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.
Wings: Bill Sharman, Billy Cunningham, Chet Walker, Bernard King, Glen Rice, Mitch Richmond, there are a lot of scorers out there, how many are at this level, I'm not sure.
Best bigs left: My favorite is Mel Daniels with his 2 ABA MVPs and 3 rings (2 as clearly the best player) -- played like Alonzo Mourning offensively and Moses defensively. Bill Walton and Connie Hawkins for short peak guys . . . in that order for me I would guess. Neil Johnston, Amare, Issel, Spencer Haywood have offensive creds but bigs who don't play defense are problematic for me. Ben Wallace, the Worm, Wes Unseld, DeBusschere, Bobby Jones, etc., even Zelmo Beaty and Yao Ming are on my radar.
Tentatively leaning toward Bobby Jones, Billy Cunningham, or Dennis Rodman here though can be convinced of Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, or Mel Daniels as well.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Rebounding: Rebound leader in the league 7 times. Peaked at 18.7 RPG and averaged 14.9 RPG or more in those 7 seasons. These numbers would be incredible even for dominant guys like Shaq or Yao, but remember, Dennis Rodman was a forward. That makes it even more incredible.
His rebounding was also great in playoff time. He recorded double digit rebounds in 7 different post seasons. He had 16 RPG for the Spurs in 94, 14.8 for the Bulls in 95 and 13.7 in 96 (his rebounding certainly was one of the reasons the 96 Bulls area in discussion for the greatest team to ever play the game). I would also like to remember Rodman grabbed 11 offensive rebounds in two diferent games in the NBA finals, both in 1996. That's a NBA record (tied with Hayes, who did it once in the finals).
Defense: Rodman was incredible on D. He could switch in every peak&roll, defend smaller guys, good post players, big guys... he has a case for the best defensive forward in the NBA history.
Was the defensive player of the year two times - 90 and 91, on a great defensive team: the Pistons. To stand out in such a great group of defenders you really have to be amazing.
He was also 7 times in the NBA's 1st defensive team.
I will talk again about the NBA finals. In 1997 Rodman held Malone to 23.8 PPG on 48.5ts%. This has to be a win for Dennis.
In 1996 Rodman averaged 14.7 RPG in the NBA finals. He rebounded as much as Kemp and Sam Perkins combined. That has to be regarded as great impact on the boards.
I honestly feel he deserves this spot. His impact on the boards and on D is GOAT for his position. How many guys were voted before Rodman because their best part of the game was rebound and D? And if you take position into account and you value those two things, Rodman should earn your consideration here.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
Folks, give this guy another look, or a first one if you've never taken him so seriously.
We're looking at Rodman, and I get why, but Unseld's a world class rebounder AND he did a lot more. He was a point center, leader, and does all the little things you'd want a guy to do while leading a contender for many years.
Wes may be the all-time greatest non-boxscore offensive contributor of all time. He was the GOAT or close to it at both outlet passing (watch a video and see how he gets the rebound and without bringing the ball down immediately fires a two handed soccer pass off -- beautiful) and pick setting (taught Rick Mahorn but was stronger and higher basketball IQ). Great leadership skills as well.
I think his MVP is legit, the Bullets went from worst team in the East to best record in the league his first year despite an injury to their third star, Gus Johnson. His knees were bad from early on and I hesitate to credit his defense too highly though he was very effective keeping players out of their sweet spots in the post and blocking out. Good defender, I wouldn't say great one for most of his career.
Not sure how I rate him v. Ben Wallace (tend to have Unseld a bit higher but that's without analysis) or Dennis Rodman (tend to have Rodman a bit higher, again without analysis). And again, if you are looking at great defenders, Bobby Jones may have been better than either Unseld or Rodman since RAPM tends to favor great help defenders at which Jones was one of the best all-time forwards. Not the rebounder of either, but more versatile and a good offensive player.
Unseld and Jones both proved able to take a team to the best record in the league as the clear best player on the team (if not the star scorer in either case) -- both in their rookie years. Some things to consider.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Below is a statistical comparison of Cousy to the last four PG's voted in (though Iverson perhaps more of a SG), and all guys we're considerably far removed from: none voted in more recently than 12 places ago, one as far back as 30 places ago!?!
Peak PER (rs) Allen Iverson: 25.9 Kevin Johnson: 23.7 Chauncey Billups: 23.6 Isiah Thomas: 22.2 Bob Cousy: 21.7
Prime PER (rs) Allen Iverson: 21.9 Kevin Johnson: 21.5 Chauncey Billups: 20.5 Bob Cousy: 20.1 Isiah Thomas: 18.9
Career PER (rs) Allen Iverson: 20.9 Kevin Johnson: 20.7 Bob Cousy: 19.8 Chauncey Billups: 18.8 Isiah Thomas: 18.1
Prime PER (playoffs) Allen Iverson: 21.2 Isiah Thomas: 19.8 Kevin Johnson: 19.6 Chauncey Billups: 19.6 Bob Cousy: 18.0
Peak WS/48 (rs) Chauncey Billups: .257 Kevin Johnson: .220 Allen Iverson: .190 Bob Cousy: .178 Isiah Thomas: .173
Prime WS/48 (rs) Chauncey Billups: .207 Kevin Johnson: .187 Allen Iverson: .139 (42.2 mpg) Bob Cousy: .139 (37.4 mpg) Isiah Thomas: .126
Career WS/48 (rs) Kevin Johnson: .178 Chauncey Billups: .176 Bob Cousy: .139 Allen Iverson: .126 Isiah Thomas: .109
Prime WS/48 (playoffs) Chauncey Billups: .197 Isiah Thomas: .143 Kevin Johnson: .124 Bob Cousy: .121 Allen Iverson: .109
Career rs WS Chauncey Billups: 120.8 Allen Iverson: 99.0 Kevin Johnson: 92.8 Bob Cousy: 91.1 Isiah Thomas: 80.7
Career playoff WS Chauncey Billups: 20.6 Isiah Thomas: 12.5 Kevin Johnson: 9.4 Bob Cousy: 9.1 Allen Iverson: 7.3
So while he doesn't necessarily rate out "well" among these guys, he does appear "in the mix". Although era considerations obviously apply. Still, this isn't comparing to players still on the table; these are all guys voted in some time ago (one as far back as 30 places ago!).
Here he is compared to a couple of the other perimeter players, one getting discussion, the other just voted in (Sam Jones and Bill Sharman):
Spoiler:
Peak PER (rs) Bob Cousy: 21.7 (41.5 mpg) Sam Jones: 21.7 (32.2 mpg) Bill Sharman: 19.8
Prime PER (rs) Bob Cousy: 20.1 Sam Jones: 19.1 Bill Sharman ('53-'60): 18.3
Career PER (rs) Bob Cousy: 19.8 Sam Jones: 18.7 (27.9 mpg--->this is a big factor to me) Bill Sharman: 18.2
Prime PER (playoffs) Bob Cousy: 18.0 (40.7 mpg) Sam Jones: 18.0 (36.4 mpg) Bill Sharman: 16.7
Peak WS/48 (rs) Sam Jones: .222 Bill Sharman: .207 Bob Cousy: .178
Prime WS/48 (rs) Sam Jones: .188 Bill Sharman: .181 Bob Cousy: .139
Career WS/48 (rs) Sam Jones: .182 Bill Sharman: .178 Bob Cousy: .139
Prime WS/48 (playoffs) Sam Jones: .170 Bill Sharman: .163 Bob Cousy: .121
Career rs WS Sam Jones: 92.3 Bob Cousy: 91.1 Bill Sharman: 82.8
Career playoff WS Sam Jones: 15.2 Bill Sharman: 9.3 Bob Cousy: 9.1
Again: certainly in the mix here.
Aside from the statistical data we have, Cousy's reputation among media and peers, combined with some team offense indicators, is such that I wonder if his effectiveness went beyond the boxscore. We saw this with Jason Kidd, did we not? (more on that below in the spoiler) Boxscore metrics for Kidd were not overly impressive, yet as Chuck Texas (and to a lesser degree myself) went far to explore, he consistently had a big (even huge) impact on team success. And where his shooting efficiency was poor---and consequently his ORtg often mediocre---RAPM indicates he had one of the highest offensive impacts in the league, pretty much year after year during his prime.
And I suspect the same may also be true of Cousy. As a couple of for instances, I'd note that he was the driving force behind three consecutive #1-rated offenses ('53-'55). And although their ORtg/offensive efficiency fell during the Russell era (even while Cousy was around), part of that was by design: see some of the links (in Moonbeam's post above) to comments/quotes fplii had previously provided, wrt sacrificing efficiency in exchange for greater pace or FGA/g. And though they were generally below average in ORtg, that pace often led to them leading the league in scoring. That they had any reasonable offense at all given Auerbach's de-emphasis of it is pretty impressive. A quote from Michael Grange's Basketball's Greatest Players:
“.....Boston had only six plays and their fast break, but were the highest-scoring team of their era---and it was Cousy who made it work.”
And during Cousy's final two seasons as a Celtic ('62 and '63), their ORtg was -1.5 and -2.9 relative to league, respectively. The year after he left they dropped to -4.5 (and this wasn't even with sustaining the loss of a prime version of Cousy; this was an older dwindling version whose individual shooting efficiency was pretty lackluster).
Some more specifically regarding comparison to Bill Sharman (with comments on being potentially over-focused on ts%):
Spoiler:
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?
The bullet-points of career accomplishment look pretty impressive for Cousy. *Certainly one could argue that his MVP in '57 was not legitimately earned, and that maybe he shouldn't have been quite as high in the MVP voting other years as well. And that would hurt his standing in career MVP Award Shares (where he ranks #36 all-time, fwiw, and worth acknowledging that the award didn't even exist his first five seasons). But MVP Award Shares aside, he also ranks #33 all-time in RealGM RPoY shares (and that despite omission of his first four seasons, and that this forum doesn't appear overly generous in their consideration of him---relative to "status quo"---given he's still on the table outside the top 65).
**And where other accolades are concerned----which are, to recap: 13-time All-Star (tied for 10th all-time), 12-time All-NBA (tied for 6th) including 10-time All-NBA 1st Team (tied for 3rd all-time)---you can scrutinize the competition, but it appears majority of these were legitimately earned or at the very least defensible. Certainly you can make comments to the effect of "yeah, but look at the competition" or "weak era"......but even weighting these very lightly due to era, this may still wind up being the most "weighty" list of accolade-related achievement left on the table.
***6-Time NBA champion. For at least 2 of those he was the clear 2nd-best player on the team, and was one other where he was at worst the "2B" on the team. Was never less than the 4th or 5th best/most important player on any of those championship squads. I'd like to quote something from John Taylor's The Rivalry regarding the Celtics dynasty and contributions by players NOT named Bill Russell. He was definitely the keystone for that team, though I think he too often gets credited for having carried them to 11 titles; and I think it gets overlooked just how lucky Russell was a to land where he did:
"…..But Auerbach’s inquiries left him with the impression that, however limited Russell might be in general, in the areas of his strengths he was overwhelming. Russell was not the answer to every coach’s prayers. But working with the players whose skills complemented and extended his and whose talents covered for his weaknesses---players, that is, like the Celtics--he could be the linchpin of an indomitable team…." (pg 64-65)
And lastly I will again bring up something which I think is inseparable from any discussion of "greatness": pioneering, and influence on the evolution of the game. Cousy was doing things with the ball that nearly no one else was doing at the time (give a little props to Bob Davies and Marques Haynes, as previously discussed), and was certainly at least the most high-profile player doing them, as well as being the most successful at incorporating these techniques into being a highly effective player in the major pro league. In many ways he pioneered or established the classic point guard role. If I can again quote Michael Grange's book:
“When Chris Paul crosses over his man, drags the help defense with him and drops the ball behind him so his teammate can have the easy layup, he is paying tribute to Bob Cousy. It’s the same when Steve Nash looks right and passes left, hitting his teammate for a dunk, or when Rajon Rondo grabs a defensive rebound and sprints for the other end of the floor, leading the herd. They are all bowing to Bob Cousy, the NBA point guard who did it first.”
Cousy absolutely must be on the short-list of the most influential players in pro basketball history, and arguably (likely, imo) the most influential player we've yet to vote in. How much value should be attached to that is open for debate; but imo it absolutely is worth something.
To me, he represents the most weighty and worthy combination of talent, longevity, career accomplishment, and influence still not voted into our top 100.
My vote for #69: Bob Cousy.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
btw, what happened on the last thread? Last I saw it was 5-to-5 in the run-off (and that's still what is stated in the final post of the thread); and yet Jones is now in and we've moved on.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
trex_8063 wrote:btw, what happened on the last thread? Last I saw it was 5-to-5 in the run-off (and that's still what is stated in the final post of the thread); and yet Jones is now in and we've moved on.
I was also wondering about that. Would have voted for Rodman in the runoff.
trex_8063 wrote:btw, what happened on the last thread? Last I saw it was 5-to-5 in the run-off (and that's still what is stated in the final post of the thread); and yet Jones is now in and we've moved on.
penbeast changed his vote from rodman to jones to make it final (6-4).
Archibald doesn't have the longevity, so whilst sure Jones' peak isn't as good the longevity (in terms of staying seriously productive) means Jones's career value .
I've got absolutely no idea what this means. Pretty sure it's completely false.
All-Star Selections
Tiny Archibald: 6 Sam Jones: 5
All-NBA Selections
Tiny Archibald: 5 (spread out over 10 seasons) Sam Jones: 3 (spread out over 3 seasons)
Regular season minutes
Tiny Archibald: 31,159 Sam Jones: 24,285
Playoff minutes
Tiny Archibald: 1,642 Sam Jones: 4,654
Even with playoff minutes included (where Jones gets the benefit of having Bill Russell helping him deep into the playoffs every year), Archibald comes out ahead. Archibald has a decade between his first and last All-NBA selections, and he has more of them to boot despite not having the shine of being on a dominant dynasty. Where is this longevity edge?!
I can't see any advantage for Sam Jones other than winning bias. I mean, what would have happened if Archibald got to play with 1965 Bill Russell in 1973? Super fast pace, dominant offense and defense?! They'd have obliterated anybody given an average supporting cast.
You can't even not call Archibald a winner. He assimilated just fine on a dominant team full of other options and won a championship on a multi-polar Boston squad. The guy did what was good for the team.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
Unguardable in his prime. He's got 4 seasons where he averages at least 24.8 points and 6.8 assists. He later became the heady leader of a multi-polar Boston Celtic squad which contended throughout Nate's time there, peaking with a title in 1981. Excellent free throw shooter, unselfish, and doesn't have problems other 1970s stars had aside from injuries.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
Dude. I came in here to crack a joke about Rodman being the only logical choice for 69, even if it's out of place and immature. Had no idea he was a legitimate candidate. Do the right thing guys.
Doctor MJ wrote:I don't understand why people jump in a thread and say basically, "This thing you're all talking about. I'm too ignorant to know anything about it. Lollerskates!"
Firstly, apologies for my ~10 topic absence. I've just not had time over the Christmas break.
If it is ok, I would like to continue to contribute.
My vote here goes to Wes Unseld. I remember voting for him in the 2011 version of this poll and doing a great deal of research at the time.
He had a huge positive impact on his arrival in the league and is largely regarded as a great leader with the ability to do all the little things right.
He made a great impact on the game with his rebounding, his passing ability (particularly his outlet passes on the fast break), his ability to set screens which allowed open shots - things that often don't show in box score stats other than team record.
I give him the edge over Rodman as I feel Unseld could do a little more - which in most scenarios gives him the edge. I even think those Bulls would improve with Unseld over Rodman.
There is no consolation prize. Winning is everything.
I've been backing Sam Jones for awhile now, so now that he's in, it's time to take stock of the next group of guys in the conversation for me at the moment. Here are some guys that are on my radar.
Bob Cousy: I think trex has done a good job of backing him. I think he was a brilliant offensive player who we risk underestimating because Boston's most successful teams did not dominate offensively and their style of play may have contributed to him having relatively poor efficiency. His statistical footprint changed throughout his tenure in Boston: from 1952-57 he generally put up 22+ points per 100 possessions on above average efficiency, his efficiency dipped thereafter (though so did his true shot attempts) but his assists per 100 possessions went up (8.92 from 1952-1955, 8.70 from 1956-1959, 9.53 from 1960-1963). He was the engine that drove the Boston offense, and showed himself to be more than capable of fueling league-leading offenses early on.
James Worthy: I'm quite surprised his name hasn't come up more by this point. I've got him over Bernard King and Marques Johnson and well ahead of Chris Mullin and Carmelo Anthony. I'm big on guys who step up in the postseason, and there are few who do so more than James Worthy. He's got a playoff O+ from 1985 onward of 8.07 (12.05 from 1985-89) on a Score+ of 2.072 (3.338 from 1985-89), and those are obviously big sample sizes, and those career numbers are likely to go up if we include his 1984 season. Great offensive player who time and time again rose to the occasion and a decent enough defender for the time, too.
Dennis Rodman: A lightning bolt of energy and dynamism on the court, he was a truly electric player when his mindset was correct. I value him most for his play as a Piston, but he was also quite valuable to those Bulls teams. Well worth a look here, I think.
Wes Unseld: Doctor MJ is right that he should be well in the conversation at this point. His all-around presence seems to have been pretty massive for Washington. Perhaps he should be considered ahead of Hayes. He didn't score too much (though he didn't hurt his team with poor efficiency), but he was a monster rebounder and I think a very good defender in his own right.
Neil Johnston: Absolutely mind-boggling statistics though longevity leaves a fair amount to be desired. Ranks second all-time in Score+ and TeamScore+, and his WS numbers are eye-popping, too.
Bill Walton: I think he belongs in the top 100 given his amazing peak, painfully short though it may have been, coupled with a few good years as a super bench player in Boston.
After this group, I'm considering Bernard King, Joe Dumars, Ben Wallace, Maurice Cheeks, Bill Sharman and Horace Grant.
Folks, give this guy another look, or a first one if you've never taken him so seriously.
We're looking at Rodman, and I get why, but Unseld's a world class rebounder AND he did a lot more. He was a point center, leader, and does all the little things you'd want a guy to do while leading a contender for many years.
Unseld is going to be my next vote (over Rodman because of clearly superior offense which makes him more of an impact player overall, and better intangibles).
For now though, I'm still voting Nate Archibald here. My reasoning would be the same as it was in the previous thread (so basically ronnymac's reasoning plus some of the additional info that I provided).
Getting back to Unseld - I don't really care about accolades, but this guy WON THE MVP AS A ROOKIE. Even though I think he didn't really deserve that (Wilt, Oscar, West, Baylor, Reed, Frazier, maybe even Russell, were all IMO better players than him), that's way beyond Rodman's capabilities.
Worm was a better rebounder (but Unseld was elite, too), Unseld's defensive impact was IMO greater (Rodman was a great individual, man to man defender, but Unseld was more of a defensive anchor, even if he wasn't much of a shotblocker - neither was Rodman).
I basically see Unseld as a rich man's version of Noah.
- 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.
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.
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."
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.
My vote: Bernard King Bernard King's efficiency as a go to guy was just so good. Opposing teams knew they needed to stop King and just couldn't get the job done.
Although Unseld wasn't much of a scorer, he was still a high impact player due to very good defense and rebounding, elite passing, excellent leadership and high BBIQ which IMO makes Unseld a highly portable big. Don't think there should be much separation between Hayes, Lanier, Thurmond and Unseld.
Archibald doesn't have the longevity, so whilst sure Jones' peak isn't as good the longevity (in terms of staying seriously productive) means Jones's career value .
I've got absolutely no idea what this means. Pretty sure it's completely false.
All-Star Selections
Tiny Archibald: 6 Sam Jones: 5
All-NBA Selections
Tiny Archibald: 5 (spread out over 10 seasons) Sam Jones: 3 (spread out over 3 seasons)
Regular season minutes
Tiny Archibald: 31,159 Sam Jones: 24,285
Playoff minutes
Tiny Archibald: 1,642 Sam Jones: 4,654
Even with playoff minutes included (where Jones gets the benefit of having Bill Russell helping him deep into the playoffs every year), Archibald comes out ahead. Archibald has a decade between his first and last All-NBA selections, and he has more of them to boot despite not having the shine of being on a dominant dynasty. Where is this longevity edge?!
I can't see any advantage for Sam Jones other than winning bias. I mean, what would have happened if Archibald got to play with 1965 Bill Russell in 1973? Super fast pace, dominant offense and defense?! They'd have obliterated anybody given an average supporting cast.
You can't even not call Archibald a winner. He assimilated just fine on a dominant team full of other options and won a championship on a multi-polar Boston squad. The guy did what was good for the team.
Congratulations, the needlessly provocative opening got my attention. It's moot given Jones is in which would be the place for this debate.
But fine ...
Using All-Star Selections to demonstrate a percieved (by you) lack of longevity for a player in the 60s (or before, and in particular a Celtic) shows either a lack of awareness of, or willingness to ignore the facts. A cap of 3 players per team minimised Jones' opportunity to get into said game, as did the Celtics established stars, Cousy and Heinsohn (earlier Sharman, later Havlicek and Howell).
Still go feel free to tell me that ASGs are a superb measure, that Lee Shaffer or even a Hal Greer (a fellow shooter, who scored less in more minutes on a lower percentage) were superior players (they were all-stars in '63).
All-NBA Selections: Do I need to cover how silly it is compare players competing for an All-NBA slot with Jerry West and Oscar Robertson, equally to those competing with Pete Maravich, Phil Smith and Randy Smith. Apparently. All-NBA accolades are heavily influenced by competition at that position (as are ASG in any cases fwiw*). Besides which this is again a pretty wooly standard of measuring how well a player actually played. Also noted in my comments for Jones in the last two runoffs has been his ability to take on more minutes in the playoffs, his low-ish mpg hurts him in accolade races but given his teams dominance and his larger role in the playoffs this isn't a concern. Regarding span, given you're already mentioning number of All-NBA's is it your contention that being inconsistently good over a larger span is more valuable than adding the same value more consistently over a shorter span. Because that's the only data you're adding on from the basic listing off all-NBA selections.
* (case in point 1982 all-star game, Archibald makes the ASG with 14.3 PER, .115 WS/48, Isiah and Richardson's numbers are similarly around/below average. Incidentally this instance also shows how poor a measure ASG appearances is, because Maurice Cheeks, a clearly superior defender to any of the other 3, who was better across the board by the metrics, didn't make it that year).
Jones' longevity in pure minutes terms is hurt by era (less games per year for his first few years, inferior travel and medical care) and because Boston's strength on the wings (Sharman, Ramsey; later Havlicek, and SF either Howell or Sanders or Nelson whichever you decide was the nominal "small" forward when 2 of the 3 were on, Boston really just had "forwards") and Bostons' strength (Boston were the best team in the league year in year out and didn't need to run him into the ground). As stated before, given he was playoff ready every year missing ten or so games a season and keeping minutes managed doesn't seem like an issue so much as (possibly overcautious, though they kept getting first seed and he kept doing well in the playoffs so maybe not) risk management.
Tiny's big injuries left him at risk of being unavailable for the playoffs if his team were to qualify (which, incidentally, would be an issue in your time travel hypothetical and could quite plausibly cost Boston a couple of titles).
Archibald's legacy rests on his dominance in the early 70s. Which was spectacular. But he played at around that level for 3 years. One year at slightly less but still very good. Two (less than) half years at slightly less again but still good. Call that 5. Add his first year in Boston. 6 good years. The rest are metrically never notably metrically above average (typically below). And if you wish to play count role-player years in Boston that still tops out at 8, though I wouldn't, because in addition to the metrics noted above Archibald's numbers for the playoffs are substantially worse with high turnovers and poor shooting so that "winner" card doesn't really mean much.
Jones played roughly 10 of his 12 years (I'd exclude rookie and final year) at a consistent prime or better level.
This superior longevity of quality is backed up by WS (an imperfect metric but for a supporting, rather than central argument it will suffice). Jones has 92.3 plus 15.2 in the playoffs. Archibald has 83.4 plus 2.4 (on a .071 WS/48 clip) in the playoffs. And whilst imperfect thats without taking in the various mitigating factors listed.
The thing is, I didn't particularly want to debate a guy not in versus a guy in (especially when I support the guy already in, I can sort of see the other way round for anchoring based arguments, as having a point but not so much this). But you've decided to "you're wrong" and "you're biased" in the middle of the active thread and thereby instigated a necessarily negative perspective on your favoured candidate.
Archibald is a fine player. Perhaps I'm inclined to be too negative after being challenged to re-justify past runoff voting. But from having looked at it, I'm inclined to be more concerned about Archibald's high turnover% (would that, for instance, impact earlier years advanced metrics adversely) and poor playoff performance (mostly late in his career, but still dropping from not so high RS standards to begin with).
That is why I am likely to vote for Archibald in a runoff. That is the same reason I am voted for Bernard King. King is a more efficient scorer but Archibald creates more for teammates but both were unguardable in their prime.
Archibald's first year in Boston he was not healthy. The Bird rookie year pre Parish and McHale team that won 60 games did not have overwhelming talent. Old wounded Dave Cowens and Robey were nothing special at Center. Bird was great but was a rookie. Maxwell was great. ML Carr was a pesky sf / SGOT without much offensive talent other than cutting to the basket at the right time.
Ford was slow but clever. Ford could knock down open 3s at a high percentage but Coach Fitch and all the other Coachs in the NBA were so afraid of the long rebound or so anti-ABA that they discouraged the few good 3 point shooters in the league from shooting enough 3s to keep their defenders from sagging in to help in the paint.
Henderson was not experienced. None of the other players were very good.
Archibald was very important to that 60 win team. aside from Bird's arrival and a little more stability Archibald regaining his health was the other major that brought the Celtics from 20 something wins to 60 wins. Maxwell was excelant before Bird arrived on the bad Celtic team. Bird and coach Fitch alone did not transform the team from a losing team into a winning team. Cowens, Robey, Ford and Carr did not improve their skills but they got to know each other and may have played harder. Archibald getting healthy was very important to that team.
). Tim Hardaway and Mark Price are the best long peak guys left. 
