the blue there. I can only see preferring him to Miller if you simply don't respect off ball shooters very much.

[therealbig3]

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.

Wasn't it shown that Miller helped Indiana's offense a lot, that his play actually improved dramatically in the playoffs, and that he was one of the most efficient scorers ever?

And at his peak, he was a 25/4/4 player on 64.5% TS...and his longevity produced many seasons pretty close to that.

[lorak]

Wasn't it shown that Miller helped Indiana's offense a lot,

No, Schrempf and Jackson helped Indiana's offense a lot. With Miller Pacers were barley above average.

Cousy meanwhile has a slight edge in MVP shares, but that includes his lone MVP happening when Russell arrived, and doesn't include the years before the MVP, during which I have a real hard time imagining someone saying Cousy had a clear edge over Schayes. Schayes did after all actually win a title as the star of a team in that time frame.

Or maybe Seymour was the star on that 1955 Syracuse team? Could you explain why Schayes minutes drop off in playoffs (kind of argument you used against other players) and why Seymor played significantly more minutes than Schayes in the playoffs? Obviously coach chose to play Schayess less and Seymor, more important player, more minutes

Cousy does have a large edge in assists though. So there's always that...

Cousy led pre Russell Celtics to very good offensive results (best offensive team in the league), he have more all NBA 1st teams than Schayes, after all was doing better in MVP voting and All Star Games (2xMVP, that means something, beacuse ASGs at the time were taken more seriously, so when someone was the best among the best it shows how good he was).

[Doctor MJ]

Or maybe Seymour was the star on that 1955 Syracuse team? Could you explain why Schayes minutes drop off in playoffs (kind of argument you used against other players) and why Seymor played significantly more minutes than Schayes in the playoffs? Obviously coach chose to play Schayess less and Seymor, more important player, more minutes

I don't really get what you're playing at here. Seems a waste of time to answer you sincerely since appears you're just joking. If you've got a point you're really concerned about, it would be good if you spelled it out.

Cousy led pre Russell Celtics to very good offensive results (best offensive team in the league), he have more all NBA 1st teams than Schayes, after all was doing better in MVP voting and All Star Games (2xMVP, that means something, beacuse ASGs at the time were taken more seriously, so when someone was the best among the best it shows how good he was).

Cousy led the Celtics to some good offensive results, and Schayes led the Warriors to some good offensive results.

Cousy has more 1st teams than Schayes...because Schayes had tougher competition.

As mentioned: Cousy barely did better in MVP voting, his numbers are inflated because of the weird circumstances surrounding Russell's rookie year, and Schayes' probably beats Cousy out if MVPs actually went back all the way.

I can't imagine people letting all-star games sway them. Even if they were something more legit back then compared to now, they still were one-off games, with makeshift teams, that must be considered drastically less important than key playoff games.

[Fencer reregistered]

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.

It's true you have. My reaction is more toward seeing people en masse vote for Cousy without any mention of Schayes in the nomination spot (with the exception of Laimbeer). I'm just not convinced people have coherent mindsets here.

Since you're asking me what I think about GOAT influencers, I'm going to get into stuff a little bit. I want to say up front I think you've been a solid and open minded contributor to the project, and I'm not the one running this show so I don't get to say "You're doing it wrong" with any authority.

But have you thought about what it said that Mikan was removed from this project? Do you really think it makes any kind of sense to give Cousy a boost for treading new ground early on in what many would call "The George Mikan Era" when we've specifically been told not to consider this an all-NBA history project?

I would also note that the other stars of that era I've mentioned to put Cousy in perspective certainly have had spearheading influence as well. How could they not? They were the NBA's first stars? In terms of influence, I really don't know if Cousy warrants more esteem than Arizin. Arizin pioneered the jump shot, which became the standard by the time he retired. That's a pretty big deal. You say Cousy invented the point guard position, but what does that mean exactly? Modern players who behave like Cousy did (shoot a lot at poor efficiency) get called combo or zero guards. If Cousy doesn't even qualify as much of a point guard by modern standards, how much influence did he actually have?

First of all, I don't recall any exhortations to ignore history, either in your phrasing or any other.

Second, Mikan was removed in essence because we agreed we didn't know how to evaluate him, and didn't want to try to reach a (sufficient) consensus on how to do so. By way of contrast, we implicitly agreed to rank Cousy, Arizin, & Schayes.

However, you're welcome to propose a second rule change that would effectively leave them out, if you wish to.

Third, part of my influence argument has nothing to do with his play on court -- I'm also giving Cousy credit for being a MAJOR racial pioneer.

Fourth, I'm giving him a small excuse for being locked into flashy play, because he was the marquee star of his era, having to make the tricksy pass just like Jordan later had to go for the tongue-flopping dunk. (But yes, that's a small excuse only, because "had to" is an overstatement.)

All that said, you're right that I'm putting a lot of weight on Cousy innovating a kind of play. In essence, Cousy taught that basketball world that passing and dribbling could be honed skills, not just routine tasks, distinguished only by speed and timing. This took a long time to fully sink in -- in PE class in 1966, I still learned that the right technique was a 2-handed chest pass in the air. But piecing together the scanty evidence, I think Cousy indeed gets a huge amount of the credit for influencing other people.

By way of analogy, I think Russell gets huge credit for shotblocking, mobile defense, perhaps shared with Mikan, and Mikan gets huge credit for post scoring. And, albeit less significantly, I think Isiah's drive-and-dish was more important than the sweet crossovers that came after him.

I think that nobody should get any similar credit for any particular aspect of shooting and scoring, because it's always been obvious that one should refine one's skills in that area, and players have always worked hard on doing so. (That includes the high-flyers, but anyway we've already voted in all of Baylor, Erving, Jordan, and even 'Nique.) E.g., jump shots seem to have been independently invented by a whole lot of different people, various of whom were influential on successors. (Even so, I plan to give Arizin an influence bonus for jump shooting as the project progresses; as the first major star to feast off of that technique, he surely had disproportionate influence in its adoption.)

[lukekarts]

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?

I really like Chris Paul; but I can't give him the nod over Cousy for a couple of reasons:

- longevity - we don't know how his career will pan out
- accolades - vs. his peers, Cousy was held in higher regard. I appreciate the game was different but I cannot disregard this point. There are a lot of good PG's today which count against CP3, which I also acknowledge.
- lack of playoff success (individually). 09 vs Denver was embarrassing. He did play well in 08 and against Fisher (who doesn't) in 11, but I think he needs to prove more in the playoffs. I'm sure he'll get his chance soon.

[Doctor MJ]

First of all, I don't recall any exhortations to ignore history, either in your phrasing or any other.

Second, Mikan was removed in essence because we agreed we didn't know how to evaluate him, and didn't want to try to reach a (sufficient) consensus on how to do so. By way of contrast, we implicitly agreed to rank Cousy, Arizin, & Schayes.

However, you're welcome to propose a second rule change that would effectively leave them out, if you wish to.

Fencer, I did read the rest of your post, but this is the part I really feel the need to respond to.

Let me say up front: The bosses haven't told you you're wrong, so as far as I'm concerned, you're free to do whatever you want.

I'm simply commenting on what to me is some incoherence in the project between the Mikan decision and your Cousy justification. It's not about you going against something you were explicitly told not to do, it's about whether you want to make the best approximation of what the project starters wanted or whether you want to essentially make the list you want to make, with Mikan excised.

And you may be totally fine with the latter, and I'm not really trying to stop you then - what I'd like though is to make sure they are really thinking through the basis behind their vote for Cousy and whether they've drifted from where they started.

You say Mikan was taken out because he was too hard to come to consensus on, and there's truth in that. It's awful hard to come to consensus on Reggie Miller as well, and yet there was no possibility we'd remove him from the discussion. There's a lot going on in the Mikan situation so it's tough to point to just one thing, but the reality is that no project that seriously factors in influence is ever going to eliminate the single most influential player in history from the conversation. It just would never make any sense. Ranking said player would be one of the primary goals of the project.

I say that definitively but I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong, I'm trying to point out that if you never applied what happened with the Mikan decision to the question of whether it was most reasonable to factor in influence, that's kind of a big deal, because to me it says a whole lot about how the project leaders are thinking.

[Fencer reregistered]

There were a lot of aspects to the Mikan decision. Some is just the absence of information from his era. Other was the theory "Well, his game didn't translate well to the shot clock era; maybe there was a reason." Yeah, that's vague -- but nobody found information to be more conclusive.

Of course, I'm not sure any of us looked ...

OK, I've now googled quickly, and the best explanation I've found was from our very own group, earlier this year: viewtopic.php?f=64&p=27355118

It goes, in effect: Shot clock era ==> a much higher level of conditioning as a prerequisite for playing. If you can't hack that, you're not an outstanding player.

[Fencer reregistered]

See the Heinsohn quote on page 175 for Cousy's on-court intangibles, getting guys to play hard.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PT85zN ... &q&f=false

[Fencer reregistered]

http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t599-bob- ... ercentages has a good, balanced take on Cousy's shooting and overall shooting percentages in the league. It's persuasive that equipment (including balls, courts, and rims) were different then. It's not as ringing in its excuses for Cousy personally.

[lorak]

I don't really get what you're playing at here. Seems a waste of time to answer you sincerely since appears you're just joking. If you've got a point you're really concerned about, it would be good if you spelled it out.

In previous thread you used minutes drop off as argument against one player. So here's similar case: Schayes minutes were down in playoffs when they won title and one Nationals player (Seymour) played significantly more minutes than Schayes. So my question is: why you don't hold it against Schayes?

Cousy led the Celtics to some good offensive results, and Schayes led the Warriors to some good offensive results.

Schayes never played for Warriors

Lets look at what we know about Celtics and Nationals offenses:

Code: Select all

place in PPG and FG% (result relatively to league average)

Nationals         
year PPG              FG%   teams in the NBA   
1950 3rd (+4.8)   5th (+1.4)   17   rookie Schayes
1951 1st (+2.0)   7th (-0.6)   11   
1952 2nd (+3.0)   7th (-0.3)   10   
1953 3rd (+2.9)   6th (-0.6)   10   
1954 2nd (+4.0)   8th (-0.4)   9   
1955 6th (-2.0)   7th (-1.3)   8   shot clock
1956 5th (-2.1)   8th (-1.7)   8   
1957 5th (+0.1)   8th (-1.1)   8   
1958 4th (+0.6)   4th (+0.2)   8   
1959 2nd (+4.9)   2nd (+1.2)   8   rookie Greer (but still 24 MPG)
1960 2nd (+3.6)   4th (+0.4)   8   
1961 1st (+3.2)    3rd (+0.3)   8   Schayes 3007 minutes
1962 4th (+2.9)   7th (-0.8)   9   Schayes 1480 minutes
1963 1st (+6.3)   4th (+0.4)   9   Schayes 1438 minutes
1964 3rd (+1.2)   8th (-1.5)   9   last Schayes season, only 350 minutes and he was 76ers coach during that season
1965 4th (+1.9)   6th (-0.4)   9   


PPG might be affected by pace, but FG% is independent of pace and almost always Schayes teams were below average! And we see that something drastcily changed with shot clock - Nationals in 1955 regressed in both: PPG and FG%.(however they were very good defensive team and Seymour was big part of that).

Then for several years Nationals offense was nothing special. around or below league average. Then Greer arrives, who in my opinion was great offensive player and it seems that even as a rookie he had big offensive impact.

Now lets look at Cousy's teams:

Code: Select all

year PPG              FG%   teams in the NBA   
1950 9th (-0.3)   10th (-0.2)   17   
1951 4th (+1.1)   4th (+1.1)   11   rookie Cousy
1952 1st (+7.6)   2nd (+2.0)   10   
1953 1st (+5.4)   1st (+2.2)   10   
1954 1st (+8.2)   1st (+2.8)   9   
1955 1st (+8.4)    1st (+1.4)   8   shot clock
1956 1st (+7.0)   2nd (+1.0)   8   
1957 1st (+5.9)   5th (+0.3)   8   rookie Russell
1958 2nd (+3.3)   3rd (+0.4)   8   
1959 1st (+8.2)   4th (0.0)   8   
1960 1st (+9.2)   3rd (+0.7)   8   
1961 3rd (+1.6)   8th (-1.7)   8   
1962 3rd (+2.3)   5th (-0.3)   9   
1963 3rd (+3.5)   9th (-1.4)   9   last Cousy's season
1964 2nd (+2.0)   9th (-2.0)   9   


It seems he improved Celtics offense imidietly as a rookie and since his second season until 1956 Boston had the best offensive team in the league. Something Schayes with Nationals never achieved, especially for so long period of time.
It's also worth to note that Cousy's offensive brilliance is seen during both: pre shot clock and with shot clock era. Of course his impact was lower at the end of his career, but second half of the 50s is still impressive.

As mentioned: Cousy barely did better in MVP voting, his numbers are inflated because of the weird circumstances surrounding Russell's rookie year, and Schayes' probably beats Cousy out if MVPs actually went back all the way.

They both were born the same year, so age wouldn't be a factor, when we look year by year how they were doing in MVP voting:

1956 - Cousy 3rd (10 pts), Schayes tied 5th (2 pts); Mel Hutchins more pts than Schayes
1957 - Cousy 1st (31), Schayes tied 5th (5 pts); Yardley and Arizin more pts than Schayes
1958 - Schayes 2nd (198, he almost beat Russell! - 228 pts), Cousy tied 6th (11); Yardley more pts than Cousy
1959 - Cousy 4th (71), Schayes 6th (26); Arizin more pts than Schayes
1960 - Cousy 4th (66), Schayes tied 8th (6); Twyman and Shue more pts than Schayes
1961 - Schayes 7th (12), Cousy 0
1962 - Cousy 8th (2), Schayes 0
1963 - Cousy tied 8th (5), Schayes 0


So except of of two season Cousy was better every year! And Schayes often was rated below players, who will not make our top 100 (except of Arizin, I hope).
It seems like Schayes was second tier star, when Cousy was superstar.

[Doormatt]

I'd just like to say that the Cousy "love" seems to be less about "how great they were at playing the game of basketball" and more about "how they influenced the game of basketball." I thought the point was to stay away from the latter.

[Laimbeer]

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.

Most posters here have dismissed that kind of thing as mythology and storytelling, probably because they don't believe in anything that can't be measured by a number. I happen to subscribe to it.

[penbeast0]

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.

Everyone has his own criteria for the list and we are dealing with people (both the candidates and the voters) which means there are many variations. That's hopefully what makes for good discussion.

[drza]

Lets look at what we know about Celtics and Nationals offenses:

Code: Select all

place in PPG and FG% (result relatively to league average)

Nationals         
year PPG              FG%   teams in the NBA   
1950 3rd (+4.8)   5th (+1.4)   17   rookie Schayes
1951 1st (+2.0)   7th (-0.6)   11   
1952 2nd (+3.0)   7th (-0.3)   10   
1953 3rd (+2.9)   6th (-0.6)   10   
1954 2nd (+4.0)   8th (-0.4)   9   
1955 6th (-2.0)   7th (-1.3)   8   shot clock
1956 5th (-2.1)   8th (-1.7)   8   
1957 5th (+0.1)   8th (-1.1)   8   
1958 4th (+0.6)   4th (+0.2)   8   
1959 2nd (+4.9)   2nd (+1.2)   8   rookie Greer (but still 24 MPG)
1960 2nd (+3.6)   4th (+0.4)   8   
1961 1st (+3.2)    3rd (+0.3)   8   Schayes 3007 minutes
1962 4th (+2.9)   7th (-0.8)   9   Schayes 1480 minutes
1963 1st (+6.3)   4th (+0.4)   9   Schayes 1438 minutes
1964 3rd (+1.2)   8th (-1.5)   9   last Schayes season, only 350 minutes and he was 76ers coach during that season
1965 4th (+1.9)   6th (-0.4)   9   


PPG might be affected by pace, but FG% is independent of pace and almost always Schayes teams were below average! And we see that something drastcily changed with shot clock - Nationals in 1955 regressed in both: PPG and FG%.(however they were very good defensive team and Seymour was big part of that).

Then for several years Nationals offense was nothing special. around or below league average. Then Greer arrives, who in my opinion was great offensive player and it seems that even as a rookie he had big offensive impact.

Now lets look at Cousy's teams:

Code: Select all

year PPG              FG%   teams in the NBA   
1950 9th (-0.3)   10th (-0.2)   17   
1951 4th (+1.1)   4th (+1.1)   11   rookie Cousy
1952 1st (+7.6)   2nd (+2.0)   10   
1953 1st (+5.4)   1st (+2.2)   10   
1954 1st (+8.2)   1st (+2.8)   9   
1955 1st (+8.4)    1st (+1.4)   8   shot clock
1956 1st (+7.0)   2nd (+1.0)   8   
1957 1st (+5.9)   5th (+0.3)   8   rookie Russell
1958 2nd (+3.3)   3rd (+0.4)   8   
1959 1st (+8.2)   4th (0.0)   8   
1960 1st (+9.2)   3rd (+0.7)   8   
1961 3rd (+1.6)   8th (-1.7)   8   
1962 3rd (+2.3)   5th (-0.3)   9   
1963 3rd (+3.5)   9th (-1.4)   9   last Cousy's season
1964 2nd (+2.0)   9th (-2.0)   9   


It seems he improved Celtics offense imidietly as a rookie and since his second season until 1956 Boston had the best offensive team in the league. Something Schayes with Nationals never achieved, especially for so long period of time.
It's also worth to note that Cousy's offensive brilliance is seen during both: pre shot clock and with shot clock era. Of course his impact was lower at the end of his career, but second half of the 50s is still impressive.

THIS is what I've been asking Cousy supporters for, for probably 15 threads. The "pioneer" narrative, the "but he was MVP!" wasn't enough for me, because both of those could be reasonably explained with "right place/right time" just as much as Cousy's caliber. Going that far back to the '50s the available stats were sparse, but the advanced stats didn't tell a big story for Cooz (not surprising for a PG or a defensive big man) and the impact stats that have been most publicized in this project surrounding those Celtics dealt with the Russell-era Celts, where Russell was such a huge impact guy that there was hard to tell anything about Cooz.

But the above, detailing (not just mentioning, but detailing) the Celtics' offenses during the Cousy/pre-Russell era, and the changes as Cooz arrived and came of age, those are compelling to me. Not as a stand-alone because there is just too much noise in looking at team results, but when you factor in that type of plausible point guard impact on a team offense along with the accolades you start getting a much more rounded case that Cousy really did have the impact to go along with the MVP vote.

Like I just got done arguing for Reed, the stats don't care about narrative, and the MVP votes at the time likely weren't going very in-depth on the stats. So if I can find both supporting a player, with big allowance for the noisiness of analysis from 60 years ago, I can start to believe that an effect is real.

[Fencer reregistered]

I'd just like to say that the Cousy "love" seems to be less about "how great they were at playing the game of basketball" and more about "how they influenced the game of basketball." I thought the point was to stay away from the latter.

I think influence is part of greatness.

I'm better at mathematics than Euclid was. Even so, he was a greater mathematician than I am.

[drza]

Alright, so as I said earlier my default vote would be between Iverson, Hayes and Mourning. Combined, they have exactly zero traction and I haven't had the chance to really make a case and try to generate some discussion on them this thread. Realistically, this vote is between Cooz (currently 5 votes on my unofficial ballot) and Paul (currently 4 votes). There've been good posts on each, and I'm working out the final kinks on my position in my head now.

As for the nomination, the trio of Rodman, Ginobili and Walton are still next on my radar. Could also get behind a good Arizin and/or Schayes discussion (both really impressed me in the RPoY project), and a more nuanced look at Unseld would also be nice. The only thing I'm currently confident on him is that at his best he wasn't nearly as good as Walton, but other than that I still need to fill in the blanks. I even like the shout-out to Pau Gasol, as I think he's been at least as impactful (if not more) than several of the players that have already been voted to the list.

But right now, by my quick head count, Alex English is the man to beat for nominations (currently 4 votes; nobody else except Walton even has more than 1). As such, for my nomination I'll be pretty much concentrating on Walton here.

There was a time period when Bill Walton was the best player in the world, playing at a level that is as good as anyone that's ever played the game. Of course he didn't do it for very long, as his health was awful. But still, for most of a 2-year period he held it together long enough to lead a fairly average cast to a storybook title then followed that up with an MVP season and more title contention before his body just broke. A few things of note, to me:

1) No other player outside of our top-20 can even make an argument that their "best" was as good as Walton's.

2) As I pointed out before, the foot injuries that really ended Walton's peak 35 years ago are similar to the ones that Big Z Ilgauskas was able to overcome and play a long, healthy career with the help of modern medicine. Walton was brittle enough that, even with technology, I wouldn't project him a full career. But I do think it's reasonable to estimate more on the order of a 3 - 4 year peak window as opposed to 1 - 2 years. (Penbeast, I already know you disagree. Let's call that "stipulated", so we don't have to re-repeat this particular debate)

3) Alex English was a very good player for a number of years. But the only way a team with English on it is sniffing the promised land is if they manage to sign a player of Walton's caliber. The difference between a really good player and a game-changer like Walton is almost exponential...most teams have at least one really good player. But only a few squads each year can get their hands on true greatness, and fewer still can get their hands on an all-timer for any period of time. As such, even if we got 25 years out of English, I'm not sure I'd trade that for one good year of Walton. And if it's more like 10 years of English vs 3 of Walton, which is how I'm looking at it, it's not really a contest to me. Give me the Big Redhead.

Nominate: Bill Walton