RealGM Top 100 List #47

[therealbig3]

For the thousand time, could i vote? xD

Send a PM to penbeast0, and he'll let you know.

[Doctor MJ]

Well, might as well make it formal:

Nominate: Wes Unseld

[Laimbeer]

Can someone explain why intangibles are largely dismissed here, but in the case of Hayes they're prominently mentioned?

I don't accept your premise that we dismiss intangibles. Russell got ranked at #2 for crying out loud.

For me the intangibles aren't the issue so much as that he's like the perfect storm of volume stat overrating. Inefficient shooting and massive minutes played paint a picture of him that makes me think it quite plausible that when people kept giving Unseld awards over Hayes, they might not have actually been idiots.

It has been mentioned by a few posters Hayes was an a-hole when arguing against him, and that's probably true. But when Cousy's impact with Russell, helping him deal with racism and willingly handing over the reigns as the team's best player, was mentioned some said that had nothing to do with how good he was at basketball and dismissed it.

So does the locker room influence and leadership matter or not? That's a question not just for you, but the forum.

[Doctor MJ]

It has been mentioned by a few posters Hayes was an a-hole when arguing against him, and that's probably true. But when Cousy's impact with Russell, helping him deal with racism and willingly handing over the reigns as the team's best player, was mentioned some said that had nothing to do with how good he was at basketball and dismissed it.

So does the locker room influence and leadership matter or not? That's a question not just for you, but the forum.

Just speaking with my humble opinion, it absolutely matters, but in all honesty I think it's a lot more powerful in the negative direction. A pouting star can kill a previously successful team, I don't believe that in the NBA a charasmatic leader can make the opposite happen

And just to add: While Hayes being a jerk is brought up, I didn't specifically bring it up. Given his team success, I'd be reluctant to hold it against him too much.

[therealbig3]

Can someone explain why intangibles are largely dismissed here, but in the case of Hayes they're prominently mentioned?

I don't accept your premise that we dismiss intangibles. Russell got ranked at #2 for crying out loud.

For me the intangibles aren't the issue so much as that he's like the perfect storm of volume stat overrating. Inefficient shooting and massive minutes played paint a picture of him that makes me think it quite plausible that when people kept giving Unseld awards over Hayes, they might not have actually been idiots.

It has been mentioned by a few posters Hayes was an a-hole when arguing against him, and that's probably true. But when Cousy's impact with Russell, helping him deal with racism and willingly handing over the reigns as the team's best player, was mentioned some said that had nothing to do with how good he was at basketball and dismissed it.

So does the locker room influence and leadership matter or not? That's a question not just for you, but the forum.

Interesting question. Personally, and I know I'm in the minority, I don't really think there is a such thing as "good intangibles", or at least, you shouldn't get props for being a good teammate and having a positive locker room influence. IMO, that's part of being a good player: how well you work with other players. Being an A-hole and negatively impacting the team is definitely a mark against a player, because in my mind, he's not doing what's expected out of a good player. Being a good teammate is simply a pre-requisite, and it shouldn't be overly praised.

I'm not wording it quite the way I want to, but basically, a player with "good intangibles" shouldn't be praised as much as a player with "bad intangibles" is criticized, imo. It would kind of be like how at a job, people don't get promoted for every good thing they do, while one bad thing can get them fired. Negative actions do a lot more damage than good actions help.

EDIT: What Doctor MJ said.

[TMACFORMVP]

To stir up more discussion, does anyone know anything about Walton's '76 season? Obviously, he wasn't as good as his '77/'78 seasons, but he was still an elite rebounder, an obviously great passer, and a decent volume scorer (with admittedly poor efficiency however). I would probably guess his defensive impact wasn't at the same level, but probably still very good.

I ask this question, b/c he actually plays more games this season than Paul did in '10. And considering, I value Walton's '77 season over Paul's '08 by a decent margin, and their '78/'09 seasons as a near wash, then maybe the "longevity gap" is smaller than what it was originally perceived? BTW, I understand Walton missed the playoffs in '78, but I don't how much that sways me when Paul was outplayed by Billups, and the series wasn't even close (seriously, lost by a combined 123 points in the four losses, including a near 60 point blowout). Granted, Walton ALSO missed many regular season games, while Paul didn't makes it much closer (this is under my assumption that as good as Paul was, when Walton was on the floor, he was the more impactful player). I'd understand if Paul had the slight edge there though.

So, Paul has one more clear All-NBA year (I don't value his '07 too highly, he was good, but not particularly efficient, his volume wasn't overly impressive [compared to his other years] and his impact wasn't at the level I would have expected -- in short, he was a more "replaceable" player that season, IMO). Maybe I'm crazy, but I'd seriously consider taking a backup center in the mold of '86 Walton over an '07 version of Paul; ridiculous per minute impact, big defensive impact against Hakeem in the Finals; roughly 8/7 in only 19 minutes, playing 80 games, and 16 games in the post-season.

So, Paul has a four year prime, with a two year peak, and Walton has a potential three year prime, with a two year peak. And what about those modern medicine arguments earlier? If we were to give Walton even one more year, it might be clear, IMO. But I'll be the first to say that I'm real skeptical of that since it might be TOO hypothetical for my liking (not to mention, could be applied to many other situations as well).

EDIT - And, I get that one season is a rather large difference when we're talking about such short primes to begin with. I don't mind Paul over Walton, but I have to question how much more do I value Walton's peak, that it sets up an interesting sort debate at the very least, IMO.

[therealbig3]

To stir up more discussion, does anyone know anything about Walton's '76 season? Obviously, he wasn't as good as his '77/'78 seasons, but he was still an elite rebounder, an obviously great passer, and a decent volume scorer (with admittedly poor efficiency however). I would probably guess his defensive impact wasn't at the same level, but probably still very good.

I ask this question, b/c he actually plays more games this season than Paul did in '10. And considering, I value Walton's '77 season over Paul's '08 by a decent margin, and their '78/'09 seasons as a near wash, then maybe the "longevity gap" is smaller than what it was originally perceived? BTW, I understand Walton missed the playoffs in '78, but I don't how much that sways me when Paul was outplayed by Billups, and the series wasn't even close (seriously, lost by a combined 123 points in the four losses, including a near 60 point blowout). Granted, Walton ALSO missed many regular season games, while Paul didn't makes it much closer (this is under my assumption that as good as Paul was, when Walton was on the floor, he was the more impactful player). I'd understand if Paul had the slight edge there though.

So, Paul has one more clear All-NBA year (I don't value his '07 too highly, he was good, but not particularly efficient, his volume wasn't overly impressive [compared to his other years] and his impact wasn't at the level I would have expected -- in short, he was a more "replaceable" player that season, IMO). Maybe I'm crazy, but I'd seriously consider taking a backup center in the mold of '86 Walton over an '07 version of Paul; ridiculous per minute impact, big defensive impact against Hakeem in the Finals; roughly 8/7 in only 19 minutes, playing 80 games, and 16 games in the post-season.

So, Paul has a four year prime, with a two year peak, and Walton has a potential three year prime, with a two year peak. And what about those modern medicine arguments earlier? If we were to give Walton even one more year, it might be clear, IMO. But I'll be the first to say that I'm real skeptical of that since it might be TOO hypothetical for my liking (not to mention, could be applied to many other situations as well).

EDIT - And, I get that one season is a rather large difference when we're talking about such short primes to begin with. I don't mind Paul over Walton, but I have to question how much more do I value Walton's peak, that it sets up an interesting sort debate at the very least, IMO.

Never really considered this before, and I think the point about Paul in the 09 playoffs is a good one...Walton didn't play in the Blazers' playoff run, but Paul wasn't really that good, so does it really make a difference?

I think I got used to people saying Walton only had 1 good season, and then was too injured the rest of the time, so I didn't really give him much of a chance (shame on me).

Walton probably moves up a lot for me, but not over Paul imo, because the difference in regular season games is a pretty big deal for me. Also, Walton wasn't playing huge minutes in his prime either, and Paul also has two dominant playoff runs, while Walton only had 1.

It's closer than it was before, but Paul has a lot more regular season value, and after this last season, more playoff value too. And I think the difference in peak between Walton and Paul can be overrated. I'd rank Walton's peak over Paul's, but by how much really? How much better can you get than Paul in 08 and 09? Magic-level? Heck, someone already thinks that peak Paul is better than peak Magic, and although I think that's ridiculous, I don't think it's ridiculous to say that peak Paul isn't that far off.

[Fencer reregistered]

Interesting question. Personally, and I know I'm in the minority, I don't really think there is a such thing as "good intangibles", or at least, you shouldn't get props for being a good teammate and having a positive locker room influence. IMO, that's part of being a good player: how well you work with other players. Being an A-hole and negatively impacting the team is definitely a mark against a player, because in my mind, he's not doing what's expected out of a good player. Being a good teammate is simply a pre-requisite, and it shouldn't be overly praised.

I'm not wording it quite the way I want to, but basically, a player with "good intangibles" shouldn't be praised as much as a player with "bad intangibles" is criticized, imo. It would kind of be like how at a job, people don't get promoted for every good thing they do, while one bad thing can get them fired. Negative actions do a lot more damage than good actions help.

EDIT: What Doctor MJ said.

There still is such a thing as "exceptionally good" intangibles, and they do count IMO.

Sometimes they're a blend of on-court and off-court, as other players adjust their games (especially defensively) to be more like the leaders'. Sometimes they're a mix of positive and negative, as demanding stars can both push and aggravate their teammates, e.g. Bird (very positive in the pros after some rocky college times), Jordan (clearly net positive in the pros), Oscar (not so clear), Kobe (took him a long time to learn how to be a net positive).

The strong cases for important, purely off-court intangibles are rare. Cousy is the biggest for me by far. The fact that Duncan doesn't seem to have had a problem with ANY teammate, and to always have been on teams that meshed well, carries some weight with me too.

[Fencer reregistered]

Oh yeah -- I also give bonus points to stars who let the egos of star teammates wash over them, even though that's what they "should" do. E.g. Pippen or McHale. Ditto West; while I don't know whether he had the great racial intangibles of Cousy, he certainly worked well with some guys who suffered visibly under the racism of the day.

[drza]

Can someone explain why intangibles are largely dismissed here, but in the case of Hayes they're prominently mentioned?

I don't accept your premise that we dismiss intangibles. Russell got ranked at #2 for crying out loud.

For me the intangibles aren't the issue so much as that he's like the perfect storm of volume stat overrating. Inefficient shooting and massive minutes played paint a picture of him that makes me think it quite plausible that when people kept giving Unseld awards over Hayes, they might not have actually been idiots.

It has been mentioned by a few posters Hayes was an a-hole when arguing against him, and that's probably true. But when Cousy's impact with Russell, helping him deal with racism and willingly handing over the reigns as the team's best player, was mentioned some said that had nothing to do with how good he was at basketball and dismissed it.

So does the locker room influence and leadership matter or not? That's a question not just for you, but the forum.

I think that the biggest thing that Hayes is lacking, honestly, is a spokesman. I've been willing to vote for him for several threads now, but there are others that seem just as qualified on first blush and their spokesmen have done a better job showing their value. It's like with Cousy...I was willing to be convinced, but for about 15 threads all I was hearing was that he won an MVP and had great accolades and titles. Which is fine, but there was a convincing and vocal counter-argument that pointed out his inefficiency and relative lack of impact during the title years, which was enough to stall him vs the level of competition. It wasn't until David Stern, I believe, went back year-to-year and SHOWED his impact pre-Russell in a plausible way that I was convinced.

Same thing with Hayes. I hear some rumblings that he was the best player on those Bullets, and he has some accolades, so presumably he could have been a huge impact guy. On the other hand, there are many that have pointed out his inefficiency, pointed out that real-time more of the plaudits went to Unseld than Hayes, and have alluded to attitude issues. All I really have to work with at the moment are basketball-reference stats and the conversations we had during the RPoY project, which isn't really enough to vote confidently for Hayes.

Again, I'm willing to be convinced. But this has been (and will be) an extremely long and time consuming project, and I've had to pick my battles when it comes to where to put my research time. So if you, or someone else, thinks Hayes should go in...make a case. And don't stop with a list of accolades, as that clearly isn't convincing. Go back and look at those Bullets teams, how they played, what made them successful, and show that Hayes was vital to that. I guarantee you, if you do that Hayes will start getting more support. Ball is in your court.

[drza]

?

I thought this thread was going to be open until tonight?

?

[ronnymac2]

Yeah, why was this prematurely ejaculated back into the abyss with everything else?

Just in case...I'll vote/nom in a minute...

[penbeast0]

I have an automated timer on my master for these threads that kick them out after 48 hours . . . just had to reset this one.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Alonzo Mourning

Nominate: Grant Hill

[Dr Positivity]

My count

Chris Paul 3 (Dr MJ, therealbig3, ElGee)
Bill Walton 3 (JordansBulls, Fencer reregistered, lukekarts)
Kevin Johnson 2 (Dr Mufasa, Snakebites)
Alonzo Mourning 2 (drza, ronnymac2)
Bob Lanier 1 (David Stern)
Sidney Moncrief 1 (penbeast0
Bob McAdoo 1 (FJS)

Nom
Wes Unseld 4 (penbeast0, Fencer reregistered, lukekarts, Dr MJ)
Grant Hill 3 (Snakebites, therealbig3, ronnymac2)
Dennis Rodman 2 (DavidStern, drza)
Pau Gasol 1 (Dr Mufasa)
Marques Johnson 1 (ElGee)
Penny Hardaway 1 (JordansBulls)
James Worthy 1 (FJS)

I'll change my vote to Bill Walton, which makes it 4-3 atm

[colts18]

Vote: Walton
Nominate: Gasol

[TMACFORMVP]

Vote: Bill Walton
Nominate: Grant Hill

[drza]

I'll change my vote and pile onto the Walton vote bandwagon. Zo is a worthy candidate, but Walton at his best is one of the best ever. Glad to see him finally get in.

Vote: Bill Walton

[Doctor MJ]

So Walton's going to take this, eh? This makes me happy even if I probably don't quite agree. Love Walton, and I'm so glad he's getting respected.



Tell you what, I'll join the bandwagon too.

Vote: Walton

The key thing people have been talking about that makes me think this is actually debatably reasonable is the factoring in of modern medicine. Realistically, were Walton joining the league now, and were I betting about his longevity, I'd bet something at least as long as Howard or Paul's actual longevity, and of course, Walton with that longevity becomes probably a Top 25 player.

So here's to the wild man, even though I still think y'all are being silly about finding new people to champion over Paul.

[Laimbeer]

Rockets go from 15 wins to 37 wins when Hayes arrives in 68-69.

Bullets go from 38 wins to 52 wins when Hayes arrives in 72-73.

From 1973-1981 the Bullets would make the playoffs 8 of 9 years, go to the finals twice and win a title. Hayes was their first option.

He was top ten in rebounding 13 times, top ten in scoring ten times. He's top ten all-time in rebounding and points, and played in 12 consecutive all-star games.

Vote: Hayes
Nominate: Prefer Schayes, but Unseld is realistic and deserving here, too. Nomination is for Unseld.