RealGM Top 100 List #67

[trex_8063]

With regard to specifically comparing the two on D a lot would stand on what Cousy's D was like, and as I've noted I'm not sure the sources are there on that (my guesstimate would be - based on what I think others believe - higher than most, but as high as you seem to be suggesting, but honestly I don't know). With the fog acknowledged, I don't think Sharman being better than Cousy on D is an if. At all. Just about everything on Sharman mentions his D, that just isn't the case with Cousy. And size matchups (which I noted, and I accept) cuts both ways. They both get shorter in time machine matchups relative to the actual competition they faced.

But it cuts Sharman (the SG) somewhat more. We'll call both players 6'2" by modern listing (in shoes). Here are the average heights of both positions in '52 and '61 (to get a little picture near both the start and toward the end of their careers):

'52: PG--> 6'0.55" SG---> 6'1.4" (let's call that 6'1.55" and 6'2.4" by modern listings, accounting for shoes)
'61: PG--> 6'1.64" SG--> 6'3.32" (6'2.64" and 6'4.32").

Today the avg PG (last I checked) is just a little over 6'2.5". The avg SG is nearly 6'6".
So the average PG height has increased by ~2" since the start of Cousy's career, though actually not gone up at all since the final years of his career.

The avg SG height has gone up by about 3.5" since the start of Sharman's career, and up nearly 1.5" since his final season.

I would take issue with the conditioning thing though, I don't think that is contestable except in time machine terms.

I mostly base that on eye-test and reputation. Miller had the rep of one of the best conditioned players in the league, iirc. And frankly that seems apparent on the eye-test, with Miller in constant motion on offense, and yet always appearing fresh in the 4th quarter. tbh, not sure if that isn't part of why he has such a reputation as a clutch late-game player: because his defender is completely worn down by that point.
And speaking from experience, it's hard to hit those longer shots with any consistency when you're tanked. So the fact that he was able to do so late in games indicates to me that he was not fatigued.
So with that basis for my comment, it's simply difficult for me to imagine someone being significantly better conditioned than Miller. Guys like Hondo, Iverson, Ray Allen, and Rip Hamilton do come to mind as competitors, though (especially Hondo, who I think was potentially the best-conditioned NBA player ever).

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Point Guards: Nate Archibald, Deron Williams, Mark Price

I'm not impressed with Tim Hardaway's stats. How good of a defender was he though? If he's anything like prime Baron Davis defensively, I'll consider him, too. But if not, it's over for him...over. :

Notice that Hardaway misses the 1993-94 season with a major knee injury. Hardaway will never regain full speed. He may look somewhat fast in Miami but he was considerably faster in his early years in Golden State. Notice that the 2 point percentage drops from 49% to 45% pre injury to post injury and then drops some more when he gets old.

I missed "Run TMC". I arrived in Warriors land for a very nice 55 win Warriors season when Gatling was a Rookie and Mitch Richmond had been traded for Billy Owens and Surunas Marciulionus had a very good season replacing Mitch Richmond just before Surunas would have a career ending injury.

Hardaway could and often would take away the opposing point guard's dribble. Hardaway was a very good defender for the Warriors when he wanted to be. Hardaway's defensive effort may have been inconsistent.

Even more subjective than Time Machine, I wonder about the the Hardaway and Warriors that could have been if Hardaway And everybody else on the Warriors did not get injured, and if instead of getting the draft rights to Owens the Warriors got the pick that became Owens and selected Dikembe, and If Nelson had realized he was not some Zen Master like Red Auerbach that could play mind games with his players and if Nelson realized that screaming at players was not a good move with a young generation obsessed with not being disrespected, and if Ellie and Askew re-signed with the Warriors.

If all those things had happened and Hardaway kept getting better with the missing Center in place in Dikembe the Warriors might have won the Championship in 1994 or 1995.

[penbeast0]

Timmy wasn't Baron Davis or anything close. He was small and didn't have the strength of a Baron Davis, he could be posted easily. But he was an aggressive and generally willing defender, he could create turnovers well, sometimes got burned gambling for steals but never faulted his effort on that end . . . clearly better than Price defensively among his contemporaries.

[Clyde Frazier]

I will say this about tim hardaway: pre injury he was about as good as isiah and paul at getting to any spot he wanted on the floor. Too bad we don't have a shot chart for him in the paint in his GSW days. He was a great finisher as well.

[Doctor MJ]

PG: Never been sold on Cousy but you have to consider him here. Nate Archibald and Penny Hardaway are the main short peak guys (anyone willing to argue Stephen Curry? ). Tim Hardaway and Mark Price are the best long peak guys left.

I've been pondering Curry lately actually. I don't think I'll vote for him in the Top 100, but if this season holds up for him, I expect he will be in my Top 100 after the season is over. For this project, to me he's a guy with 2 relevant seasons, both times making it in the top 5. As of right now though, he'd add a #1 season on top of that, and to me that's clearly Top 100 worthy.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Nate Thurmond

Seems like it's really time for him. As I said before when talking about him vs Mutombo: I hold it against him to a degree that his offense was a negative, but part of that was due to pre-historic coaching strategy. Dude was a legendary defender for a long time, that's no small thing.

[ceiling raiser]

Not a huge fan of strategic voting, but since it seems Nate could get some support, I'll vote for him as well (viewtopic.php?p=41219896#p41219896 & viewtopic.php?p=41290348#p41290348 contain reasoning). He still has clear offensive flaws, but I think if asked to play a smaller role on that end, he wouldn't complain (seems there was a smooth transition into his late career).

I know some feel pretty highly about Big Ben's and Rodman's D in comparison, willing to switch my vote depending on the cases presented.

Vote - Nate Thurmond

[Owly]

With regard to specifically comparing the two on D a lot would stand on what Cousy's D was like, and as I've noted I'm not sure the sources are there on that (my guesstimate would be - based on what I think others believe - higher than most, but as high as you seem to be suggesting, but honestly I don't know). With the fog acknowledged, I don't think Sharman being better than Cousy on D is an if. At all. Just about everything on Sharman mentions his D, that just isn't the case with Cousy. And size matchups (which I noted, and I accept) cuts both ways. They both get shorter in time machine matchups relative to the actual competition they faced.

But it cuts Sharman (the SG) somewhat more. We'll call both players 6'2" by modern listing (in shoes). Here are the average heights of both positions in '52 and '61 (to get a little picture near both the start and toward the end of their careers):

'52: PG--> 6'0.55" SG---> 6'1.4" (let's call that 6'1.55" and 6'2.4" by modern listings, accounting for shoes)
'61: PG--> 6'1.64" SG--> 6'3.32" (6'2.64" and 6'4.32").

Today the avg PG (last I checked) is just a little over 6'2.5". The avg SG is nearly 6'6".
So the average PG height has increased by ~2" since the start of Cousy's career, though actually not gone up at all since the final years of his career.

The avg SG height has gone up by about 3.5" since the start of Sharman's career, and up nearly 1.5" since his final season.

I would take issue with the conditioning thing though, I don't think that is contestable except in time machine terms.

I mostly base that on eye-test and reputation. Miller had the rep of one of the best conditioned players in the league, iirc. And frankly that seems apparent on the eye-test, with Miller in constant motion on offense, and yet always appearing fresh in the 4th quarter. tbh, not sure if that isn't part of why he has such a reputation as a clutch late-game player: because his defender is completely worn down by that point.
And speaking from experience, it's hard to hit those longer shots with any consistency when you're tanked. So the fact that he was able to do so late in games indicates to me that he was not fatigued.
So with that basis for my comment, it's simply difficult for me to imagine someone being significantly better conditioned than Miller. Guys like Hondo, Iverson, Ray Allen, and Rip Hamilton do come to mind as competitors, though (especially Hondo, who I think was potentially the best-conditioned NBA player ever).

We're digressing somewhat here but I'll give my thoughts. SG's do seem to have grown a little more but the largest chunk was in Sharman's playing career, and there isn't the evidence there that it affected him negatively, whereas Cousy does slip over his career (now you can argue that that wasn't the cause, that rule changes, aging had more to do with it. But unless you buy into a DWS increase simply coinciding with Russell's arrival (but with no causal relationship, and thus a Cousy WS improvement is legit), Cousy seems to get worse after the mid 50s. The other caveat would be a Celtic system change (emphasising D, sacraficing offensive efficiency) but that would affect Sharman just as much.

On Miller maybe people just weren't talking about motor, but the reviews from the time tend to be that he shoots well and that he runs the routes smartly but not that he was working exceptionally long or exceptionally hard (perhaps the perception was that he was only going as far as his man, only he didn't go around or into Dale Davis, Antonio Davis or LaSalle Thompson). I don't know, maybe it's that Sharman carried his intensity over to the other end consistently (or the lower standard of his competitors which made Sharman seem exceptional) but his conditioning is consistently noted, and Millers' from what I've seen, isn't. Obviously eye test wise the dashing around screens is impressive, I don't know what to think.


The impression (from reading) on Tim Hardaway's D (in his prime) is roughly average (varying a little year to year, peaking in '91, '92). Good steals output though a little gamble prone, pretty good on ball (varying somewhat year to year), capacity to guard the full 96 and hound his man but not always applied, didn't always contest shots, sometimes lost his man off the ball (again this one isn't a consistent critisicm, but something that was mentioned a couple of times).

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #67 - Bernard King

- 14 year career
- 4x all NBA (2 1st, 1 2nd, 1 3rd)
- 1 top 3 and 1 top 10 MVP finish
- 1x scoring champ

At his peak, king was one of the most dynamic scorers the league had seen. He was more methodical than flashy, but he knew what he was good at and kept going to it. His turnaround jumper was so lethal that he didn't even have to look at the hoop when releasing the shot. It was all in 1 quick motion where the defender really had no chance to block it. He was also very bull-like in the open court. Not a high leaper, but extremely powerful with long strides getting to the rim.

From 79-85 he put up the following:

REGULAR SEASON
23.6 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 3.2 APG, 1.1 SPG, .3 BPG, 55.1% FG, 70.1% FT, 58.7% TS, .153 WS/48, 111/106 OFF/DEF RTG

PLAYOFFS (20 GAMES)
30.5 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 2.8 APG, 1 SPG, .3 BPG, 56.8% FG, 72% FT, 60.9% TS, .213 WS/48, 122/112 OFF/DEF RTG

His prime was obviously cut short by injuries, but he still put together 11 seasons of solid production when it was all said and done. When he tore his ACL, his career was largely thought to be over given the era he played in. He went on to make an improbable comeback which culminated with him getting back to All NBA status in 90-91 with the bullets. I've alluded to this with other players in the project, but the amount of determination it takes to come back from major injuries and still perform at a high level is really impressive.

[As an aside, the Knicks stupidly released him because he wanted to do his rehab on his own instead of at the knicks training facility. Always would've loved to see even a lesser version of King get to play with Ewing. Could've been a great match.]

He was probably best known for his 1st round game 5 clincher against the pistons in 84:

In a critical and decisive Game 5, Bernard King was his usual unstoppable self putting up 40 points as the Knicks held a double-digit lead with under two minutes remaining in the fourth quarter. Then Thomas decided to take things into his own hands by putting on a performance of epic proportions, tallying 16 points within the game’s final 94 seconds, to force overtime. King and Thomas exchanged offensive blows like a heavyweight title fight, with King getting the final blow by jamming an offensive put-back in the games final moments, giving him a game high 46 points and the Knicks a 3-2 series win. King showed a national audience that he would become one of the game’s most prolific scoring machines before injuries robbed him of his explosiveness. Game 5 was also arguably the moment that put a young “Zeke” on par with the NBA’s elite.

http://www.theshadowleague.com/articles ... iah-thomas

Notice the splints on both of King's hands...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOLi-9ENtTM[/youtube]

The Knicks would go on to lose to the eventual NBA champion celtics in 7 games, as he played through injuries and still averaged 29.1 PPG on 59.7% TS in the series. The guy was just relentless.

"The key was his preparation," said former Knicks coach and ESPN analyst Hubie Brown.

Part of that preparation included practicing thousands of shots from what King called his "sweet spots." In the half court, he identified three points along the baseline out to the sideline, then extended an imaginary line from a halfway point up the lane to the sideline with three more, then three more extended from the foul line to the sideline. He did the same on the other side of the lane.

Within the lane he identified four spots from the rim to the top of the key. These 22 spots, all within 18 feet of the basket, created a matrix of areas from which he felt supremely confident he could score. If a team tried to deny him the ball on offense, he would move from one sweet spot to another.

"He had the ability to see what all five positions were doing. That's how he could handle double- and triple-teams, because he knew where everyone would be," Brown said. "He knew how to create space for the high-percentage shot or find the guy who was open."

http://espn.go.com/nba/halloffame13/sto ... king-ahead

I try not to play the "what if?" game too much in this project. I'd at least point out that King didn't have a ton of talent around him in his prime, though. King had super john williamson in NJ, notorious ball hog world b free and sometimes unmotivated joe barry carroll in GSW, bill cartwright in NY, and... not much else.

The warriors did go 45-37 in 82, just missing the playoffs by 1 game, and ranked 11th (of 23) in SRS that season. So we missed out on seeing what they could do in the playoffs. He did play with moses and jeff malone, but it was post ACL tear in 88. They took the #2 SRS ranked pistons to 5 games in the first round that year.

With the talent he had around him, I don't think king really underachieved in the playoffs, or getting there as much as he did, for that matter.

[SactoKingsFan]

I'd also like to see Thurmond get voted in soon. Really don't think there should be a huge gap between Hayes/Lanier and Thurmond. Although Thurmond's offensive deficiencies are a significant issue, we're still talking about an all time great defensive anchor and arguably the GOAT post man defender with good longevity. IMO, that makes Thurmond a legit top 50-60 candidate.


Vote: Nate Thurmond

[SactoKingsFan]

Anyone else looking at Tony Parker as a potential candidate? He's on my short list of top remaining PGs. Not sure when I'll end up voting for Parker, but it will definitely be before Penny and Curry due to Parker's more valuable prime and greater longevity/durability.

[Clyde Frazier]

I'd have to do some more research, but prime thurmond's efficiency drops even further in the playoffs (around 45% TS), and it would seem his overall impact lessened a fair amount as well. Anyone want to comment on that?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I still think Bernard King is the best remaining player.

[Clyde Frazier]

I still think Bernard King is the best remaining player.

Get your vote in for him officially.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

My Vote: Bernard King

Sorry but project rules say that you MUST have reasoning or your vote doesn't count (even if you had reasoning in other threads, you must give a reference to it so people can know why you are voting this way. If you add a post defending King v. the other main candidates, your vote will still count. -- penbeast0

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I just put a link to 3 minutes of 1957 Hawks vs Celtics in the game footage thread.

Cousy gets plenty of time showing his game in the 3 minutes. Sharman is on the court but you don't get to see him do anything.

I am looking for some good Sharman video. I want to understand how you get called one of the greatest shooters, get compared to Steve Kerr in this thread, and get into the Hall of Fame, when you shoot 42%.

Sharman plays from age 24 in 1950 to age 34 in 1961. He only shoot better than 43.8% 2 years, 1953-54 and 1959-60. Those years were 45.0% and 45.6%.

Sharman's highest scoring year he scores 22 points per game while shooting 42.4% which. Sharman averages 5 free throw attempts per game.

[trex_8063]

We're digressing somewhat here but I'll give my thoughts. SG's do seem to have grown a little more but the largest chunk was in Sharman's playing career, and there isn't the evidence there that it affected him negatively,....

Just saying.....Sharman is facing a larger change in size at his position. I gotta think that as the height difference gets bigger and bigger that we'll hit a tipping point. A 2" deficit might be manageable (perhaps why no big drop-off seen). But as we near a 4" height differential, and the associated change in reach (difference in height of reach might be more like 5") and weight/size (likely 20-25 lbs difference).....idk; he's beginning to not just be a little small for the position, he'd be downright shrimpy.

whereas Cousy does slip over his career (now you can argue that that wasn't the cause, that rule changes, aging had more to do with it. But unless you buy into a DWS increase simply coinciding with Russell's arrival (but with no causal relationship, and thus a Cousy WS improvement is legit), Cousy seems to get worse after the mid 50s. The other caveat would be a Celtic system change (emphasising D, sacraficing offensive efficiency) but that would affect Sharman just as much.

I think it's possible (even probable) that changes seen in Cousy's DWS may be partly related to change in team philosophy/strategic emphasis upon Russell's arrival, but I suspect probably part of it is a casual relationship associated with Russell's presence. As to his decline in OWS, I absolutely do believe some of that is directly related to pace-focused play and the conscious team philosophy of sacrificing efficiency in favor of more shot attempts.

As to why we don't see this with Sharman.....well, I kinda think we do, no? His DWS also takes a jump to levels not seen previously immediately upon Russell's arrival. As for his OWS, well, below is his OWS/48 by year for all years we have minutes data:

'52: .104
'53: .173
'54: .183
'55: .131
'56: .128
'57: .140
'58: .126
'59: .091
'60: .135 (reduced minutes role)
'61: .084

So same basic trend: DWS rate up, OWS rate down. His OWS suffer marginally less than Cousy, though I suspect some of that can be attributed to role. Sharman wasn't the guy with the ball in his hands a lot, the guy forcing the difficult shots when---God forbid!---a whole 11 seconds had ticked off the shot-clock and he still hadn't found a teammate for a better shot.


Read on, Gents, for a soapbox rants follows


Though no one has said it outright (I don't think), the implication I'm inferring from posts is that many here believe Sharman was better and/or more important to the Celtic offense than Cousy. This drives me to voice a concern that's been building for some time:
I'm beginning to feel corners of this forum are getting bit too shooting efficiency-centric. Related to that, WS or WS/48 (which LOVE shooting efficiency like I love my wife---which is to say: a lot) is being pushed as the most accurately descriptive advanced stat by far over PER or any other metrics (except for RAPM where available, for the impact stat devotees).
And I don't think it always paints an accurate picture. As a few "for instances" from more recent times:

Lakers '08 thru '10:
Pau Gasol had a better WS/48 and OWS than Kobe in each of those years, and on pretty significant volume, too (for that matter, Andrew Bynum bested Kobe on one or two occasions, as well). But is anyone here willing to claim Pau (or Bynum) was offensively better or more important to that Laker offense than Kobe? Because such would sound ridiculous to me, as it seems very plain [to me] that the triangle offense ran off of Kobe (much in the same way it ran off of Jordan in Chicago). And fwiw, ORAPM very clearly supports my opinion that Kobe was the most important offensive character on those teams (Bynum being no where even close; was actually an offensive negative, despite what WS say).

But perhaps Kobe is too different of a player type to Cousy. Then how about Jason Kidd? Note the similarities: both had mediocre or poor shooting efficiency (well, Cousy really not early in his career; is only in his late years), though still had some high-ish shooting volumes; both were considered the offensive catalysts for their teams despite their offensive advanced metrics sometimes looking sub-stellar; both were facilitators on teams better known for their defense; both were fantastic transition passers/facilitators. On that note....

'02 Nets:
Jason Kidd's OWS/48 was .049. Kerry Kittles' was .070. Lucius Harris and Todd MacCulloch (in a reduced minute roles) had OWS/48 of .093 and .099, respectively. Now does anyone actually believe any of these guys was a better offensive player, or rather, was more important to their offense than Kidd in '02? Kidd's shooting efficiency was terrible (ts -3.6% to league average, while taking more FGA/g than anyone else on the team), and OWS or OWS/48 would have us reject outright the notion that Kidd was most important offensive player on that team; WS/48 might even have us question who was the best player overall on that team.
But contemporary popular opinion at the time placed Kidd as far and away the best player on the team; eye-test today would do the same. PI ORAPM.....has to be terrible, right? No way it could be good while shooting so poorly, right?.........Actually, tied for 4th in the league that year (5th in league in combined RAPM).

'03 Nets:
Kerry Kittles' OWS/48: .103
Richard Jefferson OWS/48: .090
Jason Kidd OWS/48: .088
His shooting is much better (actually marginally ahead of league avg ts this year); he again led the team in FGA/g. Here again OWS would call into question who was the best/most important offensive player on their team (Jefferson playing just 1.4 mpg fewer than Kidd, too). But again, at the time (and eye-test today likely to say the same) there was no question who was driving that bus. PI ORAPM? Again tied for 4th-best in league (and well ahead of anyone else on his team: Jefferson was actually a slight negative); also once again 5th in league in combined RAPM.

'04 Nets:
Kidd's shooting was back to putrid (ts -3.1% to league avg), though he still once again leads team in FGA/g.
Jason Kidd OWS/48: .055
Richard Jefferson OWS/48: .100 (and in marginally more mpg, too)
Kittles very close at .052, as well.
Again, just not quite consistent with perception.
PI ORAPM? Kidd is tied for 10th in the league, well ahead of anyone else on his team, and ahead of some efficient scorers such as Ray Allen, fwiw.


I bring this up to emphasize that shooting efficiency (and related OWS) isn't the only yard-stick, and for some guys it appears the advanced metrics REALLY give a false impression.

General consensus seems to be that Sharman was a better defender than Cousy. And that's not a new impression; from what I've read that's consistent with in-era peer accounts, as well as media accounts of the time. So if Sharman was an equal (or better) offensive player as well, why is it that Cousy was consistently---by both media AND professional peers---considered to be the better player? Media voted on the All-NBA teams, and bestowed Cousy more highly and/or frequently than Sharman (despite the fact that he frequently scored more ppg than Cousy, and fans/media---especially then---seemed to attach a lot of value to points). Their professional peers---the players---voted for the MVP....and they consistently thought more highly of Cousy than Sharman.

People seemed to recognize Sharman as the more scrappy defender, AND he was often scoring more ppg (and on better shooting%, too).....yet no one seemed to think Sharman was the better or more important player. Are we to believe this is ALL just because Cousy was getting "style points" (for the better part of a decade)? Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

I think this is one of those cases where WS is not at all painting an accurate picture of what was going on. And unfortunately so little game footage from the 50's is publicly available to apply the eye-test too. Though even in watching Celtic games from '62 (just after Sharman is gone), it still appears that the offense flows thru Bob Cousy, even though he's past his prime by this point.

So....a word of caution on taking WS/48 (and the shooting efficiency it has such a casual relationship with) at face-value, yeah?

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Nate Thurmond

Perhaps the best defensive player left with decent longevity and enough great playoff moments (especially considering competition) to trust him against pretty much anybody in an era. Fine passer, dominant rebounder. Easy to see how he amassed the first official quad-double.

[Moonbeam]

Absolutely awesome discussion on Cousy, Sharman, and Sam Jones, who will get my vote again.

Vote: Sam Jones

I concede trex's point about OWS. I use win shares as part of my evaluation, and Win Shares do favor Sharman and Jones over Cousy, particularly in the playoffs (which is why Jones gets my vote over Cousy, fwiw). I think Win Shares are brilliant at a team level - they are supremely correlated with ORating and DRating, and as such I think they do a good job of assigning a total number of OWS and DWS to a team. How those Win Shares are allocated to individual players may be up for debate, and that is something I looked at in this post for 80s SFs.

Looking at Cousy, Sharman, and Jones, we do see this to some extent with Sharman: his presence on the court was associated with his teammates having a weighted average decrease of 0.76 OWS - not a severe drop, but a drop nonetheless. With Sam Jones, the same thing happens, though not to quite the same extent: his teammates had a weighted average decrease of 0.34 OWS. The problem when it comes to Cousy is that his presence also was associated with a weighted average decrease of 0.36 OWS. The other guys trex raised as a comparison see a different story - Kidd's teammates saw a weighted average increase of 1.13 OWS. With Kobe, it's an increase of 2.09 OWS (the biggest overachievements being 2001, 2002 and 2008).

So why does this bump not apply to Cousy? It's hard to say - by this method, his teammates did "overachieve" early on from 1952-54, then hovered around expectations until falling well short in 1959, massively short in 1961, and a fair bit above in 1962. Whatever the cause, any additional benefit his offensive presence may have provided isn't being picked up in the same way it is with Kidd and Kobe.

Nevertheless, I have Cousy well ahead of Sharman on my list (though Sharman will likely get my support before we hit #80). I just can't overlook what I perceive to be a big disparity in playoff performance - as mentioned before, I think Jones' efficient scoring was an important contributor to several close series that Boston won:

1962: Team leading 28 points in 2-point victory over Philadelphia in Game 7 (Heinsohn with 25, Cousy with 21)
1962: 27 points in 3-point overtime victory over the Lakers in Game 7 (Russell had 30)
1963: Team leading 47 points in 11-point victory over Cincinnati in Game 7 (Smith next with 19)
1965: Team leading 37 points in 1-point victory over Philadelphia in Game 7 (Havlicek next with 26)
1966: Team leading 34 points in 9-point victory over Cincinnati in closeout Game 5 (Havlicek next with 23)
1966: 22 points in 2-point grind-it-out victory over Lakers in Game 7 (Russell had 25, everyone else shot very poorly)
1968: Team leading 22 points in 4-point victory over Philadelphia in Game 7 (balanced scoring with Havlicek next with 21, Siegfried with 18 and Howell with 17)
1969: 24 points in 2-point victory over Lakers in Game 7 in his very last game (Havlicek led the way with 26 and Em Bryant chipped in 20)

Cousy, on the other hand, saw his efficiency fall off big time from its already poor starting point in nearly all of Boston's championship runs:

1957: .452 RS, .409 PS
1959: .454 RS, .408 PS
1960: .439 RS, .350 PS
1961: .436 RS, .450 PS
1962: .443 RS, .408 PS
1963: .448 RS, .407 PS

You expect a bit of deflation due to tougher opponents, but those are big drops on average.

Compare that to Sam Jones:

1959: .482 RS, .451 PS
1960: .500 RS, .424 PS
1961: .493 RS, .514 PS
1962: .507 RS, .475 PS
1963: .518 RS, .543 PS
1964: .491 RS, .553 PS
1965: .505 RS, .518 PS
1966: .521 RS, .524 PS
1968: .513 RS, .483 PS
1969: .481 RS, .464 PS

There are a couple poor showings there toward the beginning (where he averaged less than 18 MPG) and the end, but from around 1961-1966 you get some really solid production (22.7 PPG) on very good efficiency.

This doesn't mean that Cousy didn't contribute in other ways - he did. His assists jumped by about 1 per 36. However, it's hard for me not to think that Jones wasn't just a better playoff performer on the offensive end, and furthermore, I think the peak of his contributions came in an era that was more difficult than when Cousy seems to have been at his peak.

Cousy's coming up soon for me (after Sam Jones and Nate Thurmond, he's currently next), but I can't put him above Sam Jones quite yet.

[penbeast0]

Bob Cousy -- trex_8063

Nate Thurmond -- Doctor MJ, SactorKingsFan, ronnymac2

Bernard King -- Clyde Frazier

Sam Jones -- Moonbeam

Dennis Rodman -- penbeast0


I can see the Cousy, King, or Sam Jones votes, they were the best left at what they did (playmaker, scorer, championship sidekick), I can't see the Thurmond votes. His strengths were defense and rebounding, he was a significant offensive minus to his teams from what I can see of team results for the second half of the 60s and into the early 70s.

The trouble is that Dennis Rodman is still out there. Rodman was a clearly superior rebounder, arguably a better defender, and unlike Thurmond (whose team only won once they traded him), was a key part of 5 championship teams. I didn't like him, didn't like his antics, and thought I would be the last person championing him in this project (can't wait until I have to write a post supporting Chris Webber!), but he's arguably the most valuable piece left if you are trying to put together a championship team, not Thurmond.

VOTE DENNIS RODMAN