RealGM Top 100 List #78

[Dr Positivity]

Connie has an interesting case, but... I don't consider 68 and 69 top 30 peak, superstar type years because of the stats - the ABA flat out blows at that point. Guys named Jimmy Jones and Larry Jones are 26-28ppg scorers, Doug Moe puts up a 24/10, and literally every All-ABA and all-star I looked at falls off statistically as soon as the ABA picks up its game in the 70s. (Mid 20ppg scorers turn into teens scorers, etc. and none of them make it in the NBA, though most hit 30 by that point) I'd consider Connie's 24/10/5 in 1970 fairly representative of his skillset based on what I know his game - sort of like Blake Griffin's eventual destiny as a player?/More of a super 2nd option finisher than a creator? Probably better than Amare and Kemp but still in the same category in terms of team function and how you build around them. So if we say he's that guy for 3 years and then turns into the 20/8 guy on worse percentages for a few - Yeah that's probably enough to get him above Shawn Kemp, Chauncey, Dantley and Lucas for me - But I still feel like having a rock do it all guard like Greer for an entire decade is what I'd draft. With both Connie and Greer I'm not confident in my chances unless I have another all-star (a big man for Greer, a perimeter star for Connie) so if Connie just a slightly more dominant second option, I wouldn't draft that for 3-5 years instead of 10-11 for Hal. And I'd still take Carmelo's 8 years over these guys since I think he can legitimately be the best guy on an elite team and has, but his case is taking a long lost walk in the desert right now (Is Shawn Marion really going to rank higher than Carmelo? I like Marion but man has it felt like Melo was in first class and while Marion was riding coach for most of their careers)

[ElGee]

vote: Hal Greer
nominate: Bill Sharman

Weird situation since I didn't nominate last thread and would have (continued) with Sharman, so Hawkins wouldn't even be on this ballot. (?)

[Dr Positivity]

Connie got in two rounds ago

[penbeast0]

Is Shawn Marion really going to rank higher than Carmelo? I like Marion but man has it felt like Melo was in first class and while Marion was riding coach for most of their careers.

IT does feel like that . . . it's called hype and often has low correlation with ability to help your team win games. Allen Iverson always got hyped over, say, a Steve Nash too, probably even over Tim Duncan though Duncan never got relegated to coach class by people the way Nash (or Marion) did.

[drza]

Vote: Mark Price
Nominate: Cliff Hagan *****

*****I'm assuming that Ben Wallace is already on the list, as he should be once Penbeast goes back and counts my nomination from last thread.

[ElGee]

Connie got in two rounds ago

Ah K. So he's a veteran on the board.

Going back into the RPOY threads, I don't see 69 and 70 Hawkins as anything really excellent. A top-30 all-time peak? I just don't see anything close to that. There's at least some film from around that time, and I trust my eyes quite a bit in trying to get a feel for players. Hawkins wasn't overly impressive. I just found 29 of the 31 games he missed in 69 due to knee injury, and the team performance was nearly identical:

IN: +0.3
OUT: -0.2

They were +0.6 MOV better with Hawkins. This huge volume scorer missed an enormous chunk of time and it didn't seem to matter much in broad strokes. A few things though:

(1) This is an instance where I'd put some weight on an In/Out number. It doesn't damn his career by any stretch of the imagination, but in 30 games you want to see some blip, especially in a weak league.

(2) I'm on board with Hawkins not being the same player after the injury. His scoring numbers dipped within the season after the injury and his scoring numbers were never the same in the ensuing seasons. So we have conflating factors with Hawk joining the NBA AND injury his knee at basically the same time.

(3) To add what Beast said, the guy only has 1968 before that. Longevity is definitely a problem, unless you give him a pretty large break for the expulsion.

EDIT: Hawkins missed 11 games in 1971 in Phoenix and in those games the Suns were +7.8...+1.0 for the rest of the season (-6.8 net). Those 11 games were actually against an above-average schedule, including smashing the Knicks by 19 and splitting a home and home with LA. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sA ... %2C2201671

Lots of Haskins and Van Arsdale playing well in that 11 game stretch from what I can tell.

Fun fact: the 1972 Suns had a 5.6 SRS...and MISSED the playoffs!

[Doctor MJ]

Connie got in two rounds ago

Ah K. So he's a veteran on the board.

Going back into the RPOY threads, I don't see 69 and 70 Hawkins as anything really excellent. A top-30 all-time peak? I just don't see anything close to that. There's at least some film from around that time, and I trust my eyes quite a bit in trying to get a feel for players. Hawkins wasn't overly impressive. I just found 29 of the 31 games he missed in 69 due to knee injury, and the team performance was nearly identical:

IN: +0.3
OUT: -0.2

They were +0.6 MOV better with Hawkins. This huge volume scorer missed an enormous chunk of time and it didn't seem to matter much in broad strokes. A few things though:

(1) This is an instance where I'd put some weight on an In/Out number. It doesn't damn his career by any stretch of the imagination, but in 30 games you want to see some blip, especially in a weak league.

(2) I'm on board with Hawkins not being the same player after the injury. His scoring numbers dipped within the season after the injury and his scoring numbers were never the same in the ensuing seasons. So we have conflating factors with Hawk joining the NBA AND injury his knee at basically the same time.

(3) To add what Beast said, the guy only has 1968 before that. Longevity is definitely a problem, unless you give him a pretty large break for the expulsion.

EDIT: Hawkins missed 11 games in 1971 in Phoenix and in those games the Suns were +7.8...+1.0 for the rest of the season (-6.8 net). Those 11 games were actually against an above-average schedule, including smashing the Knicks by 19 and splitting a home and home with LA. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sA ... %2C2201671

Lots of Haskins and Van Arsdale playing well in that 11 game stretch from what I can tell.

Fun fact: the 1972 Suns had a 5.6 SRS...and MISSED the playoffs!

LG, glad you joined the fray on this. I don't have a lot of time, but some more specific thoughts in the other direction:

When Connie joined the Suns, the SRS saw a +6.6 improvement. Their core players from the previous year were basically all still there, and there was no major injuries to speak of. The only key difference I see is that Connie joined the team.

Getting into the offense, you know how we talk about how Wilt never made a major team change on offense until '67 because the TS% improvement for him was typically about 1% or less, but then in '67 it improved by 3.8%? Okay well when Connie joined Phoenix, the TS% went up 4.6%. Again this is despite the fact that the team already had 20 PPG scorers in place who would continue to be 20 PPG scores with Hawkins there. It's literally like he found a way to seamlessly join the team...while being the team's #1 option.

So, to me at the very least I wouldn't feel right at all even saying "meh, another volume scorer who cannibalizes the rest of his team".

I also want to respond to Dr. Mufasa:

Connie has an interesting case, but... I don't consider 68 and 69 top 30 peak, superstar type years because of the stats - the ABA flat out blows at that point. Guys named Jimmy Jones and Larry Jones are 26-28ppg scorers, Doug Moe puts up a 24/10

I think if we're going to go this far, it makes sense to at least look at the advanced stats.

In '68, here were the ABA's league leaders in Win Shares:

Connie 17.9
Jones 11.8
Ligon 9.7
Becker 9.6
Somerset 9.4

I'm not going to pretend the ABA at this point was the equal of the ABA, but no one should get the impression that Connie was just one of a bunch of guys putting up similar numbers. Connie by any nuanced metric was light years ahead of everyone else.

The only other person who came in on that level was Rick Barry...who of course is typically considered a Top 30 player. Compare their ABA numbers, they seem pretty comparable to me, so I guess I'd ask: Do you not consider Barry to have around a Top 30 peak?

I'll also note that it's worth pointing out that Barry was very efficient in the early ABA like Connie was, but was typically inefficient in the NBA. Does that mean Connie would be just a ballhog racking up volume stats on poor efficiency in the NBA? No, his efficiency was fine when he came over (though not gobsmacking, it was superior to what Barry or Baylor did), and as mentioned resulted in a great team lift despite not cannibalizing his teammates shots really at all.

[Doctor MJ]

if Connie just a slightly more dominant second option, I wouldn't draft that for 3-5 years instead of 10-11 for Hal. And I'd still take Carmelo's 8 years over these guys since I think he can legitimately be the best guy on an elite team and has, but his case is taking a long lost walk in the desert right now (Is Shawn Marion really going to rank higher than Carmelo? I like Marion but man has it felt like Melo was in first class and while Marion was riding coach for most of their careers)

To me you're just really reaching when you start saying Connie's only a second option guy. Siding against him for longevity is fine, being unconvinced about his ABA time is fine, but it's not like having a guy score 30 PPG game is any kind of ideal that offenses require. A 20-25 point first option is typically just fine, as evidence by the way Denver was just fine without a 20 point option once Melo was gone. Agree though that that time period was certainly not peak Connie.

Re: felt like Melo was in first class. Well you know how I feel about this. I've telling people for years Melo has no business being mentioned by the other first class guys, but nothing seems to kill it.

[ElGee]

Connie got in two rounds ago

Ah K. So he's a veteran on the board.

Going back into the RPOY threads, I don't see 69 and 70 Hawkins as anything really excellent. A top-30 all-time peak? I just don't see anything close to that. There's at least some film from around that time, and I trust my eyes quite a bit in trying to get a feel for players. Hawkins wasn't overly impressive. I just found 29 of the 31 games he missed in 69 due to knee injury, and the team performance was nearly identical:

IN: +0.3
OUT: -0.2

They were +0.6 MOV better with Hawkins. This huge volume scorer missed an enormous chunk of time and it didn't seem to matter much in broad strokes. A few things though:

(1) This is an instance where I'd put some weight on an In/Out number. It doesn't damn his career by any stretch of the imagination, but in 30 games you want to see some blip, especially in a weak league.

(2) I'm on board with Hawkins not being the same player after the injury. His scoring numbers dipped within the season after the injury and his scoring numbers were never the same in the ensuing seasons. So we have conflating factors with Hawk joining the NBA AND injury his knee at basically the same time.

(3) To add what Beast said, the guy only has 1968 before that. Longevity is definitely a problem, unless you give him a pretty large break for the expulsion.

EDIT: Hawkins missed 11 games in 1971 in Phoenix and in those games the Suns were +7.8...+1.0 for the rest of the season (-6.8 net). Those 11 games were actually against an above-average schedule, including smashing the Knicks by 19 and splitting a home and home with LA. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sA ... %2C2201671

Lots of Haskins and Van Arsdale playing well in that 11 game stretch from what I can tell.

Fun fact: the 1972 Suns had a 5.6 SRS...and MISSED the playoffs!

LG, glad you joined the fray on this. I don't have a lot of time, but some more specific thoughts in the other direction:

When Connie joined the Suns, the SRS saw a +6.6 improvement. Their core players from the previous year were basically all still there, and there was no major injuries to speak of. The only key difference I see is that Connie joined the team.

Getting into the offense, you know how we talk about how Wilt never made a major team change on offense until '67 because the TS% improvement for him was typically about 1% or less, but then in '67 it improved by 3.8%? Okay well when Connie joined Phoenix, the TS% went up 4.6%. Again this is despite the fact that the team already had 20 PPG scorers in place who would continue to be 20 PPG scores with Hawkins there. It's literally like he found a way to seamlessly join the team...while being the team's #1 option.

So, to me at the very least I wouldn't feel right at all even saying "meh, another volume scorer who cannibalizes the rest of his team".

I also want to respond to Dr. Mufasa:

Connie has an interesting case, but... I don't consider 68 and 69 top 30 peak, superstar type years because of the stats - the ABA flat out blows at that point. Guys named Jimmy Jones and Larry Jones are 26-28ppg scorers, Doug Moe puts up a 24/10

I think if we're going to go this far, it makes sense to at least look at the advanced stats.

In '68, here were the ABA's league leaders in Win Shares:

Connie 17.9
Jones 11.8
Ligon 9.7
Becker 9.6
Somerset 9.4

I'm not going to pretend the ABA at this point was the equal of the ABA, but no one should get the impression that Connie was just one of a bunch of guys putting up similar numbers. Connie by any nuanced metric was light years ahead of everyone else.

The only other person who came in on that level was Rick Barry...who of course is typically considered a Top 30 player. Compare their ABA numbers, they seem pretty comparable to me, so I guess I'd ask: Do you not consider Barry to have around a Top 30 peak?

I'll also note that it's worth pointing out that Barry was very efficient in the early ABA like Connie was, but was typically inefficient in the NBA. Does that mean Connie would be just a ballhog racking up volume stats on poor efficiency in the NBA? No, his efficiency was fine when he came over (though not gobsmacking, it was superior to what Barry or Baylor did), and as mentioned resulted in a great team lift despite not cannibalizing his teammates shots really at all.

By my estimations, in 1969 the Suns had a -2.1 ORtg. In 1970, it jumped to +2.9 (with defense remaining comparable). So you are indeed correct in pointing to an overall offensive improvement on the team. However we should note the league TS% jumped 2% from 49.1 to 51.1%.

Now look at Gail Goodrich -- he had an abnormally bad shooting year for some reason in 1969. Notice that the team FT% jumped in 70 -- outside of Hawkins, they scored 74 extra points on their FT% increase -- for another 0.4% difference in TS%. They lose 3 incredibly inefficient players in McLemore, Wilson and Gregor (combined 1,810 FGA's -- 22% of the team's shots -- at 40.4%) and reduce McKenzie's role. I also think it's reasonable to assume Van Arsadale improved that year -- and there's nothing to suggest in subsequent years that it was some kind of Hawkins effect (and the same can be said for Goodrich 69 to 70).

Add to that a coaching change from Red Kerr to Jerry Colangelo -- one in which the team was -2.5 with Kerr then -1.0 with Colangelo -- and it's hard for me to view Hawkins as the seamless offensive catalyst that made it all happen. Or, similar, an overall impact player in the air of an MVP. Yes, Hawkins did get 2 votes that year, a testament to a player perceived to have positive impact (I agree), but I don't think 2 players in the NBA giving a legend like Hawk their votes really disputes what I'm saying about his non-expectional entry in the NBA.

(Just so we know where we stand, I had Hawkins as a top-10 player in the NBA/ABA on my RPOY ballot).

[Doctor MJ]

LG, Not saying that Hawkins is in my top 5 for his 1st NBA year either (he's in my 10 behind some guys who were all voted in long ago), just saying I think that the evidence is certainly muddy enough that I'm pretty hesitant to label Hawkins a "numbers guy who doesn't really help the team".

[Doctor MJ]

The issue isn't his career length, it's his peak length. I remember seeing Connie Hawkins play in the early seventies and it was a massive disappointment. Here was this great dunker and he was Phoenix level Grant Hill without 3 point shooting -- still a solid player but not NBA Top 100 level. His peak was only 2.5 years, as if Grant Hill collapsed in his second season then had one comeback year then collapsed again and that was his entire pre-Phoenix career (except that Hawk was more dominant than peak Hill)

I also don't see Deron as having done much careerwise yet. He and Daugherty both, potential to do a lot but hasn't done it yet.

And again for comparison, years with at least 7 Win Shares:

Hill 5
Connie 7

Now you're saying, "Yeah, but Hill's 5 big years were more impressive than those 7 years of Connie combined!", and that's totally fine...but Hill's already in, so how out of line is Connie really?

People are voting Greer, and there's certainly a line of thinking where that makes sense. On the other hand, Connie's first 5 season's of ABA-NBA pro ball all give him a PER north of anything Greer ever did. It's not a question of whether 1 Connie year and crap is better than all of Greer, it's about realizing that the decline of Connie wasn't actually nearly as sharp as people tend to think. The fact that you keep bringing up Walton is the case in point. Walton's peak is far far FAR sharper than Connie's.

[Dipper 13]

But I still feel like having a rock do it all guard like Greer for an entire decade is what I'd draft.

Great clutch player as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFrhKI63e80#t=6m30s


'67 EDF Game 1


April 1, 1967

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Someone in the Philadelphia 76ers' dressing room asked if K.C. Jones had "Hal Greeritus." Greer, the 76ers' sharp-shooting jump shot artist, laughed heartily, then cautioned, "don't get him mad. This series isn't over yet." The by-play took place after the-76ers trounced the Celtics 127-113 to take a 1-0 lead in the best-of-7 final playoff series in the National Basketball Association's Eastern Division. The teams play game No. 2 at Boston on Sunday.

NO CHOKE UP

For several years now, some sources have charged that Greer chokes up when he laces Boston and its dynamic, little guard, K.C. Jones.

They'll have to get a new book on the matchup. Greer has scored 76 points against the Celtics the last two times he has faced them. He collected 39 Friday night to lead an awesome Philadelphia assault on the famed Boston defense. While Greer was pumping in 20 foot jumpers, Wilt Chamberlain demoralized the Celtics inside: The 7-foot-1 Most Valuable Player of the NBA scored 24 points,, but more important, he grabbed 32 rebounds, handed out 12 assists and blocked a dozen Boston shots.

LEAD BY 25

The 76ers romped to a 66-49 lead, increased it to 25 points at one stage of the second half and coasted home.

The game was never close after the 76ers broke away from a 22-21 lead in the first quarter.

Aided by Boston's miserable first half shooting, including 2-for-19 by John Havlicek, and a first quarter injury to Bill Russell in which the Celt center's stomach met the shoulder of Chet Walker and kept him out of action half of the period, the 76ers opened up a 66-49 lead at intermission.

Boston never got closer than 4 points in the second half as Chamberlain, Greer and Wally Jones continued to pour it on.



'68 EDF Game 3


April 12, 1968

PHILADELPHIA - Very conveniently for the Philadelphia 76ers, Hal Greer is not the type of person who is easily discouraged. Even when the shots aren't falling in.

During the first three quarters here Thursday night, Greer scored only 10 points, hitting a paltry 4-for-17 from the floor. It was the kind of performance that could dump some people into the depths of depression. But not Greer. Staging a thrilling recovery, the All-Star guard exploded for 21 points in the final quarter to spark the 76ers to a 122-114 victory over the Boston Celtics before 15,102 at the Spectrum.

The victory vaulted the 76ers into 2-1 lead in the best-of-seven Eastern Division finals.

If it hadn't been for Greer's sudden spurt, the series lead might have been reversed. The Celtics led through most of the first half, and trailed only 89-85 going into the last quarter.

In the last session, Greer hit 8-of-14 shots from the floor, including eight of the 76ers' last 10 points, to finish the night with 31.

"The fellows all kept telling me to keep shooting," Greer said later. "That's the only thing
you can do when you're having a bad night. In the fourth quarter, I was driving and penetrating more because they (Boston) were in foul trouble. "l figured I'd either get a layup or a foul shot."

Which is exactly what he got, thanks largely to the fact that the Celtics' Bill Russell sat out most of the fourth quarter because of foul trouble. And the less mobile Wayne Embry is not one who comes out of the pivot to help the others on defense.

"That was one of the key things," said 76er coach Alex Hannum. "When Russell went out and Embry came in to guard Chamberlain, we decided to play completely away from Wilt. At this stage, Hal was able to get those key baskets.

"Greer was having a bad night. He was fighting himself. But he came back and had the courage to keep shooting. It was a tremendously courageous performance on the part of all our guys."

Especially Chamberlain who played in extreme pain after straining a hamstring muscle in his calf on the opening tap-off. After sitting down briefly in the first quarter, Wilt returned to rack up 23 points and 25 rebounds. He also blocked seven shots.

While Greer and Chamberlain were the key factors in the 76er win, there were several others, namely Chet Walker (23 points), Wally Jones (20) and reliable reserve John Green.

Green, again coming off the bench to light fires under the 76ers, hustled in way to 17 points and 13 rebounds, in another hrilling exhibition of hustle and determination.

"Thank God for Johnny Green," Hannum declared.

Celtic coach Bill Russell surprisingly jovial afterward, refused to speculate on the rest of the series. "We're going to have to find Ponce de Leon and get our old guys going again," he joshed. Then turning serious, he added: I never look ahead. I won't think about the next game until tomorrow."

Russell said his team made some critical mistakes, but he would not elaborate. "I never criticize my players to the press," he said.

The Celtics led 27-26 after the first quarter, stretched the lead to 46-37 midway through the second session, then with John Havlicek scoring 11 points in the period, held a 60-56 edge at intermission.

Philadelphia stormed back with eight straight points early in the third stanza to regain the advantage. With Wally Jones setting the pace, the lead reached 79-69 before Larry Siegried got hot to help Boston close the gap to 89-85 at the buzzer.

In the fourth quarter, it was all Greer.

[bastillon]

I'd like to make a case for Paul Pressey again. stepped into a team already good but made them great after he replaced Marques Johnson as a starter. 85-89 Pressey put up 14.1 ppg on 56.3% TS with 5.0 rpg 7.1 apg 2.9 tov 1.8 stl 0.7 blk. at the same time he played phenomenal defense making 2 all-defensive 1st (when he played full seasons) and 1 all-defensive 2nd. his team was great during that period, averaging 5 SRS in 85-89. he did all of this while making significant impact as evidenced by his high in/out.

total Pressey 87-89
out 106.2 / 109.2 (49g)
in 109.0 / 104.9 (197g)

that's +2.8 on offense, -4.3 defense
total +7.1 to 3.1

Bucks were on pace to win 30 games without him, 50 games with him.

let's sum it up:
-replaced Marques as a starter and Bucks improved by 2.7 SRS
-Moncrief's impact was overrated according to Elgee's data. Bucks weren't hurt that much by his absence.
-Pressey made enormous impact, it was consistent and apparent. 50 wins instead of 30 wins.
-his boxscore stats are quite good, 14/7/5/2/1 with really good efficiency (112 ORtg, 56% TS).
-recognition on all-defensive teams when healthy
-during his prime years his team averaged 5 SRS almost beating one of GOAT teams in 87 (Celtics were still healthy at that point) and generally losing to stacked teams: Bird's Celtics (84, 86, 87), Moses-Dr J Sixers (85) and Bad Boys (89).

he was the foundation of one of the best teams of the 80s and when he became a 24 mpg player in 90, Bucks SRS fell off a cliff to -1.1 (from 4.1 !!!). he's very much comparable to Scottie Pippen. worse, because he wasn't as good as a scorer and rebounder, but similar in a lot of ways. Pippen put up 20-22 pts instead of 14-16 and grabbed 8 rebounds instead of 5, but that's still elite. Pippen is a top20 player of all time after all and Pressey as his lite version should absolutely get in at this point.

he gets dismissed because he wasn't a great scorer, but with this kind of versatility you have to at least take him into consideration. Bucks were that good for a reason after Moncrief's decline. if Moncrief was voted long ago, there's absolutely no reason to hold off Pressey any longer.

[bastillon]

Hawkins being voted in is one of the worst calls IMO. I remember reading about his defense once and to put it mildly he wasn't good at it. there are much more deserving players than two years of Amare Stoudemire. freakin Zelmo Beaty put up 22/15 on huge efficiency in the early ABA so give me a break. Hawk was a poor defender, had a short peak, his team impact was apparently weak and that ABA wasn't even close to NBA yet.

edit: oh and WS argument from Doc MJ is pretty disappointing... next thing you know you'll start using HCA

that I'm pretty hesitant to label Hawkins a "numbers guy who doesn't really help the team".

great... but how valuable can you be when you're improving a team all the way to -1.5 SRS ? and you didn't really respond to Elgee's numbers.

[lorak]

Hawkins being voted in is one of the worst calls IMO. I remember reading about his defense once and to put it mildly he wasn't good at it.

I read completely different things about his defense.
Anyway, here are some quotes about Connie:

The Hawk gave our league instant credibility and brought us a lot of attention. For years, everyone had heard how great the guy was, but very, very few people saw him play. Well, the ABA became his first stage. And the thins was that because Pittsburgh had a lot of talent, Connie just cruised during much of the regular season. He was maybe three levels above everyone else, so he could take it easy and still get his 25-30 points and 10-12 rebounds every night. He was good people. He just wanted to play ball and to get along with the other guys. He was doing things with the basketball, with those huge hands of his, that people had never seen before. Just about all the stuff Julius Erving did palming the ball, Connie did first. So that first year, I don’t think The Hawk ever let himself go until playoffs; then he showed that he really knew how to carry the load of a team on his back.

One night, Pittsburgh coach Vince Cazzetta was sick and he asked Connie to coach the team. I was coaching Denver and I was very interested to see what Connie would do. Well, he took it very seriously, probably too seriously. He concentrated so much on coaching that he hardly played himself (…) W won both games and I told my players: “Let’s be thankful that The Hawk felt more like coaching than playing”.

Connie deserved a lot of the credit for making us into a team. Let’s face it, he was a tremendous, overwhelming talent. He could decided he was going to average 50 points a game and been able to do it. But he loved and understood team basketball. He would get on Chico Vaughn and myself not to shoot so much from the outside. But he wouldn’t say, “Get me the ball.” He’d say, “Let’s move the ball around. Let everyone touch it.”
(…)
No matter what Mikan or anyone wanted, Connie knew how the game was supposed to be played and he talked a lot about passing and defense. He was true student of the game. He’d say to me, “Hey Charlie, watch me close tonight. See if you can find something to make me better.” When a guy of Connie’s ability says that to you, it makes you look at your game in the mirror, too. He really was a leader, and by the end of the year, guys got the message.

(…)
In the finals, we had to play New Orleans. Those guys were hood – with Doug Moe, Larry Brown and Jimmy Jones – and they got up 3-2 on us, with the chance to win the title in Game 6 in New Orleans. (…) Connie took over the game. He just wouldn’t let us lose (…) Connie had 41 points, and we won 118-112. He did it against Doug Moe, who was the best defensive forward in the league.

(In game 7 Hawkins had 20 points, 16 rebounds and 9 assists)

Connie Hawkins was our first true star, in the sense that he was a great player whose style attracted a lot of attention, yet he also played an all-around game. The guy who didn’t know basketball that well could look at Connie for 15 minutes and know that Connie was great. Then a guy who was a basketball person could watch Connie and see the subtle things – his passing, how he blocked shots and rebounded and knew how to help out his teammates on defense. I am convinced that the Connie Hawkins led Pittsburgh to that first title could play in the NBA and be on the same level as Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan are today. The Connie Hawkins that eventually got into the NBA was nearly 30, he had a couple of knee problems – it wasn’t the same guy.

[fatal9]

Post on Price a while back:

viewtopic.php?p=28883557#p28883557

The numbers and all that stuff are nice but as a PG it's his skill-set I like most. One of the best pick and roll players ever, very dynamic off the dribble, could create his own shot with ease, a much better passer/playmaker than his assists suggest (due to team he played on as well as decreased minutes after knee injury), historic shooting ability...an upper middle class man's Nash (lol), right down to the defense part. Based on how good he was in his prime, I don't think it's ridiculous to say he was as good or better than some PGs listed in the top 40 (would make all-NBA teams over them in some years). Durability though of course is the big issue with him. Everything from watching him to his skill-set to some of the numbers suggest he was top 5-7 offensive PG in his prime to me.

[ronnymac2]

What are thoughts on Calvin Murphy?

I'm not sure how well Houston's offense ranked prior to 1974. However, in 1974 Murphy finally began getting big minutes on the Rockets. Houston was third in offensive rating.

1974- 3rd (Tomjanovich is probably the team's best offensive player)
1975- 1st (Rudy and Calvin co-anchor)
1976- 1st (Definitely Murphy's team on offense this year)
1977- 1st (Moses joins the team, a bit more balanced, result stays nearly the same)
1978- 6th (Murphy's biggest scoring season at 25 ppg as team's other 3 leading scorers miss over 100 games combined)

1979- 1st (Moses has an MVP-type year with Calvin as his number two)
1980- 4th (Same deal as 1979)
1981- 9th (Murphy's minutes take a big hit, from 35 to 26 this year. Murphy never plays big minutes again).

Murphy was an efficient guard. He could be 18/5, 25/3, or 20/7, depending on the supporting cast. One of the greatest free throw shooters ever. He had fantastic health and durability during his prime years, rarely missing games.

He seemed to be able to anchor, co-anchor, or play clear second option to different players and still remain effective and lead successful offenses.

He had four good playoff years as well, though no explosions.

I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of getting him in the top-100, but I'd like to learn more about him and his style of play. Is he top-100 material?

[ElGee]

LG, Not saying that Hawkins is in my top 5 for his 1st NBA year either (he's in my 10 behind some guys who were all voted in long ago), just saying I think that the evidence is certainly muddy enough that I'm pretty hesitant to label Hawkins a "numbers guy who doesn't really help the team".

I agree he's not "a numbers guy who doesn't really help the team." The issue, I thought, was whether this was an all-star peak (agree) or a high all-nba/MVP-level peak. Based on limited film and my research I lean heavily toward the former.

Now, again, if we want to give him more credit pre injury, or even pre-ABA, I'm not against that. I just don't feel comfortable doing it based on what I know (ignorance is a bit of an issue here).

[fatal9]

What are thoughts on Calvin Murphy?

I don't know where he ranks, haven't seen enough of him but he put up one of the best game 7 performances I've seen against Spurs in the '81 WCF. Reminded me a lot of Isiah scoring wise based on what I've seen. Have no clue what his PG skills were like though.

[penbeast0]

Calvin Murphy . . . Think minature Jason Terry in terms of PG skills, really a 2 guard in a PG body though he worked hard to make himself solid there. Superquick, very few guys could stay with him and he didn't need much room to get off his shot with a very quick release. Defensive liability at 5-11 in the era of big guards and no 3 point line . . . I'd have loved to see him play today.