RealGM Top 100 List #62

[trex_8063]

Is anyone willing to switch their vote to start a run-off? I'd do so, but if I were to switch my Cousy vote to anyone, I'd switch to Arizin (who's I think already earned a run-off).

[Moonbeam]

Is anyone willing to switch their vote to start a run-off? I'd do so, but if I were to switch my Cousy vote to anyone, I'd switch to Arizin (who's I think already earned a run-off).

I'm willing to switch to Nate Thurmond, if it starts a runoff. I'm a little surprised that Sam Jones is struggling to gain any ground, but I agree that the candidates with votes are all well worth considering.

[penbeast0]

Thru post #18 (weak-sauce):

Sidney Moncrief (1) - penbeast0

Paul Arizin (2) - Quotatious, Doctor MJ

Nate Thurmond (1) - ronnymac2

Bob Cousy (1) - trex_8063

Sam Jones (1) - Moonbeam


fwiw, I'd be fine with any of these guys getting in at this point. I'd personally lean toward Cousy (obviously) or Arizin.

Not sure that fpliii didn't vote for Thurmond . . . not sure he did. To get a runoff, let's assume that's an actual vote. Clearly I have serious doubts about Thurmond and no one has answered them so I will vote Arizin although I'm not ecstatic about a 50s star who didn't seriously stand out since I feel that the production that he or Johnston or Cousy, etc. did in the 50s is more equivalent to that of Chet Walker, Walt Bellamy, or Lenny Wilkens in the 60s. I don't think the 60s were still that weak, the 50s were. Still, I vote in the runoff for Paul Arizin unless someone can answer my doubts about Thurmond's offensive impact.

[ceiling raiser]

Thru post #18 (weak-sauce):

Sidney Moncrief (1) - penbeast0

Paul Arizin (2) - Quotatious, Doctor MJ

Nate Thurmond (1) - ronnymac2

Bob Cousy (1) - trex_8063

Sam Jones (1) - Moonbeam


fwiw, I'd be fine with any of these guys getting in at this point. I'd personally lean toward Cousy (obviously) or Arizin.

Not sure that fpliii didn't vote for Thurmond . . . not sure he did. To get a runoff, let's assume that's an actual vote. Clearly I have serious doubts about Thurmond and no one has answered them so I will vote Arizin although I'm not ecstatic about a 50s star who didn't seriously stand out since I feel that the production that he or Johnston or Cousy, etc. did in the 50s is more equivalent to that of Chet Walker, Walt Bellamy, or Lenny Wilkens in the 60s. I don't think the 60s were still that weak, the 50s were. Still, I vote in the runoff for Paul Arizin unless someone can answer my doubts about Thurmond's offensive impact.

Sorry, I'll vote for Thurmond (reasoning here: viewtopic.php?p=41219896#p41219896 viewtopic.php?p=41290348#p41290348). I was considering Manu as well, but seeing as we needed to reach a run-off this makes the most sense.

Anyhow, I agree about offensive concerns, but do we have any reason to believe he wouldn't be fine taking a lesser offensive role? He seems pretty humble, and later in his career, in his last two seasons with the Warriors and in his first season with the Bulls, he reduced his shot attempts, in comparable minutes played to the years prior.

Now, his efficiency didn't improve, so my understanding is that post-prime, he was still taking a good deal of 20 foot fadeaways.

As for Arizin, I think he's very underrated, and I could see myself considering him depending on the arguments presented. Had a very nice jump shot, and I think he was potentially the best teammate Wilt had in those early years. If Arizin was born five years later, maybe those Warriors teams do more damage, due to the spacing he provided. Maybe even as he got older, if he moved with the team to SF, they could have been a more dangerous squad.

[penbeast0]

[

Spoiler:

quote="penbeast0"][quote="trex_8063"]Thru post #18 (weak-sauce):

Sidney Moncrief (1) - penbeast0

Paul Arizin (2) - Quotatious, Doctor MJ

Nate Thurmond (1) - ronnymac2

Bob Cousy (1) - trex_8063

Sam Jones (1) - Moonbeam


fwiw, I'd be fine with any of these guys getting in at this point. I'd personally lean toward Cousy (obviously) or Arizin.[/quote]

Not sure that fpliii didn't vote for Thurmond . . . not sure he did. To get a runoff, let's assume that's an actual vote. Clearly I have serious doubts about Thurmond and no one has answered them so I will vote Arizin although I'm not ecstatic about a 50s star who didn't seriously stand out since I feel that the production that he or Johnston or Cousy, etc. did in the 50s is more equivalent to that of Chet Walker, Walt Bellamy, or Lenny Wilkens in the 60s. I don't think the 60s were still that weak, the 50s were. Still, I vote in the runoff for Paul Arizin unless someone can answer my doubts about Thurmond's offensive impact.[/quote]

Sorry, I'll vote for Thurmond (reasoning here: viewtopic.php?p=41219896#p41219896 viewtopic.php?p=41290348#p41290348). I was considering Manu as well, but seeing as we needed to reach a run-off this makes the most sense.

Anyhow, I agree about offensive concerns, but do we have any reason to believe he wouldn't be fine taking a lesser offensive role? He seems pretty humble, and later in his career, in his last two seasons with the Warriors and in his first season with the Bulls, he reduced his shot attempts, in comparable minutes played to the years prior.

Now, his efficiency didn't improve, so my understanding is that post-prime, he was still taking a good deal of 20 foot fadeaways.

As for Arizin, I think he's very underrated, and I could see myself considering him depending on the arguments presented. Had a very nice jump shot, and I think he was potentially the best teammate Wilt had in those early years. If Arizin was born five years later, maybe those Warriors teams do more damage, due to the spacing he provided. Maybe even as he got older, if he moved with the team to SF, they could have been a more dangerous squad.[/quote]

If you weren't actually voting for Thurmond, feel free to change to Manu, both had only one vote and so either you support will be in the runoff. This offer is open until the next vote at which time we will go with the runoff we have. I personally rank Manu over both Thurmond and Arizin so I would be happy with this.

[ceiling raiser]

If you weren't actually voting for Thurmond, feel free to change to Manu, both had only one vote and so either you support will be in the runoff. This offer is open until the next vote at which time we will go with the runoff we have. I personally rank Manu over both Thurmond and Arizin so I would be happy with this.

Okay then, I'll switch my vote to Manu then. Terrific two way player, great skillset, underrated athleticism, very good team results when he's on the floor (RAPM backs this up).

I like Nate over Arizin, but I think I might've understated Nate's offensive weaknesses in the initial thread in which I brought him up.

Manu vs Arizin it is.

[trex_8063]

Run-off vote: delayed (see explanation).

Peak similar to Dolph Schayes (perhaps even higher), who was voted in at #45. This was true (in era) dominance. Not a terribly long prime, but not exactly his fault (military service). And while he didn't have any other years which really approached the level of dominance he displayed in '52, he did have nine other years ranging from "solid role player" (at worst) to "legit All-NBA". Three times in the top 5 in MVP voting (as high as 2nd), is 53rd all-time in MVP award shares. 37th all-time in RealGM RPoY shares.

As Quot mentioned, too, I'll give him a scant few "bonus points" for helping to popularize the jump-shot.


EDIT: OK, who exactly is in this run-off? I wrote the above with the assumption that the run-off is against Thurmond. If, otoh, the run-off is against Manu.......idk, I may end up abstaining in indecision, though I lean a little toward Manu.

[penbeast0]

I misread fpliii's post so it's Arizin v. Ginobili . . . and I vote Ginobili. His production per minute is clearly top 30 material, his defense is good, and his team success is undeniable. The minutes thing is an issue but I'd rather have 25 minutes of a difference maker than 35 minutes of "pretty good" just as I'd rather have 5 years of difference making than 10 years of pretty good (1 or 2 years is another story because you need a window to build your team usually).

[trex_8063]

On a per minute or per possession basis, I think Ginobili might be the best all-around player left on the table. Well....perhaps not for peaks---not while McAdoo (+/- Arizin and Johnston, era specific) are left out there---but at least as far as entire primes or career wholes are concerned Manu might be the best per minute player left. But again, those limited minutes do hurt him in my estimation.

As result, these two are too close for me; I don't feel strongly enough in either direction to cast a vote in this run-off, though if I have time later today I was going to do a more in-depth numbers analysis of this comparison which may tip me in one direction or the other.

If someone could provide some substantial evidence portraying Arizin as a really solid defender, that might tip me in his favor.

[Clyde Frazier]

Going to come back with a vote later... but i'll post this from a prior thread about my thoughts on ginobili:

Now for Ginobili. Hell of a player who clearly has one of the best per minute / per possession impacts on the court we’ve seen in a long time. However, when looking at him all time, this A) came in a reduced role and B) was hindered by an injury prone career. I loved a recent thread that asked about taking him for 1 playoff series, because that’s the kind of situation he’d thrive in. For his career, though, i think it takes a hit when you look at the big picture. He certainly has a case for landing between 60-70, i’m just not jumping on him yet.

[Clyde Frazier]

My vote goes to Manu Ginobili.

His production per minute justifies the spot, his accomplishments in the NBA too. I would say he is the best 6th man ever. And don't forget about his international career, he was really impressive for Argentina.

The biggest game: of course the semi finals in the olympics of 2004. 29 points vs the USA to lead Argentina to the finals, and they won it all.

While that will certainly help get him into the hall of fame, only his NBA career is considered in this project.

[SactoKingsFan]

Run-off vote: Manu Ginobili

Although Arizin's my highest ranked 50s player yet to be voted in, I have to go with Manu in the run-off.  Manu's the better all around player (very efficient scoring, defense, playmaking) has played in a much tougher era and had some great playoff runs. Would have voted for Manu earlier, but I still have Hill and Thurmond a bit ahead of him.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[ronnymac2]

Runoff Vote: Paul Arizin

Along with peak Bob McAdoo, prime Shaq, and prime Wilt, Arizin is on the list of players to lead the league in field goal percentage and scoring average in the same year. Arizin accomplished this as a jump shooter in a league lacking in offensive strategies that optimized for efficiency.

Questions about portability: In 1951, George Mikan led the league in offensive win shares at 16. Rookie Arizin was 4th at 9.2. The league then changed the rules to widen the lane in 1952, which resulted in Mikan's offense being limited (still could be argued as the best in the NBA due to defensive impact). Scoring and efficiency dipped. Arizin shot to the top of the offensive win shares scale at 14.8 (This was his McAdoo/Shaq/Wilt year), while Mikan wasn't top 5. His improvement can be seen as a natural progression for a player going from a rookie to a sophomore, but to me, this signals that his game was resistant to rule changes that 1.) made the game harder for offensive players, 2.) made the game more like it has been for the majority of NBA history.

After they changed to a 24-second shot clock, Arizin was second in the league in both field goal percentage and points per game in 1956 and ended up leading his team to a title that season. Another signal that this guy has great era portability and can simply do his thing because of his skillset. Again, very resilient to rule changes.

Because of his shooting ability, it stands to reason you could put him on a really good team with better offensive options and he'd still retain his offensive value because he could interact with strong offensive players in a positive way. Very good free throw shooter, too. (81% in REG SEA, 82.9% in playoffs).

His final 3 years, he was a 22/8 All-Star next to Wilt. This while being a part of a mockery of a basketball strategy in an attempt to make money by showcasing Wilt as a spectacle more than as a basketball player. (This was a detriment to Wilt and all of his teammates. I place the blame on the owner, front office, and coaches who wanted this, but I also understand their POV, and it ultimately grew the game by making people more aware, so I'm not sure how I feel about it all in the end).

2-time scoring champion, 2-time leader in Total Minutes Played, has a portable skillset (Both era portability AND team portability), has at least as many quality seasons as Manu, has more total career minutes (and played at least at an All-Star level each season), and is in my opinion the best offensive player of the Pre-Robertson/West/Chamberlain/Baylor era.

[Joao Saraiva]

My vote goes to Manu Ginobili.

His production per minute justifies the spot, his accomplishments in the NBA too. I would say he is the best 6th man ever. And don't forget about his international career, he was really impressive for Argentina.

The biggest game: of course the semi finals in the olympics of 2004. 29 points vs the USA to lead Argentina to the finals, and they won it all.

While that will certainly help get him into the hall of fame, only his NBA career is considered in this project.

I still think Manu justifies his spot with his production. Still it's a good reference about him and hard to ignore.

[Owly]

Read on, hopefully should be clear more toward the bottom of post (hint: regards pioneering).
I also suspect Cousy had a larger impact than his box-score metrics may have indicated (similar to say Jason Kidd). Obv I cannot prove that, though.

Well, Arizin can be credited for pioneering something as well - jump shot. Might be even more of a useful skill than Cousy's flashy ballhandling and passing.

Not that I have a problem with someone voting for Cousy, just wanted to know your reasoning.

I'd agree to some degree Arizin could be called a pioneer.....or at least he can take credit or partial credit for popularizing the jump-shot. I believe it was Kenny Sears who took the first recorded/acknowledged jump-shot, way back in 1940 (college game). And there were definitely one or two other players using the occasional jump-shot in or around Arizin's time. I'd agree no one else (at that time) incorporated it into his game as much/as effectively as Arizin. But he wasn't the only, and didn't "define the position" in the way Cousy did.

As to Marques Haynes and Bob Davies.....fair point. Haynes in particular certainly had the handles, though to be fair he never really demonstrated he could use those handles and be effective (or elite) in a truly competitive league; he stuck to barn-storming exhibition "leagues".
Davies, from the little footage I've seen, I don't see that he had Cousy's handles (or even close, really). He does seem like he was a better or more aggressive slasher, who was certainly at least Cousy's equal in getting to the line (though not quite as good at making his FT's). Beyond that.....
And not sure either one of them defined or otherwise had strong influence on how their position would be played for the next four decades.

On the jump shot, Arizin Kenny Sears/Sailors
I haven't read the book but this [ http://www.johnchristgau.com/originsoft ... pshot.html ] seems to be the place to go for the early pioneers of the jump shot. Arizin, though perhaps the second star whose jumping shot was a noted thing (Fulks being the first), whether he "pioneered" it I guess depends on what you think that term implies.

From the above source Kenny Sailors would seem to be the guy Trex is talking about. Sears is later and was in retrospect a boxscore star with crazy efficiency at his peak http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... nced::none .

On Davies/Haynes
On Davies 1) I wouldn't use footage to say what a player back then couldn't do (unless it shows them concertedly not doing it, e.g. Guy Rodgers absolutely avoiding shooting layups with his right hand).
2) The reports we have are pretty unanimous on his importance in the development of ball handling and passing for instance:

The Father of the behind-the-back dribble, Bob Davies was the original showtime guard, the NBA's first showman, and one of its early superstars.

It is generally aknowledgied that Davies originated the behind-the-back dribble, while playing his college ball at Seton Hall. [In his "interview" he credits a 1938 movie with a slow version of the move as and inspiration

In terms of how good a player he was, for what it's worth, like Cousy he has an MVP.

WRT Haynes the Globies were still reasonably competititve at that time (World Tournaments, and the early victories in the Lakers series indicating that), he was, so far as I can tell their best basketball player (Tatum might have been the bigger star). He's obviously not eligible for the project and his blackness limited his exposure and thus influence somewhat but he's a significant figure nonetheless.

I'm not looking to diminish Cousy but merely to put him in proper context of the other (preceding) pioneers.

Runoff Vote: Paul Arizin

Along with peak Bob McAdoo, prime Shaq, and prime Wilt, Arizin is on the list of players to lead the league in field goal percentage and scoring average in the same year. Arizin accomplished this as a jump shooter in a league lacking in offensive strategies that optimized for efficiency.

Add '53 Neil Johnston (and former Arizin teammate) to that list ('71 and '72 Jabbar led the league in scoring and was 2nd and 3rd in fg% whilst shooting way more often than Wilt or Matt Goukas; Bob Feerick and Alex Groza both have years 1st in fg% and 2nd in ppg).

[Clyde Frazier]

Runoff Vote - Paul Arizin

Wasn't quite ready to vote for him, but had been going back and forth between a few of the older guys (Arizin, Sharman, Cousy and Jones) lately, so I don't have a problem with him here. Really impressive production in his 56 championship run:

28.9 PPG, 8.4 RPG, 2.9 APG, 45% FG, 83.8% FT (9.9 FTAs per game), 53% TS

He had decent longevity for his era, and didn't miss any significant time throughout his career. His 10 year career was shortened by 2 years of service in the military. He was solid every year of his career, and still productive into the 60s in his last season at 33 years old. Like Schayes (voted in at #45), he had an impressive career FT rate of .463 and shot it well at 81%.

I'll be voting for ginobili soon, but provided some reasoning here as to why i'm holding off:

viewtopic.php?p=42041997#p42041997

[trex_8063]

^^^^

Yes, Kenny Sailors, not Sears; ty for the correction.

I actually wasn't aware of that about Bob Davies (the behind-the-back, I mean). Interesting.

Regarding Haynes: it wasn't merely his "blackness" that limited his exposure or otherwise hemmed him in to small-time exhibition teams. I'd read he turned down what---for the time---was a pretty sizable contract offer from the Philadelphia Warriors in 1953 to continue playing in exhibition leagues. Again, his handles do look amazing for the time period. But to me, he's unproven as far as being an integral part of a successful team in a truly competitive league.

[penbeast0]

Globies were actually pretty successful and pretty competitive in Haynes day. And I'd always heard Hank Luisetti (sic?) credited with pioneering/popularizing the jump shot at least at the college level.

[penbeast0]

Paul Arizin -- Clyde Frazier, ronnymac2, Doctor MJ, Quotatious

Manu Ginobili -- SactoKingsFan, penbeast0, fpliii, Joao Saraiva

I won't be back until after midnight tonight so hopefully we can get a tiebreaker up before then.

[Moonbeam]

Vote for Paul Arizin. Despite Ginobili likely having an edge on a per possession basis, Arizin's advantage in minutes and durability give him more value for me. This shows up in my weighted prime win shares per game metric, in which Arizin is way ahead in the regular season (25 to Ginobili's 67) and slightly ahead in the playoffs (43 to 44).