RealGM Top 100 List #45

[ElGee]

vote: Chris Paul
nominate: Bob Lanier

I will say more later but I'm still mildly baffled as to how Bob Cousy was just voted in other than people simply ignoring the cutoff criterion that was implemented at the beginning of the project.

Just because something "feels" off doesn't mean you have to try and correct it for no reason.

[drza]

Nominate: Dennis Rodman

[ElGee]

Alex English over Lanier is just fantastically bizarre to me. Consider the purpose of the project...

I think it hurts the credibility of the project when we are headed in this direction. English was a solid player who put up gaudy stats in a run-n-gun, offensive system. Now Lanier also put up gaudy stats...only he was more highly regarded. We have more to suggest he influenced Detroit more than English's coming/going in Denver. Then you watch both teams play and think "English doesn't look THAT important." Contemporary reports don't seem to say much of English...but they do of Lanier, who Wilt Chamberlain once called one of the five best centers ever and SI called "no worst than the 3rd-best center" in 1974...presumably behind Kareem and perhaps Dave Cowens, the reigning MVP. Or that in 1977 Herb Brown said it was his best year...or in 80 this SI piece about how critical he was to Mailwaukee: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm (NOTE: The Marques Johnson nod in the article.) They went from a +0.6 team to +11.0 with Lanier post-trade. (Detroit dropped from -5.7 to -10.2 after Lanier's broken finger Dec. 26.

For me, the value in a project like this is first discussion and then the interest of the rankings composite (which I believe would be different with a different voting method). But the rankings can't become nonsensical...if people view the rankings as stimulating/controversial, there should be a reason. Such as the people who constantly feel the need to express how "wrong" certain atypical rankings are without (a) thinking about what the project is about or (b) reading a damn thread.

With Alex English, I'm still not understanding the argument. "Look at his stats" isn't an argument. When someone says "Wes Unseld speaks for himself," I don't even know what that means. I suppose we don't have to really discuss anyone then because they have a reputation...

Did anyone care to look at what happened when English was traded to Denver in 1980? His scoring jumped immediately. Unless you think he took basketball steroids over the All-Star weekend in 1980, what do you think that says about his statistics in Denver?

Then factor in that for the rest of the year, Indiana went from -1.0 to -0.1 after trading English and Denver improved all the way from -4.7 to -3.7.Now, that's not English's peak, but

on team A:17-9-4 54% TS
on team B: 21-9-3 53% TS

And it looks like absolutely nothing changed in either team. Yet 3 years later -- his peak ITO of accolades and stats -- he's 28-7-5 56% TS, and we have to ask how much HE changed or how much more effective that player was.

Because in 1981 Doug Moe took over. In the first 31 games, they were -2.7 MOV, then +0.9 with Moe. They played orders of magnitude faster than everyone else under Moe - in 1982, the distance between Denver and the second fastest team was the difference between No. 2 and the BOTTOM of the league.

In 1981 Denver also added Kiki Vendegwhe and a full season of David Thompson, as well as Dave Robisch and Cedric Hordges. TR Dunn joined the team off the bench. It was a different team basically. We know the pace was almost 10% faster with Moe, but by raw figure they scored about 8.5 more points per game. They were the best offensive team in the league for 2 years...and basically the worst defensive team in the league. Left hand, Right hand. To me, those tradeoffs are related, especially watching them play (and linger around the basket and play wide open in the court to try and free-flow the game). Not to mention 3 legit scoring options in English, Kiki and Issel.

Yes, English was an all-star worthy player IMO. But I see nothing to suggest he had an all-nba impact or had a peak that was, say, on the level of Paul Pierce.

[fatal9]

^ good stuff. defense in the 80s west was soo bad, even more so when teams like the Nuggets made it an even more of a run and fun game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BvAzASYLI0 , open transition jumpers all day and it's amazing how little impact a player scoring 30-40 pts can really have in games of those style (because opposing teams are scoring 120-130 pts). Scoring numbers need to be put in perspective, don't know what to make of him, the environment was really different.

[colts18]

Vote: Elvin Hayes

In his first 12 years, he had at least 20-11 in all 12 seasons. In that span, he averaged 24-14-2 with 2.4 BLKS. In his first 6 years, he averaged 25-16 with 3 BLKS. He had 20-11 in every playoff up until he was 36.

In the playoffs, he improved his numbers in almost every category. His PPG, Reb, AST, BLK, STL, PER, WS, O rating, D rating. He made 3 All-NBA 1st teams and 3 2nd teams. He made the defensive team 2 times. Statistically he was a great defender. 3 times he finished in the Top 3 of Defensive rating and is 15th all-time in Defensive rating. 13 times he was in the top 10 of Defensive Win Shares. 9 times in the top 5, and 3 1st place finishes. He is 7th all-time in Defensive Win Shares.

He had a bad reputation, but he was good enough to have 3 finals teams and take a 44 win to a title. He averaged 21-11, 20-12, and 20-11 in his 3 finals appearances. Atlanta won 44 games this year, Houston 43. What Hayes did was the equivalent of taking one of those teams to a title

[therealbig3]

Great post ElGee, I'm reconsidering where I was planning on voting English in.

[Fencer reregistered]

how Bob Cousy was just voted in other than people simply ignoring the cutoff criterion that was implemented at the beginning of the project.

Some of us interpreted it differently than you evidently do.

Or else they noticed that Cousy's career post-shot-clock alone was enough to justify voting him in.

[Fencer reregistered]

Great post ElGee, I'm reconsidering where I was planning on voting English in.

I'm not sure I had actual plans about English.

But yeah -- great post. Evidence as to whether a guy makes his team better by a little or a lot seems pretty central to what we're trying to do her.

[therealbig3]

However, even when Denver's pace slowed down, English was still putting up big numbers.

In 85, the Nuggets played at a 107.6 pace (still #1 in the league, but considerably less than what they played at previous years)...English averaged 27.8 pp36, the 3rd highest of his career.

In 86, the Nuggets played at a 106.7 pace (again, still #1 in the league, but also again, much lower than previous years)...English averaged 28.7 pp36, the highest of his career.

In 87, the Nuggets played at a 106.2 pace...English averaged 27.4 pp36, the 4th highest of his career.

3 of English's 4 best scoring seasons came when the Nuggets played slower than ever.

Also, you can't discount the change in minutes when you look at English's scoring post-trade to Denver. He was getting over 8 more mpg in Denver than in Indiana. His per 36 numbers pre- and post-trade are almost identical.

And I'm looking at the roster of he 86 Nuggets, when English averaged 30 ppg, and it doesn't look like he had much offensive help that year.

[penbeast0]

English wasn't the only player that got better under Doug Moe; his strength as a coach was adapting his offense to fit the players he had. Kiki couldn't guard a SF and couldn't rebound . . . Moe got his best years out of him by playing him at PF defensively and basically SG offensively with TR Dunn taking on the opposite roles; Fat Lever was an average backup PG in Phoenix who gave little hint of special talent, he was splitting time with Steve Colter and Colter looked a little better, Moe used him as a postup scorer and rebounder and made him one of the greatest triple double threats of all time for 4 years, Michael Adams was an 11th/12th man until Moe turned him loose at the 3 point line and made him an all-star caliber player (27/4/10!), Danny Schayes and Wayne Cooper were backup 5's who played well, Jay Vincent was never any good before or after playing for Moe . . . he had the ability to see offensive talent regardless of position and fit it into his run and gun offense.

Part of that was due to his star, Alex English, whose versatility allowed him to be great in almost any role Moe asked of him . . . catch and shoot stretch the floor scorer, primary post up player, point forward, primary defensive forward . . . an extraordinarily consistent high scoring, solid everywhere else player who was often overlooked because people didn't respect Moe's "freaky" motion offense (that is much more common today) and saw the big totals -- yet English's 25ppg seasons came within the context of the offense unlike a Nique/Iverson player who needs the offense tailored to him to be successful. English isn't a guy who can singlehandedly take you to a title, but he's a guy who can be the primary scoring threat on a variety of legitimate contending teams with excellent efficiency and team play -- he's Paul Pierce, possibly a superior version of Pierce only without the 3 ball.

[ElGee]

OK, but Moe wasn't the coach when English had his first jump. Then, Moe clearly is a gifted coach at enhancing offense (probably at the expense of some defense). But really, you're saying English's 25 points game in the context offense is unlike Nique's...which seems to be the point.

It's not that he scored 25 ppg the way MJ scored 28 in the flow of the triangle (center of attention, great decision-maker, draws great attention, scores large % of team's points). In English's case, that peak scoring season in 86 represented 25.6% of the team's offense. (~30 ppg) There have been 35 seasons since 1980 with higher ppg averages, and Nique has a few. For instance, his 86 campaign he scored 27.9% of the team's offense. 28.5% in 88. Iverson in 01 32.8% (Kobe with the unofficial record at 35.6% in 06).

From 08-10 Kobe was right around 29% in the PS
From 94-98, Malone in between 27 and 30 (29.6% max) in the PS
Miller had 6 playoff runs between 25-26%
Pierce 27% in 02 and 06 and and 29% in the 03 PS.
Rice and Richmond peaked at 27% and (Rice hit 29% in the 3-game series that year)
English's best PS was in 85 at 24.7% and ~24% in the surrounding seasons.

Not going to belabor the scoring share point further, but it's a very real thing. And along those lines, I agree with you about team play - we can see this in English on film too. But two things jump out to me:

(1) How great is that multipolar offense *because* of English?
(2) Can he raise his game without those players/that system (that truly was a system in that they seemed to sacrifice defense for offense.)

In English, I don't see a player who could carry a bigger load than what he did in Denver. In other words, I don't think he's exceeding what Glen Rice or Mitch Richmond could do on a better offensive team. Look at the 4 games in 86 without Lever. English does:

21-30 12-12 54 pts 1 ast
14-31 2-5 30 pts 6 ast
8-17 6-7 22 pts 7 ast
7-16 2-2 16 pts 0 ast

4g: 30.5 ppg 57.9% TS 3.5 apg 26.4 TS Att
RS: 29.8 ppg 56.2% TS 4.0 apg 26.5 TS Att

Interesting 4 games - he starts big, and then...just a coincidence his averages look identical when the next best offensive player isn't playing? (small sample.) In 1989, English could still cook (27 ppg) and teamed with Lever, Adams, old Walter Davis and Danny Schayes (always a good shooter from what I recollect). They were about average offensively, and in 11 games Lever missed:

11g 31.5 ppg 55.3% TS 5.3 apg 28.5 TS Att
RS: 26.5 ppg 53.1% TS 4.7 apg 24.9 TS Att

So credit English for stepping up there. The guy could clearly play.

In the PS, Denver's ORtg's and English's ind ORtg
82 112.6 (10.4) --114
83 103.9 (-0.3) --107
84 114.8 (+6.8) --135
85 111.6 (+5.1) --125
86 108.2 (+0.4) --110
87 99.8 (-6.7) --104
88 111.7 (+3.9) --110
89 104.7 (-1.0) --102

Decent correlation between English's play and team result (0.57 correlation - 0.81 if we remove 1982). I'd say that's another good thing for English.

On the other hand, English wasn't exactly an "excellent efficiency" player. In the words of Hubie Brown, c'mon now. From 82-89, he's got 5 postseasons under 54% TS. He's 54.7% over that span. His RS relative TS% and pts/75 from 81-89 went;

20.5 1.5%
22.6 5.8%
25.1 3.0%
24.6 2.7%
25.9 1.8%
27.0 2.1%
25.8 1.1%
24.2 -0.3%
24.3 -0.6%

and in the PS from 82-89

16.7 -3.9%
22.0 -0.9%
24.2 9.1%
26.1 5.8%
24.3 -1.6%
24.5 0.0%
22.2 -5.1%
24.2 2.8%

So in conclusion, I see a good player. But not one I'd rather have over a great shooting/scoring wing. Not one I'd rather have over players capable of carrying huge burdens and helping offenses a lot that way (Iverson or Nique). There isn't a lot to love in the PS. There isn't a lot to love when I watch him on film, other than "solid." I think English vs. James Worthy is a fabulous discussion, both peak and career, and I'm not sure I wouldn't side with Worthy right now on both.

(Btw, Lever was a rookie in Portland, not Phoenix, and I don't know how fair it is to say Moe unleashed him when he was, in fact, darn talented.

Also, realbig3, I meant to list per36s in that English post. Instead i used the wrong per36 - thanks.)

[therealbig3]

OK, but Moe wasn't the coach when English had his first jump. Then, Moe clearly is a gifted coach at enhancing offense (probably at the expense of some defense). But really, you're saying English's 25 points game in the context offense is unlike Nique's...which seems to be the point.

It's not that he scored 25 ppg the way MJ scored 28 in the flow of the triangle (center of attention, great decision-maker, draws great attention, scores large % of team's points). In English's case, that peak scoring season in 86 represented 25.6% of the team's offense. (~30 ppg) There have been 35 seasons since 1980 with higher ppg averages, and Nique has a few. For instance, his 86 campaign he scored 27.9% of the team's offense. 28.5% in 88. Iverson in 01 32.8% (Kobe with the unofficial record at 35.6% in 06).

From 08-10 Kobe was right around 29% in the PS
From 94-98, Malone in between 27 and 30 (29.6% max) in the PS
Miller had 6 playoff runs between 25-26%
Pierce 27% in 02 and 06 and and 29% in the 03 PS.
Rice and Richmond peaked at 27% and (Rice hit 29% in the 3-game series that year)
English's best PS was in 85 at 24.7% and ~24% in the surrounding seasons.

Not going to belabor the scoring share point further, but it's a very real thing. And along those lines, I agree with you about team play - we can see this in English on film too. But two things jump out to me:

(1) How great is that multipolar offense *because* of English?
(2) Can he raise his game without those players/that system (that truly was a system in that they seemed to sacrifice defense for offense.)

In English, I don't see a player who could carry a bigger load than what he did in Denver. In other words, I don't think he's exceeding what Glen Rice or Mitch Richmond could do on a better offensive team. Look at the 4 games in 86 without Lever. English does:

21-30 12-12 54 pts 1 ast
14-31 2-5 30 pts 6 ast
8-17 6-7 22 pts 7 ast
7-16 2-2 16 pts 0 ast

4g: 30.5 ppg 57.9% TS 3.5 apg 26.4 TS Att
RS: 29.8 ppg 56.2% TS 4.0 apg 26.5 TS Att

Interesting 4 games - he starts big, and then...just a coincidence his averages look identical when the next best offensive player isn't playing? (small sample.) In 1989, English could still cook (27 ppg) and teamed with Lever, Adams, old Walter Davis and Danny Schayes (always a good shooter from what I recollect). They were about average offensively, and in 11 games Lever missed:

11g 31.5 ppg 55.3% TS 5.3 apg 28.5 TS Att
RS: 26.5 ppg 53.1% TS 4.7 apg 24.9 TS Att

So credit English for stepping up there. The guy could clearly play.

In the PS, Denver's ORtg's and English's ind ORtg
82 112.6 (10.4) --114
83 103.9 (-0.3) --107
84 114.8 (+6.8) --135
85 111.6 (+5.1) --125
86 108.2 (+0.4) --110
87 99.8 (-6.7) --104
88 111.7 (+3.9) --110
89 104.7 (-1.0) --102

Decent correlation between English's play and team result (0.57 correlation - 0.81 if we remove 1982). I'd say that's another good thing for English.

On the other hand, English wasn't exactly an "excellent efficiency" player. In the words of Hubie Brown, c'mon now. From 82-89, he's got 5 postseasons under 54% TS. He's 54.7% over that span. His RS relative TS% and pts/75 from 81-89 went;

20.5 1.5%
22.6 5.8%
25.1 3.0%
24.6 2.7%
25.9 1.8%
27.0 2.1%
25.8 1.1%
24.2 -0.3%
24.3 -0.6%

and in the PS from 82-89

16.7 -3.9%
22.0 -0.9%
24.2 9.1%
26.1 5.8%
24.3 -1.6%
24.5 0.0%
22.2 -5.1%
24.2 2.8%

So in conclusion, I see a good player. But not one I'd rather have over a great shooting/scoring wing. Not one I'd rather have over players capable of carrying huge burdens and helping offenses a lot that way (Iverson or Nique). There isn't a lot to love in the PS. There isn't a lot to love when I watch him on film, other than "solid." I think English vs. James Worthy is a fabulous discussion, both peak and career, and I'm not sure I wouldn't side with Worthy right now on both.

(Btw, Lever was a rookie in Portland, not Phoenix, and I don't know how fair it is to say Moe unleashed him when he was, in fact, darn talented.

Also, realbig3, I meant to list per36s in that English post. Instead i used the wrong per36 - thanks.)

It looks like you basically just proved that English was a good scorer, who had a big impact on his team, and a guy who could step up and carry an offense when other guys went down (despite you saying he couldn't). That 4-game and 11-game sample shows that without the 2nd best player, English was able to maintain his play, or actually improve it.

And regarding his volume scoring...he was typically around 24-25% then. Then you compare him to Kobe (10th on our list), Malone (12th on our list), Pierce (38th on our list), Nique (41st on our list), and Miller (42nd on our list). Iverson was nominated a long time ago. Basically, yes, he wasn't as good of a scorer as these guys, and it shows. They were all voted in a while ago (except for Iverson). English just now got nominated. It doesn't make much sense to compare English to Kobe or Malone or freaking MJ, who are all consensus top 15 players ever (MJ is almost the consensus GOAT)...nobody's comparing English to those guys.

And I don't recall anyone ever saying that English was some sort of beacon of efficiency. But he does have pretty good scoring efficiency over his career, certainly better than guys like Iverson and Nique, even though they scored a relatively higher volume of points.

And scoring is just one aspect of the game. English was a very well-rounded player, good at passing, rebounding, and defense.

In the 84 playoffs, when he averaged 29.0 ppg, he also averaged 8.0 rpg and 5.6 apg.

In the 85 playoffs, when he averaged 30.2 ppg, he also averaged 6.6 rpg and 4.5 apg.

In fact, English was usually around 4.0+ apg in the playoffs, and he had several playoffs in the 5-6 apg range. This wasn't simply a guy who could only score.

And his TRB% in the playoffs peaked at 11.2%. That would be tied with Nique's 2nd best result in the playoffs during his time in Atlanta (he had one playoffs at 12.6%). And their TRB% year by year in the playoffs are pretty similar actually.

I come to the same conclusion as you do, that English was a good player, nothing spectacular...but I'd say that at this point, nobody "spectacular" was left for nomination...everyone at this point has serious holes in their career, or were simply not THAT good...English actually doesn't have any holes to his game, he just wasn't uber-spectacular at any one thing...but he was either good or very good at everything.

[ronnymac2]

I agree. I thought ElGee's informative post did more to support the notion that English's nomination was reasonable rather than deconstruct the pro-Mr. Nugget argument.

[Fencer reregistered]

Does anybody have an argument why English shouldn't be viewed as pretty close to 'Nique?

[Fencer reregistered]

I'm happy to vote in Cowens here. But I'm beginning to wonder just how much of a gap there should be between Cowens + Havlicek and Unseld + Hayes. Yes, they had a somewhat better team, and yes, Havlicek had legendary longevity. (Lots of seasons, fast pace, lots of minutes, and retired when he was still a star rather than padding the season count by hanging on.)

But has been pointed out, Hayes' intangibles weren't THAT destructive, as is evidenced by the championship and so on. And maybe Tex Winter isn't the perfect guy to believe -- he's one of the greatest Xs & Os men in basketball history, and a not very accomplished head coach, so obviously there was some aspect of coaching he wasn't so great at, and perhaps it was people management.

I wonder whether it won't soon be time to vote for Hayes and nominate Unseld.

[lukekarts]

Does anyone have an argument why he should?

English to me was one of those high volume scores that played within the flow of the game but never really got acknowledged as being a dominant player. Nobody says "remember when English dominated so and so game" or "remember when English rallied the Nuggets and scored the teams last 10 points as they upset so and so"; or "remember when English totally outperformed player x who was the best player in the league at the time".

It just doesn't happen. It's not to say, from time to time, he didn't do those things - but he never had that reputation. He wasn't a guy relied upon to take over games. He didn't have a clutch factor about him. He was never a player portrayed as being elite - because he wasn't quite there.

A lot of this could be said about Paul Pierce too. But - at least right now - we remember those big games from Pierce, the great series vs. LeBron, the Finals where he made his mark etc. And by all accounts, Pierce became a better rounded player later in his career. English was versatile offensively but limited in other aspects of his game; and he wasn't that dominant offensively for me to consider him at this point. He's lacking James Worthy moments.

[FJS]

Vote: Iverson
Nomination: Worthy

[lorak]

Does anyone have an argument why he should?

English to me was one of those high volume scores that played within the flow of the game but never really got acknowledged as being a dominant player. Nobody says "remember when English dominated so and so game" or "remember when English rallied the Nuggets and scored the teams last 10 points as they upset so and so"; or "remember when English totally outperformed player x who was the best player in the league at the time".

It just doesn't happen. It's not to say, from time to time, he didn't do those things - but he never had that reputation. He wasn't a guy relied upon to take over games. He didn't have a clutch factor about him. He was never a player portrayed as being elite - because he wasn't quite there.

A lot of this could be said about Paul Pierce too. But - at least right now - we remember those big games from Pierce, the great series vs. LeBron, the Finals where he made his mark etc. And by all accounts, Pierce became a better rounded player later in his career. English was versatile offensively but limited in other aspects of his game; and he wasn't that dominant offensively for me to consider him at this point. He's lacking James Worthy moments.

I have exactly the same feeling about English.

[drza]

Does anyone have an argument why he should?

English to me was one of those high volume scores that played within the flow of the game but never really got acknowledged as being a dominant player. Nobody says "remember when English dominated so and so game" or "remember when English rallied the Nuggets and scored the teams last 10 points as they upset so and so"; or "remember when English totally outperformed player x who was the best player in the league at the time".

It just doesn't happen. It's not to say, from time to time, he didn't do those things - but he never had that reputation. He wasn't a guy relied upon to take over games. He didn't have a clutch factor about him. He was never a player portrayed as being elite - because he wasn't quite there.

A lot of this could be said about Paul Pierce too. But - at least right now - we remember those big games from Pierce, the great series vs. LeBron, the Finals where he made his mark etc. And by all accounts, Pierce became a better rounded player later in his career. English was versatile offensively but limited in other aspects of his game; and he wasn't that dominant offensively for me to consider him at this point. He's lacking James Worthy moments.

I have exactly the same feeling about English.

I actually see a lot of similarities between English and Pierce. I think that the underlined in the above quote is key...for Pierce, he very recently ended up in a team situation where his performances gets a lot more spot-light, on a historically high-profile team, in an era with a lot more coverage. Before that, he was on consistently poor teams where he didn't get much of any coverage and wasn't considered that elite, but he still stood out a bit as the best player on a down-trodden yet historically proud franchise. English split the middle...he was doing very similar things as Pierce, but on an average Denver team (not too great, not too bad) 25 - 30 years ago that didn't really do anything memorable. Plus, English played in a time where the 3-point shot was MUCH less emphasized than it is today, which shows up in the B-R stats as English having lower scoring efficiencies than a guy like Pierce.

In reality, I think they were very similar in caliber and even style of play. As Penbeast pointed out last page, the argument could be made that English was better but without the 3-point shot (which, as a function of the time, isn't necessarily indicative that he COULDN'T shoot the 3 as much as that it wasn't considered an important part of the game). So for those that voted for Pierce, I would think that English would be an attractive candidate at this point. For me, it's more of an indication that Pierce went in too early than a reason to then compound it by voting English in early as well. :Shrugs: You say to-ma-to, I sah to-mah-to...

[drza]

I'm happy to vote in Cowens here. But I'm beginning to wonder just how much of a gap there should be between Cowens + Havlicek and Unseld + Hayes. Yes, they had a somewhat better team, and yes, Havlicek had legendary longevity. (Lots of seasons, fast pace, lots of minutes, and retired when he was still a star rather than padding the season count by hanging on.)

But has been pointed out, Hayes' intangibles weren't THAT destructive, as is evidenced by the championship and so on. And maybe Tex Winter isn't the perfect guy to believe -- he's one of the greatest Xs & Os men in basketball history, and a not very accomplished head coach, so obviously there was some aspect of coaching he wasn't so great at, and perhaps it was people management.

I wonder whether it won't soon be time to vote for Hayes and nominate Unseld.

Hayes vs Cowens is a comp that I would love to see fleshed out more. They played at the same time, both had efficiency as the main knock on their scoring style but were credited with contributing in other ways, and both have personalities that are considered a fairly significant portion of their legacies. I'd love to see a more in-depth comparison, though.

And that was also an interesting analogy you were working with, the Boston duo vs the Washington duo. It's a bit simplistic, obviously, but since they had such overlapping careers it's fair to ask if it's reasonable to have Havlicek voted in and Cowens as the current leading vote-getter to go in next before either of the Washington duo go in (and before Unseld is even nominated)? Now maybe the answer is yes, and Hondo and Cowens as individuals were just better players than Hayes or Unseld. But at the least maybe this could spark some more discussion for players that haven't really been fleshed out that thoroughly in this project...