RealGM Top 100 List #70

[trex_8063]

I'm torn in so many directions right now.

King or Worthy. Or Rodman. Or Jones. Or Cousy. Or maybe this is the point we bring up Walton, or Penny. I'm genuinely on the fence here. Somebody convince me one of these guys is better than the others, please...

Well, I thought I'd look at the per game value over replacement/average player for peak/prime/career for each of Cousy, King, Worthy, Rodman, Jones, and Archibald (using PER and WS/48 as the root metrics, as both have their merits, imo). League avg PER is approx. 15.0 every year; league avg WS/48 is ~0.100 every year; as both are per minute(s) stats, can determine the value over replacement (or rather over average) per game for each.

So the numbers below were obtained like so: (PER-15)*mpg and (WS/48 - 0.100)*mpg.......it's a product aimed at determining how much over an average replacement that you're getting per game.
fwiw, Rodman's value is going to be grossly underestimated by this method, at least by the PER-based. Bobby Jones to a lesser extent, because his big claim to defensive dominance was as a help defender (high block and steal rate, which does show up to some degree in PER and WS numbers).
I'd also alluded previously to some non-boxscore value suspicions for Bob Cousy:

Spoiler:

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.”

I also like Cousy best for cumulative career achievement and influence on evolution of the game, too, but that's just me.....

Peak year (PER-15)*mpg
Tiny Archibald: 469.3
Bernard King: 382.6
Bob Cousy: 277.9
Bobby Jones: 180.0
James Worthy: 176.7
Dennis Rodman: 80.5

Prime (PER-15)*mpg--will include games played to indicate length of prime (relevant to "career value"; could consider multiplying values by # of games played for full prime value)
Tiny Archibald: 289.6 (385 rs games)
Bernard King: 226.0 (360 rs games)
Bob Cousy: 190.6 (697 rs games)
James Worthy: 125.3 (605 rs games)
Bobby Jones: 124.7 (642 rs games-->includes 2 ABA seasons)
Dennis Rodman: 3.3 (719 rs games)

Career (PER-15)*mpg
Bob Cousy: 169.3
Bernard King: 141.4
Tiny Archibald: 106.7
James Worthy: 87.5
Bobby Jones: 87.5
Dennis Rodman: -12.7

Peak year (WS/48 - 0.100)*mpg
Bernard King: 4.09
Tiny Archibald: 3.96
Bobby Jones: 3.51
Dennis Rodman: 3.34
Bob Cousy: 2.88
James Worthy: 2.78

Prime (WS/48 - 0.100)*mpg---again pointing out games played in prime, as there's a high variation within this group
Bobby Jones: 2.52 (642 rs games-->includes 2 ABA seasons)
Bernard King: 2.40 (360 rs games)
Tiny Archibald: 2.28 (385 rs games)
Dennis Rodman: 1.89 (719 rs games)
James Worthy: 1.72 (605 rs games)
Bob Cousy: 1.46 (697 rs games)

Career (WS/48 - 0.100)*mpg
Bobby Jones: 2.05
Dennis Rodman: 1.58
Bob Cousy: 1.38
Tiny Archibald: 1.00
James Worthy: 0.97
Bernard King: 0.77


Dunno if that helps at all.

[Clyde Frazier]

As of post #21:

Bernard King - (3) SinceGatlingWasARookie, Clyde Frazier, RSCD3_

Bob Cousy - (2) trex_8063, Moonbeam

Nate Archibald - (2) ronnymac2, Quotatious

Larry Nance - (1) Owly

Bobby Jones - (1) Doctor MJ

[Owly]

I'm torn in so many directions right now.

King or Worthy. Or Rodman. Or Jones. Or Cousy. Or maybe this is the point we bring up Walton, or Penny. I'm genuinely on the fence here. Somebody convince me one of these guys is better than the others, please...

Well, I thought I'd look at the per game value over replacement/average player for peak/prime/career for each of Cousy, King, Worthy, Rodman, Jones, and Archibald (using PER and WS/48 as the root metrics, as both have their merits, imo). League avg PER is approx. 15.0 every year; league avg WS/48 is ~0.100 every year; as both are per minute(s) stats, can determine the value over replacement (or rather over average) per game for each.

So the numbers below were obtained like so: (PER-15)*mpg and (WS/48 - 0.100)*mpg.......it's a product aimed at determining how much over an average replacement that you're getting per game.
fwiw, Rodman's value is going to be grossly underestimated by this method, at least by the PER-based. Bobby Jones to a lesser extent, because his big claim to defensive dominance was as a help defender (high block and steal rate, which does show up to some degree in PER and WS numbers).
I'd also alluded previously to some non-boxscore value suspicions for Bob Cousy:

Spoiler:

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.”

I also like Cousy best for cumulative career achievement and influence on evolution of the game, too, but that's just me.....

Peak year (PER-15)*mpg
Tiny Archibald: 469.3
Bernard King: 382.6
Bob Cousy: 277.9
Larry Nance: 227.5555556
Bobby Jones: 180.0
James Worthy: 176.7
Dennis Rodman: 80.5

Prime (PER-15)*mpg--will include games played to indicate length of prime (relevant to "career value"; could consider multiplying values by # of games played for full prime value)
Tiny Archibald: 289.6 (385 rs games)
Bernard King: 226.0 (360 rs games)
Bob Cousy: 190.6 (697 rs games)
Larry Nance: 184.3003717 (807 games)
James Worthy: 125.3 (605 rs games)
Bobby Jones: 124.7 (642 rs games-->includes 2 ABA seasons)
Dennis Rodman: 3.3 (719 rs games)

Career (PER-15)*mpg
Bob Cousy: 169.3
Larry Nance: 163.4948913
Bernard King: 141.4
Tiny Archibald: 106.7
James Worthy: 87.5
Bobby Jones: 87.5
Dennis Rodman: -12.7

Peak year (WS/48 - 0.100)*mpg
Bernard King: 4.09
Tiny Archibald: 3.96
Larry Nance: 3.697777778
Bobby Jones: 3.51
Dennis Rodman: 3.34
Bob Cousy: 2.88
James Worthy: 2.78

Prime (WS/48 - 0.100)*mpg---again pointing out games played in prime, as there's a high variation within this group
Larry Nance: 2.658178439 (807 rs games)
Bobby Jones: 2.52 (642 rs games-->includes 2 ABA seasons)
Bernard King: 2.40 (360 rs games)
Tiny Archibald: 2.28 (385 rs games)
Dennis Rodman: 1.89 (719 rs games)
James Worthy: 1.72 (605 rs games)
Bob Cousy: 1.46 (697 rs games)

Career (WS/48 - 0.100)*mpg
Larry Nance: 2.369007609
Bobby Jones: 2.05
Dennis Rodman: 1.58
Bob Cousy: 1.38
Tiny Archibald: 1.00
James Worthy: 0.97
Bernard King: 0.77


Dunno if that helps at all.

Edited to include (I believe) the only vote getter not listed (not saying on purpose, most of the guys are from Lukearts plus Archibald who has a number of votes).

[trex_8063]

Thanks for the addition, though I get a higher number for peak PER year (bolded below), though it doesn't change his place/rank among them. I didn't tie myself to one season for BOTH PER and WS/48, fwiw:

I'm torn in so many directions right now.

King or Worthy. Or Rodman. Or Jones. Or Cousy. Or maybe this is the point we bring up Walton, or Penny. I'm genuinely on the fence here. Somebody convince me one of these guys is better than the others, please...

Well, I thought I'd look at the per game value over replacement/average player for peak/prime/career for each of Cousy, King, Worthy, Rodman, Jones, and Archibald (using PER and WS/48 as the root metrics, as both have their merits, imo). League avg PER is approx. 15.0 every year; league avg WS/48 is ~0.100 every year; as both are per minute(s) stats, can determine the value over replacement (or rather over average) per game for each.

So the numbers below were obtained like so: (PER-15)*mpg and (WS/48 - 0.100)*mpg.......it's a product aimed at determining how much over an average replacement that you're getting per game.
fwiw, Rodman's value is going to be grossly underestimated by this method, at least by the PER-based. Bobby Jones to a lesser extent, because his big claim to defensive dominance was as a help defender (high block and steal rate, which does show up to some degree in PER and WS numbers).
I'd also alluded previously to some non-boxscore value suspicions for Bob Cousy:

Spoiler:

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.”

I also like Cousy best for cumulative career achievement and influence on evolution of the game, too, but that's just me.....

Peak year (PER-15)*mpg
Tiny Archibald: 469.3
Bernard King: 382.6
Bob Cousy: 277.9
Larry Nance: 268.1
Bobby Jones: 180.0
James Worthy: 176.7
Dennis Rodman: 80.5

Prime (PER-15)*mpg--will include games played to indicate length of prime (relevant to "career value"; could consider multiplying values by # of games played for full prime value)
Tiny Archibald: 289.6 (385 rs games)
Bernard King: 226.0 (360 rs games)
Bob Cousy: 190.6 (697 rs games)
Larry Nance: 184.3003717 (807 games)
James Worthy: 125.3 (605 rs games)
Bobby Jones: 124.7 (642 rs games-->includes 2 ABA seasons)
Dennis Rodman: 3.3 (719 rs games)

Career (PER-15)*mpg
Bob Cousy: 169.3
Larry Nance: 163.4948913
Bernard King: 141.4
Tiny Archibald: 106.7
James Worthy: 87.5
Bobby Jones: 87.5
Dennis Rodman: -12.7

Peak year (WS/48 - 0.100)*mpg
Bernard King: 4.09
Tiny Archibald: 3.96
Larry Nance: 3.697777778
Bobby Jones: 3.51
Dennis Rodman: 3.34
Bob Cousy: 2.88
James Worthy: 2.78

Prime (WS/48 - 0.100)*mpg---again pointing out games played in prime, as there's a high variation within this group
Larry Nance: 2.658178439 (807 rs games)
Bobby Jones: 2.52 (642 rs games-->includes 2 ABA seasons)
Bernard King: 2.40 (360 rs games)
Tiny Archibald: 2.28 (385 rs games)
Dennis Rodman: 1.89 (719 rs games)
James Worthy: 1.72 (605 rs games)
Bob Cousy: 1.46 (697 rs games)

Career (WS/48 - 0.100)*mpg
Larry Nance: 2.369007609
Bobby Jones: 2.05
Dennis Rodman: 1.58
Bob Cousy: 1.38
Tiny Archibald: 1.00
James Worthy: 0.97
Bernard King: 0.77


Dunno if that helps at all.

Edited to include (I believe) the only vote getter not listed (not saying on purpose, most of the guys are from Lukearts plus Archibald who has a number of votes).

[Owly]

Yeah I was going for a single (shared) season ('92). '87 has a better PER and a couple of extra minutes a game.

Thanks for the addition, though I get a higher number for peak PER year (bolded below), though it doesn't change his place/rank among them. I didn't tie myself to one season for BOTH PER and WS/48, fwiw:

Well, I thought I'd look at the per game value over replacement/average player for peak/prime/career for each of Cousy, King, Worthy, Rodman, Jones, and Archibald (using PER and WS/48 as the root metrics, as both have their merits, imo). League avg PER is approx. 15.0 every year; league avg WS/48 is ~0.100 every year; as both are per minute(s) stats, can determine the value over replacement (or rather over average) per game for each.

So the numbers below were obtained like so: (PER-15)*mpg and (WS/48 - 0.100)*mpg.......it's a product aimed at determining how much over an average replacement that you're getting per game.
fwiw, Rodman's value is going to be grossly underestimated by this method, at least by the PER-based. Bobby Jones to a lesser extent, because his big claim to defensive dominance was as a help defender (high block and steal rate, which does show up to some degree in PER and WS numbers).
I'd also alluded previously to some non-boxscore value suspicions for Bob Cousy:

Spoiler:

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.”

I also like Cousy best for cumulative career achievement and influence on evolution of the game, too, but that's just me.....

Peak year (PER-15)*mpg
Tiny Archibald: 469.3
Bernard King: 382.6
Bob Cousy: 277.9
Larry Nance: 268.1
Bobby Jones: 180.0
James Worthy: 176.7
Dennis Rodman: 80.5

Prime (PER-15)*mpg--will include games played to indicate length of prime (relevant to "career value"; could consider multiplying values by # of games played for full prime value)
Tiny Archibald: 289.6 (385 rs games)
Bernard King: 226.0 (360 rs games)
Bob Cousy: 190.6 (697 rs games)
Larry Nance: 184.3003717 (807 games)
James Worthy: 125.3 (605 rs games)
Bobby Jones: 124.7 (642 rs games-->includes 2 ABA seasons)
Dennis Rodman: 3.3 (719 rs games)

Career (PER-15)*mpg
Bob Cousy: 169.3
Larry Nance: 163.4948913
Bernard King: 141.4
Tiny Archibald: 106.7
James Worthy: 87.5
Bobby Jones: 87.5
Dennis Rodman: -12.7

Peak year (WS/48 - 0.100)*mpg
Bernard King: 4.09
Tiny Archibald: 3.96
Larry Nance: 3.697777778
Bobby Jones: 3.51
Dennis Rodman: 3.34
Bob Cousy: 2.88
James Worthy: 2.78

Prime (WS/48 - 0.100)*mpg---again pointing out games played in prime, as there's a high variation within this group
Larry Nance: 2.658178439 (807 rs games)
Bobby Jones: 2.52 (642 rs games-->includes 2 ABA seasons)
Bernard King: 2.40 (360 rs games)
Tiny Archibald: 2.28 (385 rs games)
Dennis Rodman: 1.89 (719 rs games)
James Worthy: 1.72 (605 rs games)
Bob Cousy: 1.46 (697 rs games)

Career (WS/48 - 0.100)*mpg
Larry Nance: 2.369007609
Bobby Jones: 2.05
Dennis Rodman: 1.58
Bob Cousy: 1.38
Tiny Archibald: 1.00
James Worthy: 0.97
Bernard King: 0.77


Dunno if that helps at all.

Edited to include (I believe) the only vote getter not listed (not saying on purpose, most of the guys are from Lukearts plus Archibald who has a number of votes).

[RayBan-Sematra]

I am gonna jump on the Cooz train now.

Like Mikan and some other old time players he had a big footprint and for many years was considered a GOAT candidate and for a very long time after a highly ranked GOAT or a guy you'd see on All-Time starting 5 lists.

I have read much about him and nearly everyone seems to agree that he was a gifted play-maker with excellent court vision.
From footage I have watched he seems to indeed be a pretty special passer and a guy who had very good court vision.
His handles also seem pretty solid even if he seems to dribble predominantly with his right hand.
Cooz had very big hands with long fingers and he had long arms.
He also seemed to be a good shot creator though I didn't see much of that in the footage I watched.

I have some real questions regarding his scoring ability and how effective he would be against more modern defenses but for now without more time I will have to overlook them.
______________________________________

Cooz
Titles : 6
MVP : 1 (would have won another in 1954 had the award existed then).
All-NBA 1st team = 10 times
All-NBA 2nd team = 2 times

Led the league in assists for 8 consecutive years.
Was fourth and first All-Time in points/assists when he retired.

Cooz was the best guard of his era and for a short time between Mikan's end and Russell's beginning he was the best player period.

Leonard Koppett :
"Cousy : You're asking me about his style of play? Three people come to mind. Andy Phillip, Dick McGuire and Cousy. They were masters of true passing. Where to pass and how to deliver the ball in just the right spot. Cousy was a great scorer which seperated him from Phillip. In a later era, Oscar and West had that passing ability as well."

Tommy Heinsohn :
"He was the ultimate creator. Let me put it into perspective. If you think Magic Johnson could pass, if you think John Stockton could pass, multiply by 10 and you have Bob Cousy."
"You know why Cooz didn't have many more assists? If you dribbled the ball you weren't given an assist. It had to be a catch and shoot situation. Guys weren't given assists on fast breaks. If you dribble the ball and dished it to someone who scored, no assist."

Vote : Cooz

[Dipper 13]

Hal Greer deserves some consideration soon. One of the all time underrated players, and a perfect fit for today's guard oriented game. He was one of the best mid-range shooters of all time, a player whom Walt Frazier has credited some of his offensive skills and moves to.

viewtopic.php?p=40940135#p40940135

viewtopic.php?p=28699115#p28699115

viewtopic.php?p=29197255#p29197255

[trex_8063]

Am I mistaken, or do we now have a Cousy/King run-off?

[penbeast0]

Yup, Cousy/King runoff

Bernard King - (3) SinceGatlingWasARookie, Clyde Frazier, RSCD3_

Bob Cousy - (3) trex_8063, Moonbeam, Ray-Ban Sematra

Nate Archibald - (2) ronnymac2, Quotatious

Larry Nance - (1) Owly

Bobby Jones - (1) Doctor MJ

[ronnymac2]

Runoff Vote: Bernard King

More dominant player. Peak vs. Peak, King was the most dominant SF of the 1980s Golden Era of Small Forwards (excluding Bird and Erving). Better than Dantley, Worthy, Aguirre, English, or Wilkins. The guy was a magnificent scoring force, unstoppable on the fast break and in the mid-post. Carmelo ain't got **** on the King.

It may be unfair, but I simply don't trust Cousy's ability to be efficient in eras with smarter coaching. He's still a tremendous player, and I have much respect for his place in advancing the game and being a great champion, but I think Bernard King is the superior basketball player.

[Owly]

I'll
vote: Cousy here

I've argued for Sharman against him due to a growing percieved growing gap between the two (Sharman had been 25th anniversary all NBA team, and was part of the fifty at fifty, I believe he was better non-boxscore, specifically on D, the more reasonable time machine methods would allow for his elite shooting to adapt to the 3 point line etc, and his numbers held up better on the title teams).

I've also noted some very good players prior Cousy developing flashy passing and dribbling.

But all that said Cousy was the best player at his position not only of a decade but more or less for a decade. His efficiency, within the context of his era, isn't a problem, he was a better shooter than most notable pgs of the 50s during that span

TS%
Bob Cousy 0.446

Dick McGuire 0.455
Slater Martin 0.436
Andy Phillip 0.43
Ralph Beard 0.429
Paul Seymour 0.429
George King 0.441
Jack George 0.424

And McGuire the one guy with a superior TS% shot considerably less, and it would seem to be a substantially inferior floor spacer (64.4% FT%, to Cousy's 80.3%).

His metrics don't suggest an epic peak but they do suggest a consistent goodness and distance ahead of the 50s pg pack (cf: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 6=kingge01).


King has a strong peak but not necessarily any more so than say Dantley or English. But instead of playing at fairly close to that level for around 9 years, King has maybe 4 and 2/3 (Warrirors, Kings).

King's career per minute metrics compare unfavourably to John Drew's (even if you chop off the Bullets years to give a similar sample size, though now with a small gap). Their single year metric peaks are near identical (King's WS/48 and PER ones are in different years). Now King is the better defender, and he gives you those extra Bullets seasons (what are they worth to a good team? maybe they'd be good as a 6th man but then - I missed this off the Hollander yearbook quotes -

But his ego never left ... Asked why he took Washington over Boston, where as sixth man he could have been title piece, he said, "Who said I wouldn't start?" -- ignoring a guy named Bird"

he might not have accepted that role (quibbles at the margin about the interpretation offered above, i.e. that he would replace Bird rather than McHale aside, the quote and general ego issues I think suggest he wanted to be the star, and at least a starter). And Drew, fwiw, doesn't (so far as I'm aware) have anything like The Incident for King, despite his substance abuse issues.

If what we have here is John Drew (slightly worse numerically), but a better defender in his short-prime, and extra years as a scorer on a lousy team, is that worth this spot? The only other thing is those two short playoff runs. Now they genuinely at a very impressive standard (wouldn't consider some stupid never got past round x angle), but it's just too small a sample to carry a lot of weight imo, when evaluating and comparing whole careers.

King isn't really on my radar at this point. The above summary plus Utah issues make him difficult for me. I'm pretty sure I'd prefer Marques Johnson of 80s SFs still on the board (better career metrics, greater confidence of his role/fit/portability on a good team, and without the issues).

[penbeast0]

Two things: First, King was still a good scorer on the Wizards, a starter on most teams, not a 6th man role player type talent -- certainly capable of starting on a good team (though not over a player like Larry Bird of course). Second, Drew was a better defender than King in terms of both physical ability to defend and (most years) in terms of willingness to play defense. John "Cementhead" Drew was quite talented, but his rep was for low court intelligence and not listening to anyone, especially coaches.

And I thought at the time that Marques Johnson's prime was better than King's; even without the off court stuff. I would probably take Carmelo over King as well.

Spoiler:

Comparing 5 guys known as scoring 3's: Carmelo Anthony, Billy Cunningham, Marques Johnson, Bernard King, James Worthy.

Longevity: All played over 10 seasons, despite King's injuries, he is right there with Worthy and Anthony for his career with Marques Johnson being the short minute player at 23,694.

Scoring: Anthony is the highest scoring of the bunch at 25.2 for his career, Worthy is the only one falling short of 20ppg at 17.6. Worthy does improve in terms of playoff scoring to over 20ppg with Cunningham falling to 19.6 but that still only puts James 4th in this crew and Carmelo still leads at 25.7ppg for his playoff career. (King does lead in per minute scoring in the playoffs and Cunningham passes both Worthy and Marques Johnson in per minute with Johnson falling below 20pp36 as a playoff scorer)

Efficiency: All score at close to a .550 efficiency except Cunningham who is significantly lower at .509ts%. King and Worthy justify their playoff reps by increasing their playoff scoring efficiency with King at over .600 (on by far the smallest playoff sample, with Worthy the largest). Anthony drops the most, all the way to .513 (Johnson to .528, Cunningham to .489)

Rebounding and Passing: Cunningham has clearly the highest rebound rate (rebounds adjusted for era) at 14.2, the others range from just under 9 (Worthy) to just over 11 (Johnson). Cunninghame is also the assist leader though all have similar career Ast% of close to 16 (except Worthy who is only 14.0); Cunningham does show a much higher turnover rate though, with King the second highest in terms of career turnover rate. These numbers are consistent with playoff performance except that King drops to last in playoff rebounding and assists.

Defense: Defense is far more subjective. In terms of career DWS, Cunningham ranks out the highest at 37.7, with all the others in the 25 to 30 range. In terms of rep, Cunningham and Worthy had good defensive reps, none of the others are known for defense though only King has a truly poor defensive rep.

This is a career comp and Bernard King and Marques Johnson had higher but shorter peaks as both had serious injury issues. It does give a comparative statistical snapshot of their careers.

[url][Spoiler]Comparing 5 guys known as scoring 3's: Carmelo Anthony, Billy Cunningham, Marques Johnson, Bernard King, James Worthy.

Longevity: All played over 10 seasons, despite King's injuries, he is right there with Worthy and Anthony for his career with Marques Johnson being the short minute player at 23,694.

Scoring: Anthony is the highest scoring of the bunch at 25.2 for his career, Worthy is the only one falling short of 20ppg at 17.6. Worthy does improve in terms of playoff scoring to over 20ppg with Cunningham falling to 19.6 but that still only puts James 4th in this crew and Carmelo still leads at 25.7ppg for his playoff career. (King does lead in per minute scoring in the playoffs and Cunningham passes both Worthy and Marques Johnson in per minute with Johnson falling below 20pp36 as a playoff scorer)

Efficiency: All score at close to a .550 efficiency except Cunningham who is significantly lower at .509ts%. King and Worthy justify their playoff reps by increasing their playoff scoring efficiency with King at over .600 (on by far the smallest playoff sample, with Worthy the largest). Anthony drops the most, all the way to .513 (Johnson to .528, Cunningham to .489)

Rebounding and Passing: Cunningham has clearly the highest rebound rate (rebounds adjusted for era) at 14.2, the others range from just under 9 (Worthy) to just over 11 (Johnson). Cunninghame is also the assist leader though all have similar career Ast% of close to 16 (except Worthy who is only 14.0); Cunningham does show a much higher turnover rate though, with King the second highest in terms of career turnover rate. These numbers are consistent with playoff performance except that King drops to last in playoff rebounding and assists.

Defense: Defense is far more subjective. In terms of career DWS, Cunningham ranks out the highest at 37.7, with all the others in the 25 to 30 range. In terms of rep, Cunningham and Worthy had good defensive reps, none of the others are known for defense though only King has a truly poor defensive rep.

This is a career comp and Bernard King and Marques Johnson had higher but shorter peaks as both had serious injury issues. It does give a comparative statistical snapshot of their careers.

basketball-reference.com]

That said, I am going to support Cousy in this runoff. His problems were highlighted by his playoff performances in the Celtic title runs (inefficiency, defense, etc.) but as a 50s star, he was clearly the best PG of his era . . . just that when his era passed, his game didn't adapt well.

Vote: Cousy

[Owly]

Two things: First, King was still a good scorer on the Wizards, a starter on most teams, not a 6th man role player type talent -- certainly capable of starting on a good team (though not over a player like Larry Bird of course). Second, Drew was a better defender than King in terms of both physical ability to defend and (most years) in terms of willingness to play defense. John "Cementhead" Drew was quite talented, but his rep was for low court intelligence and not listening to anyone, especially coaches.

And I thought at the time that Marques Johnson's prime was better than King's; even without the off court stuff. I would probably take Carmelo over King as well.

Spoiler:

Comparing 5 guys known as scoring 3's: Carmelo Anthony, Billy Cunningham, Marques Johnson, Bernard King, James Worthy.

Longevity: All played over 10 seasons, despite King's injuries, he is right there with Worthy and Anthony for his career with Marques Johnson being the short minute player at 23,694.

Scoring: Anthony is the highest scoring of the bunch at 25.2 for his career, Worthy is the only one falling short of 20ppg at 17.6. Worthy does improve in terms of playoff scoring to over 20ppg with Cunningham falling to 19.6 but that still only puts James 4th in this crew and Carmelo still leads at 25.7ppg for his playoff career. (King does lead in per minute scoring in the playoffs and Cunningham passes both Worthy and Marques Johnson in per minute with Johnson falling below 20pp36 as a playoff scorer)

Efficiency: All score at close to a .550 efficiency except Cunningham who is significantly lower at .509ts%. King and Worthy justify their playoff reps by increasing their playoff scoring efficiency with King at over .600 (on by far the smallest playoff sample, with Worthy the largest). Anthony drops the most, all the way to .513 (Johnson to .528, Cunningham to .489)

Rebounding and Passing: Cunningham has clearly the highest rebound rate (rebounds adjusted for era) at 14.2, the others range from just under 9 (Worthy) to just over 11 (Johnson). Cunninghame is also the assist leader though all have similar career Ast% of close to 16 (except Worthy who is only 14.0); Cunningham does show a much higher turnover rate though, with King the second highest in terms of career turnover rate. These numbers are consistent with playoff performance except that King drops to last in playoff rebounding and assists.

Defense: Defense is far more subjective. In terms of career DWS, Cunningham ranks out the highest at 37.7, with all the others in the 25 to 30 range. In terms of rep, Cunningham and Worthy had good defensive reps, none of the others are known for defense though only King has a truly poor defensive rep.

This is a career comp and Bernard King and Marques Johnson had higher but shorter peaks as both had serious injury issues. It does give a comparative statistical snapshot of their careers.

[url][Spoiler]Comparing 5 guys known as scoring 3's: Carmelo Anthony, Billy Cunningham, Marques Johnson, Bernard King, James Worthy.

Longevity: All played over 10 seasons, despite King's injuries, he is right there with Worthy and Anthony for his career with Marques Johnson being the short minute player at 23,694.

Scoring: Anthony is the highest scoring of the bunch at 25.2 for his career, Worthy is the only one falling short of 20ppg at 17.6. Worthy does improve in terms of playoff scoring to over 20ppg with Cunningham falling to 19.6 but that still only puts James 4th in this crew and Carmelo still leads at 25.7ppg for his playoff career. (King does lead in per minute scoring in the playoffs and Cunningham passes both Worthy and Marques Johnson in per minute with Johnson falling below 20pp36 as a playoff scorer)

Efficiency: All score at close to a .550 efficiency except Cunningham who is significantly lower at .509ts%. King and Worthy justify their playoff reps by increasing their playoff scoring efficiency with King at over .600 (on by far the smallest playoff sample, with Worthy the largest). Anthony drops the most, all the way to .513 (Johnson to .528, Cunningham to .489)

Rebounding and Passing: Cunningham has clearly the highest rebound rate (rebounds adjusted for era) at 14.2, the others range from just under 9 (Worthy) to just over 11 (Johnson). Cunninghame is also the assist leader though all have similar career Ast% of close to 16 (except Worthy who is only 14.0); Cunningham does show a much higher turnover rate though, with King the second highest in terms of career turnover rate. These numbers are consistent with playoff performance except that King drops to last in playoff rebounding and assists.

Defense: Defense is far more subjective. In terms of career DWS, Cunningham ranks out the highest at 37.7, with all the others in the 25 to 30 range. In terms of rep, Cunningham and Worthy had good defensive reps, none of the others are known for defense though only King has a truly poor defensive rep.

This is a career comp and Bernard King and Marques Johnson had higher but shorter peaks as both had serious injury issues. It does give a comparative statistical snapshot of their careers.

basketball-reference.com]

That said, I am going to support Cousy in this runoff. His problems were highlighted by his playoff performances in the Celtic title runs (inefficiency, defense, etc.) but as a 50s star, he was clearly the best PG of his era . . . just that when his era passed, his game didn't adapt well.

Vote: Cousy

To clarify any confusion...

Washington era King: Is still a starter level talent (though metrics paint a mixed picture on whether his is much, if at all, above average). Is a poor defender. Has a usage rate of 29.6. On a good team that skillset screams second unit scorer. So whilst he "could" start for good team, I doubt there's many instances where that's the best use for him on a good team. And as before I get the impression his ego couldn't handle that role.

Interesting take on Drew's D. The impression I had from the Hollander handbooks was of a poor, lazy defender. It seems you would disagree with this then. Or is it merely the relative comparison, that you believe King's D is outright bad?

[Joao Saraiva]

My run off vote goes to Bernard King.

He peaked much higher than Cousy, and I feel he deserves the spot more because of that. Cousy was great in his own way but I feel what he has against Bernard is team success. That will probably tell Cousy had the better career, but I feel King was the better player.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

My Runoff vote: Bernard King
His the best scorer left. At his peak he was an amazing scorer.
If anybody followed the head to head links I posted, Bernard King seemed to hold some scorers below their averages. particularly Julious Erving.

When I say I think King was not a defensive liability,I am aware that the King I really remember was Knicks years Bernard King. Of course post injury Bullets King would be a weaker defender. I saw very little of Warriors King because I was on the East Coast.

Knicks King was too good for him to not be on the list already. The offensive stats of the other King years should be good enough for people who want to see longevity.

[Owly]

My Runoff vote: Bernadr King
His the best scorer left. At his peak he was an amazing scorer.
If anybody followed the head to head links I posted, Bernard King seemed to hold some scorers below their averages. particularly Julious Erving.

When I say I think King was not a defensive liability,I am aware that the King I really remember was Knicks years Bernard King. Of course post injury Bullets King would be a weaker defender. I saw very little of Warriors King because I was on the East Coast.

Knicks King was too good for him to not be on the list already. The offensive stats of the other King years shoul be good enough for people who want to see longevity.

On the bolded, speaking as a non-King runoff voter ...

With regard to both sections for many I suspect it's not about raw peak, or longevity, but longevity of quality (which can be conceived of in many ways e.g. marginal added championship probability etc). And for myself I think his 1 2/3 year peak is very good but not exceptional (boxscore metric wise similar to John Drew and not too far ahead of and that's just versus someone with similar career regarding scoring-boxscore production and a tendancy to self-destruct and a SF from the same era) some of the other noteworthy boxscore peaks

(note Johnston's PER and WS/48 peaks are split between '57 and '54, Macauley's between '53 and '54 with '51 probably his best but minutes aren't available, Foust '56 and 55', Gallatin '54 and '53, King '85 and '84, Walton '78 and '77, Harden '14 and '12, Bynum between '12 and '08) in these cases I made fairly arbitrary choices

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... dvanced::6

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... dvanced::6

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... dvanced::6

That's the top guys from my combined pythagorean WS/48 PER ranking obviously not all of these seasons are the same (minutes e.g. Bynum; era e.g. 50s centers; defense e.g. Stoudemire) and you have to be aware that comparing these numbers across eras will have its issues.

In any case King is amongst the top boxscore peaks left on the board.

The thing is, those other years aren't enough of a mixture of quality and longevity. As noted in my initial post here, Larry Nance (my initial votee) has 11 seasons in what were the top 2000 or so player seasons by PER (i.e. seasons above 17.9) and 11 such seasons for a similar bar for WS/48 (.144), King has 8 such seasons by PER and 5 above the WS/48 bar.

Accounting for distance above those bars and minutes played in those seasons Nance is estimated to have provided 33.13085 wins above good by PER/EWA and 18.67998 above good by WS/48. King's numbers are 24.73716 and 6.473833. That the gap (overall) is this large and in players from the same era (so it isn't era translation issues) make me more confident that Nance is better (as do non-boxscore factors). That is broadly why the non-peak longevity for King isn't enough for me, and methodology specifics aside (i.e. in short, sharing the belief that these other years were, for the most part, not great years), may not be good enough for others.

Now admittedly by those measures overall King looked slightly better than Cousy (Cousy better by PER/EWA, King better by WS/48). The three caveats would be (a) Cousy is in both cases missing his rookie season which might help at the margins (not a big factor); (b) Cousy was playing a shorter schedule giving him less time to accumulate wins above that good benchmark; (c) Cousy was playing in an era dominated by bigs (with thinner lanes) and Cousy created value substantially above the pack, assuming you play something like a conventional lineup, Cousy was adding a lot of value over the alternatives (conversely King played in an era where wing/SF scorers were plentiful, and whilst at his peak he was amongst the elite - below Bird, with Dantley and English- there wasn't a huge gap between him and others at his position and even with his specific role).

Throw in King's issues and incident (which ignoring decency, ethics etc, hurts the team he's on) and that's why I'm voting Cousy here and recaps why King isn't really on my radar (as before Marques Johnson would be an 80s SF I have in front of him).

btw as your preferred candidate made it into the runoff, you don't need to re-vote, it is assumed that you stand by your first choice. Obviously if you want add reasoning, make your case etc it's fine, I'm just saying it's not required for you to formally re-vote.

[Quotatious]

Run-off vote: Bernard King

I really wouldn't mind Cousy finally getting in (to be perfectly honest, I was even hoping to see that happen here), I feel like focusing on his awful scoring efficiency, suspect defense and kinda mediocre playoff career (I mean individually, not including team success), instead of appreciating his incredible playmaking abilities, makes him a bit underrated, but considering that I've been voting for Tiny for the last few threads, I have to go with King here, to be consistent. Archibald and King are similar in the sense that both had very high peaks (to me, Nate's peak was higher), but somewhat lacking longevity. King's peak truly was phenomenal (can't really call 1984-85 his peak, because he only played 55 games, but his '83-'84 season was equally impressive, once you factor in his incredible playoff performance - he's 3rd all-time in terms of playoff scoring, as far as guys who played at least 10 games in a playoff run - his PPG+TS% combination for the '84 playoffs is better than any MJ postseason, behind only '77 Kareem and '09 LeBron).

[Owly]

Presently 6-5 to King, with Archibald voters ronnymac2 and Quotatious plus Joao Saraiva switching to King, myself and Penbeast going to Cousy and Doc (Bobby Jones voter this thread) still to vote. lukekarts and SactoKingsFan voted in the last thread, fpliii last in 66, JordansBulls in 65, magicmerl in 64.



Bernard King - (6) SinceGatlingWasARookie, Clyde Frazier, RSCD3_, ronnymac2, Quotatious, Joao Saraiva

Bob Cousy - (5) trex_8063, Moonbeam, Ray-Ban Sematra, Owly, Penbeast

[penbeast0]

...
Vote: Cousy

To clarify any confusion...

Washington era King: Is still a starter level talent (though metrics paint a mixed picture on whether his is much, if at all, above average). Is a poor defender. Has a usage rate of 29.6. On a good team that skillset screams second unit scorer. So whilst he "could" start for good team, I doubt there's many instances where that's the best use for him on a good team. And as before I get the impression his ego couldn't handle that role.

Interesting take on Drew's D. The impression I had from the Hollander handbooks was of a poor, lazy defender. It seems you would disagree with this then. Or is it merely the relative comparison, that you believe King's D is outright bad?[/quote]

When I watched Drew (mainly ATL/WASH games), he always seemed to bring energy even to the defensive end. Not always positive energy; he bit on a lot of fakes and made some bad fouls, but seemed to be putting in the work -- something I didn't always see from King.

[penbeast0]

Looks like King wins this if Owly's comp is right.