RealGM Top 100 List #71

[penbeast0]

PG: Bob Cousy, Tim Hardaway and Mark Price are the best long peak guys left, Nate Archibald and Penny Hardaway are the main short peak guys

Wings: I am leaning toward a forward right now . . .

Defensive stalwarts: Ben Wallace, Dennis Rodman, Larry Nance, Bobby Jones, Shawn Marion (should add Horace Grant and Rasheed Wallace here too . . . )

Spoiler:

Why Wallace? Time after time, stronger analytics have emphasized the role of the shot blocking defensive intimidator being more valuable than any other defensive skill. Wallace is the epitome of this role and a multiple DPOY who anchored a defensive powerhouse NBA title team.

Why not? Arguably the worst offensive player to ever start in the NBA. Didn't impress after he left the Pistons.

Why Rodman? GOAT rebounder, excellent defender (still good defender during peak rebounding years even if he cheated off his man at times), a key piece on championship teams in both Detroit and Chicago.

Why not? Headcase and disruptive force. Brings very little offensively.

Why Nance? He (or Kirilenko) is the greatest shotblocking non-center ever. Very efficient offensive player who could score at a reasonable level, passed well, good moving without the ball. Won the first NBA slam dunk contest over Julius Erving among others.

Why not? Always a complimentary player. Stats dropped in the playoffs. Average rebounder. Didn't create shots.

Why Bobby Jones? More 1st team all-defense awards than anyone else in NBA history. Extremely versatile, able to play C, PF (played a lot of both in Denver), SF, and even SG (next to Julius Erving in Philly). Very efficient offensive player, good passer, extremely high motor. Willing to sacrifice own minutes and ego for the team, even willing to come of the bench. Was best player on the team with the best record in the ABA in 1975, consistent winner throughout his career.

Why not Bobby Jones? Not a volume scorer or strong rebounder. Played limited minutes throughout his career.

Why Shawn Marion? One of the best rebounding SFs ever, excellent defender both in man and in help, versatile enough to play 3 positions, when Amare went down with an injury, he and Nash kept Phoenix rolling without missing a beat, was a good roleplayer post-prime including the primary defender role frustrating LeBron James in Dallas's NBA title. Great off ball explosive player who can lead team in scoring without having to run isos for him.

Why not Marion? More efficient with Nash than without; whined a bit in Phoenix and was ineffective when first traded away until he adjusted to his new role. Production dropped off in the playoffs.

Comparing 4 guys known as scoring 3's: Carmelo Anthony, Billy Cunningham, Marques Johnson, James Worthy

Spoiler:

Longevity: All played over 10 seasons, 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 3rd in this crew and Carmelo still leads at 25.7ppg for his playoff career. (Cunningham passes both Worthy and Marques Johnson in per minute with Johnson falling below 20pp36 as a playoff scorer but he averaged the most minutes)

Efficiency: All score at close to a .550 efficiency except Cunningham who is significantly lower at .509ts%. Worthy justifies his playoff rep by increasing his playoff scoring efficiency. Anthony drops 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). Cunningham is also the assist leader though all have career Ast% close to 16 (except Worthy who is only 14.0); Cunningham does show a much higher turnover rate though. These numbers are consistent with playoff performance.

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, neither of the others are known for defense.

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 -- but his weaknesses (and the weakness of the early ABA) are problematic. Bill Walton and Connie Hawkins are super short, super peak guys. Neil Johnston, Amare, Dan Issel, Jerry Lucas, and Spencer Haywood have offensive creds but bigs who don't play good defense are problematic for me. Even Zelmo Beaty, Chris Webber, and Yao Ming are on my radar.

Although he's probably the guy I dislike most, I think I have to vote for Dennis Rodman. The rebounding and defense he provides are an incredibly valuable commodity if you are trying to win a title.

[Clyde Frazier]

Happy to see king make the cut. These aren't the only players i'd consider, but guys I wanted to take a closer look at after king got in:

Guards - Cousy, Archibald, Greer
Forwards - Cunningham, Worthy, Lucas, Debusschere

Just an observation, 3 guys who made the top 100 in 06 and 08, but not 2011:

Dave Bing - ranked 78 in 06, 80 in 08
Pete Maravich - ranked 63 in 06, 82 in 08
Earl Monroe - ranked 89 in 06, 75 in 08

All have their flaws, but also think they deserve another look.

[trex_8063]

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 14 places ago, one as far back as 32 places ago!?!

Spoiler:

Prime Per 100 Possessions (rs)
Cousy (‘52-’61)--697 rs games: 21.9 pts, 6.1 reb, 8.8 ast @ 44.9% TS% (-0.4% to league)
Isiah Thomas (‘83-92)--770 rs games: 26.1 pts, 4.9 reb, 12.6 ast, 2.6 stl, 0.4 blk, 4.9 tov @ 52.3% ts (-1.4% to league)
Kevin Johnson (‘89-’97)--599 rs games: 26.6 pts, 4.5 reb, 13.4 ast, 2.1 stl, 0.3 blk, 4.5 tov @ 59.0% ts (+5.4% to league)
Chauncey Billups (‘03-’11)--685 rs games: 27.0 pts, 5.0 reb, 9.6 ast, 1.7 stl, 0.3 blk, 3.4 tov @ 59.5% ts (+6.0% to league)
Allen Iverson ('99-'08)--673 rs games: 35.4 pts, 4.6 reb, 7.6 ast, 2.8 stl, 0.2 blk, 4.5 tov @ 51.8% ts (-0.7% to league)

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 32 places ago!), so it's not as though he really even needs to be "in the mix" in order to be a valid selection here. At any rate, he is somewhat comparable statistically to these guys.


Here he is compared to a couple of the other perimeter players, one getting discussion, the other voted in 3 spots ago (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 70).

**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 [Cousy and] 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 #71: Bob Cousy.

[Owly]

Voting Nance

The guys with 11+ seasons of WS/48 at or above .144 (which was a touch over 2000 player seasons when I compiled this, I think a couple of summers ago)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 18
John Stockton 18
Karl Malone 17
Tim Duncan 16
Reggie Miller 16
Shaquille O'Neal 15
Charles Barkley 15
Hakeem Olajuwon 15
Kevin Garnett 14
Kobe Bryant 14
Wilt Chamberlain 13
David Robinson 13
Dirk Nowitzki 13
Oscar Robertson 13
Moses Malone 13
Paul Pierce 13
Robert Parish 13
Bill Russell 12
Earvin "Magic" Johnson 12
Jerry West 12
Adrian Dantley 12
Ray Allen 12
Michael Jordan 11
Larry Bird 11
Bob Pettit 11
Bob Lanier 11
Larry Nance 11
Steve Nash 11
Bailey Howell 11
Detlef Schrempf 11

These players are almost all in. Those that aren't should be in contention soon (Schrempf and Howell).

The equivalent top 2000(ish) player seasons for PER

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 18
John Stockton 17
Karl Malone 17
Shaquille O'Neal 17
Kevin Garnett 17
Tim Duncan 16
Hakeem Olajuwon 16
Kobe Bryant 16
Moses Malone 16
Charles Barkley 15
Paul Pierce 14
Clyde Drexler 14
Wilt Chamberlain 13
Dirk Nowitzki 13
Robert Parish 13
Michael Jordan 13
David Robinson 12
Oscar Robertson 12
Earvin "Magic" Johnson 12
Jerry West 12
Larry Bird 12
Steve Nash 12
Patrick Ewing 12
Dominique Wilkins 12
Allen Iverson 12
Adrian Dantley 11
Bob Pettit 11
Bob Lanier 11
Larry Nance 11
Pau Gasol 11
Elgin Baylor 11
Vince Carter 11
Chris Webber 11
Alex English 11

All in bar Webber. Webber has only 5 seasons over the WS/48 bar. Howell has 10 over the PER bar, Schrempf 7.

But what if those seasons were just above the thresholds. Lets have a look at how some of the leading box-score productive guys plus other named contenders (this from a few threads ago, Sam Jones, McAdoo, Grant Hill, Moncrief, Unseld and King since in) get on with a measure which rewards both minutes and distance above those thresholds, lets call it Wins Above Good

Neil Johnston 37.50535
Bailey Howell 26.02558
Sidney Moncrief 23.0294
Walt Bellamy 20.93269
Sam Jones 19.9995
Amar'e Stoudemire 18.79104
Larry Nance 18.67998
Bob McAdoo 18.40183
Shawn Marion 18.08771
Elton Brand 17.67381
Marques Johnson 16.40483
Shawn Kemp 15.98746
Grant Hill 11.53165
Jack Sikma 10.18433
Wes Unseld 10.12033
Terrell Brandon 8.899083
Dennis Rodman 8.412583
Rasheed Wallace 6.774042
Bill Walton 6.547875
Bernard King 6.473833
Vlade Divac 3.322479
Bob Cousy 3.230292

Cousy still missing first year data. Moncrief and Jones have gone. Only Howell of those above Nance isn't a guy thought to be worse than their numbers (Johnston, Bellamy and STAT), and he too deserves consideration here. Still I think I prefer Nance's rounded game.

Neil Johnston 62.31428
Elton Brand 56.76358
Amar'e Stoudemire 53.01318
Bob McAdoo 49.68881
Walt Bellamy 47.441
Grant Hill 42.28965
Shawn Marion 37.39274
Larry Nance 33.13085
Shawn Kemp 32.23035
Marques Johnson 31.59547
Bob Cousy 29.94303
Terrell Brandon 26.5204
Bernard King 24.73716
Bailey Howell 23.32214
Sidney Moncrief 18.29985
Bill Walton 15.57692
Jack Sikma 12.07736
Sam Jones 10.72607
Rasheed Wallace 8.006766
Vlade Divac 6.38592
Wes Unseld 0.0602488
Dennis Rodman 0

McAdoo is off the board, as is Hill. Johnston, STAT and Bellamy are near the top again, but have some combination of era/system and defense/team performance issues. Brand has had my backing but it seems like he's not on anyone's radar and he's overshadowed within his era so I'll hold off for the moment. Marion also a legit contender but some people have concerns about Marion's numbers being inflated by system/Nash and whilst I don't entirely agree, there may be some merit and I certainly wouldn't feel confident entirely rebutting it.

I am looking at Bobby Jones and am a fan of the style of both these guys, anyway from discussions with Doctor MJ about the two there were discussions of minutes he's got about 6500 (RS) minutes on Jones (and see also the metrics above which show him as one of the top players on the board by accumulative style metrics which value longevity) and might be slightly better boxscore wise (per minute).

With Nance though we don't don't know about plus minus, where Jones is strong. So I thought I'd do a quick with/without.

'87: with Nance (69 games) -71, -1.029 per game
without Nance (13 games) - 129, -9.923076923. Small sample but that team looks pretty bad without Nance. Without looking at schedule differences that's an approximate impact of 8.894076923 on their points differential (may look to find another season with a reliable sample).

I'm fine with Doc's subjective take,

I've always been pretty impressed with Nance, but I don't tend to classify him in that category of "everyone loved that guy as a huge team guy, and analytical analysis makes him look even better than I thought" where I have guys like Jones and Ginobili.

But every angle I've seen ranks him at least pretty well analytically, and he was certainly highly regarded as a teammate/pro/leader at least for the span where I have feedback on this (from the Barry scouting books)

Nance is a classy pro, an inspiration to Cleveland's younger players. After being the head honcho in Phoenix, he demonstrated supreme adaptive skills and molded himself into Cleveland's system, which didn't feature any one player.
Intangiables grade: AA

A consumate pro. "Couldn't ask for a better player to work with," noted one admirer. Undoubtedly, there were nights when his ankle was hurting, but you'd never hear a peep from Nance.
Intangiables grade: AA

A pro's pro ... Consistent ... Smart player ... Tremendous work ethic
Intangiables grade: AAA

Never one to toot his own horn, another reason he's never generated much attention ... A "behind the scenes" leader, offering encouragement to teammates, especially Cavs' younger players ... The ultimate pro
Intangiables grade: AAA

Off the court, completely self-effacing, one of the humblest stars in the league... Good with Cavs' rookies, taking them under his wing... A pro's pro... But he's not a fiery, on-court leader, which is what the Cavs so desperately need.
Intangiables grade: AAA

Nance has a solid consensus from the metrics he was good or better for a long time. He's a player with portability - particularly to good teams as he is defined not by volume scoring but D, efficiency, low mistakes, a leader, a solid passer, and as time went on spacing as he became a strong 15-18 feet jump shooter and was generally offensively versatile (post game, drive, transition, off the ball and the J, all appear to have been solid options).

Nance is a great third option (offensively) for a contender (and played an important role on some really good when healthy Cleveland teams (most notably the '89 Cavs who posted a league leading 7.95 SRS on slow pace, and looked like the favourites until a vicious Mahorn elbow concussed Price late in the season, but also the 92 and 93 teams).

I don't know about anchoring arguments but FWIW looking at the numbers is there any real gap between Nance and McHale http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 4=&p5=&p6= (McHale has playoff WS advantage, but arguably that's due to superior teammates). McHale has an advantage overall based on a higher peak (and the additional value in title probability that brings), but the seems far from huge. For what it's worth McHale was in at 44.

There's a few guys I'm looking at (including) Brand, Howell, Marion, maybe Bobby Jones and dynasty Celtics Cousy, Sharman and Howell (probably should start looking at Hagan too ...).

Nonetheless my vote here goes to Larry Nance.


Nance versus Archibald (part beacuse Archibald wasn't in my previous numbers set, part because he may be a contender given he's been in a runoff)

Larry Nance 18.67998
Nate Archibald 7.946291667

Larry Nance 33.13085
Nate Archibald 32.49492537

Remember this is a method that favours peak/elite level performance. And both measures struggle to quantify D (a strength for Nance, and despite some ability to be pest when healthy a weakness for Archibald). And PER favour scorers. And Archibald's best years (the years which contribute the entire of his PER/EWA Wins above Good and most of his WS/48 WaG) don't include turnovers, which based on the years we do have for him were high.

Even Nance's one relative weakness the playoffs (and I don't believe this is a big issue) is a large advantage over Archibald (even after acknowledging that most of Archibald's playoff appearances were outside his main prime).


A random note, since both players have been been mentioned in this post, Nate Archibald and Kevin McHale are two guys who (irritatingly), youtube and google come up with namesakes rather than the basketball player first

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I don't trust the Win Shares stat as a measure of player value. Of players who played 800 minutes last year Tiago Splitter comes out 31st in win share per 48 minutes had is basically equal With Duncan who came out 30th and well ahead of Parker came out 62nd.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm fine with Doc's subjective take,

I've always been pretty impressed with Nance, but I don't tend to classify him in that category of "everyone loved that guy as a huge team guy, and analytical analysis makes him look even better than I thought" where I have guys like Jones and Ginobili.

But every angle I've seen ranks him at least pretty well analytically, and he was certainly highly regarded as a teammate/pro/leader at least for the span where I have feedback on this (from the Barry scouting books)

Nance is a classy pro, an inspiration to Cleveland's younger players. After being the head honcho in Phoenix, he demonstrated supreme adaptive skills and molded himself into Cleveland's system, which didn't feature any one player.
Intangiables grade: AA

A consumate pro. "Couldn't ask for a better player to work with," noted one admirer. Undoubtedly, there were nights when his ankle was hurting, but you'd never hear a peep from Nance.
Intangiables grade: AA

A pro's pro ... Consistent ... Smart player ... Tremendous work ethic
Intangiables grade: AAA

Never one to toot his own horn, another reason he's never generated much attention ... A "behind the scenes" leader, offering encouragement to teammates, especially Cavs' younger players ... The ultimate pro
Intangiables grade: AAA

Off the court, completely self-effacing, one of the humblest stars in the league... Good with Cavs' rookies, taking them under his wing... A pro's pro... But he's not a fiery, on-court leader, which is what the Cavs so desperately need.
Intangiables grade: AAA

So, good post, and I'm glad that you don't object to my subjective stance.

Here's what I'll say, just in my perception with the recognition that my opinion on these guys is shaped largely with retrospective analysis (I watched Nance play, but I was too young to have any analysis worth talking about.):

They are two very different players.
Hear people praise Nance, and they'll talk about him being nice, humble, and having great verticality.
Hear people praise Jones, and they'll talk about him being nice, humble, and a man on fire out on the court.

Watch the highlights, you see Nance on the interior jump really high for a dunk or a block.
Watch the highlights, you see Jones dive on the ground, make steal way far from the net, chase down the fast break and get a block out of nowhere.

There's no doubt that Nance could jump high and reach higher, yet Jones blocked similar amounts of shots, rebounded similarly, and also was scene as a scary man defender out to the perimeter, and a terror in the passing lanes.

With Jones, you look at his body and you ask "How good can that guy possibly be?"
With Nance, you look at him and think, "Wow, that guy could be a superstar.", which of course he wasn't. He was the very definition of a borderline all-star despite being 6'10" with a vertical leap that was outlier good even for a guard.

So yeah, while in some sense it makes sense to see these guys as similar, I tend to see Jones as more like Larry Bird than Nance. Obviously Jones is nowhere near as capable as Bird, and to be clear I don't really have a problem with people siding with Nance here, but to me they just aren't in the same category.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Bobby Jones

So yeah, voting Jones again. What can I say, I'm a sucker for guys with both high intelligence and off-the-charts motor, which really there aren't very many of. I tend to think that whenever you see that combination, you're going to see a guy impacting the game way more than his stats suggest, and you're also going to have teammates absolutely raving about him.

[SactoKingsFan]

I don't trust the Win Shares stat as a measure of player value. Of players who played 800 minutes last year Tiago Splitter comes out 31st in win share per 48 minutes had is basically equal With Duncan who came out 30th and well ahead of Parker came out 62nd.

Doesn't make much sense to campare Splitter's WS/48 to Duncan and Parker's WS/48 without taking minutes and games played into account. Splitter only averaged 21.5 min. in just 59 GP, while Duncan averaged 29.2 min. in 74 GP and Parker 29.4 min. in 68 GP.

[trex_8063]

So, good post, and I'm glad that you don't object to my subjective stance.

Here's what I'll say, just in my perception with the recognition that my opinion on these guys is shaped largely with retrospective analysis (I watched Nance play, but I was too young to have any analysis worth talking about.):

They are two very different players.
Hear people praise Nance, and they'll talk about him being nice, humble, and having great verticality.
Hear people praise Jones, and they'll talk about him being nice, humble, and a man on fire out on the court.

Watch the highlights, you see Nance on the interior jump really high for a dunk or a block.
Watch the highlights, you see Jones dive on the ground, make steal way far from the net, chase down the fast break and get a block out of nowhere.

There's no doubt that Nance could jump high and reach higher, yet Jones blocked similar amounts of shots, rebounded similarly....

Eh, I don't really agree with that latter statement. Nance wasn't an overly impressive rebounder, but Jones borders on below average for a PF, imo.

Per 100 poss: Nance career avg 11.6 reb (peak 13.1), Jones avg 10.2 (peak 12.1). Nance's career TRB% 13.6% (peak 14.6%), Jones' 11.8% (peak 14.3%). So....not like that gaps is "miles", but it's definitely there.

I don't trust the Win Shares stat as a measure of player value. Of players who played 800 minutes last year Tiago Splitter comes out 31st in win share per 48 minutes had is basically equal With Duncan who came out 30th and well ahead of Parker came out 62nd.

Doesn't make much sense to campare Splitter's WS/48 to Duncan and Parker's WS/48 without taking minutes and games played into account. Splitter only averaged 21.5 min. in just 59 GP, while Duncan averaged 29.2 min. in 74 GP and Parker 29.4 min. in 68 GP.

I generally agree, though at times I feel this principle is ignored (or at least marginalized). tbh, this is another reason I can't really get behind Bobby Jones at this point. Though some of his per minute metrics look very nice, he's only playing supporting role-player minutes for, well.....ALL of his career.

[Doctor MJ]

So, good post, and I'm glad that you don't object to my subjective stance.

Here's what I'll say, just in my perception with the recognition that my opinion on these guys is shaped largely with retrospective analysis (I watched Nance play, but I was too young to have any analysis worth talking about.):

They are two very different players.
Hear people praise Nance, and they'll talk about him being nice, humble, and having great verticality.
Hear people praise Jones, and they'll talk about him being nice, humble, and a man on fire out on the court.

Watch the highlights, you see Nance on the interior jump really high for a dunk or a block.
Watch the highlights, you see Jones dive on the ground, make steal way far from the net, chase down the fast break and get a block out of nowhere.

There's no doubt that Nance could jump high and reach higher, yet Jones blocked similar amounts of shots, rebounded similarly....

Eh, I don't really agree with that latter statement. Nance wasn't an overly impressive rebounder, but Jones borders on below average for a PF, imo.

Per 100 poss: Nance career avg 11.6 reb (peak 13.1), Jones avg 10.2 (peak 12.1). Nance's career TRB% 13.6% (peak 14.6%), Jones' 11.8% (peak 14.3%). So....not like that gaps is "miles", but it's definitely there.

Look at the context though. Jones' only falls off Nance' pace when he goes to Philly, and when he does so it's only his defensive rebounding that falls off. Defensive rebounding is a team exercise, so when a player's numbers change upon the switch of a team, it typically means that the player is simply being used differently given the team's defensive strategy. It's also worth noting that defensive rebounding in Philly improved upon Jones arrival despite the fact that they traded for him by giving up George McGinnis, a guy who got way more rebounds than Jones or Nance, and that in particular his edge was in his defensive numbers when we compare the two respective Philly teams.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Some of the guys who rack up tons of defensive rebounds are horribly overrated. They get their numbers by crashing the boards, which is not how you're supposed to max out defensive rebounding as a team. In the case of Jones - a great team player - and McGinnis - a guy who was traded precisely because of poor fit - a case can be made that Jones was having considerable impact on defense precisely because he was providing value by NOT getting in his teammates way, instead focusing on blocking would-be offensive rebounders.

None of this is really saying anything against Nance, but given that Jones matched prime Nance numbers in one context, and seemed to help rebounding in the other, I wouldn't feel comfortable saying Nance was clearly superior on this front on the numbers alone.

[JordansBulls]

Vote: James Worthy

Big game player, the clutch player on the Lakers in 1988 and the most important player thus the reason the Lakers won the title due to his game 7 of 36/16/10 of the NBA finals.

[Quotatious]

Still voting for Tiny Archibald.

Same reasoning as before - higher peak than any available player not named Bill Walton, led the league in scoring and assists (on very good efficiency) in the same season, plus led his team to the best offense in the NBA that year, averaged about 27/3/9 on 54.5% TS between '72 and '77, then reinvented his game after injuries robbed him of a lot of his youthful athleticism, and became a key contributor for a championship team - the '81 Celtics.

Also, made the All-NBA 1st team three times, second team two times, made 6 All-Star appearances, finished in the top 10 in MVP voting five times (including one 3rd place finish, and one 5th place), and currently ranks 54th in career MVP shares.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Nate "Tiny" Archibald

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.

[ronnymac2]

Informative articles about Archibald. I quoted a passage from each, but I invite you to read the full articles in order to get some context as far as Archibald's mentality towards the game. He really does seem like a genuinely strong leader.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/dewitt-clinton-high-school-nate-tiny-archibald-heart-big-apple-article-1.367015

Spoiler:

Most days, he shows up at Kennedy practice clad in a T-shirt and sweats. It's an ensemble that makes the 60-year-old look just as spry as he did with the Kansas City Kings in the 1972-73 season, when he became the only player in NBA history to lead the league in scoring and assists in the same season (34.0 ppg and 11.4 apg).

That was the statistical height of his 14-year NBA career, although Archibald cherishes a different highlight: His 1980-81 campaign, when he helped the Celtics win the NBA title.

"The NBA championship: that's what every player plays for," he says. "The stats don't mean nothing without that."

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2013-03-01/nate-tiny-archibald-kyrie-irving-chris-paul-russell-westbrook

Spoiler:

Archibald considered himself more of a combo guard in his early years because of the scoring load he assumed. His shoot-first game resembles the approach that governs the play of Oklahoma City Thunder guard Russell Westbrook. Both methods were born out of necessity and maintained because of success.

Westbrook’s skills as a playmaker often are considered secondary to his strong drives. Archibald was another guard who tested parameters placed on the position. He posted a league-leading 11.4 assists as a third-year player, but he was the top scorer at 34.0 points as well.

“I was a very quiet aggressive player. I always thought that I had to unite and be the ignition into the offense,” Archibald said. “I think that (Westbrook) is going to have to accept the responsibility of getting his team into the offense. But I think that you have to be aggressive. I love his aggressiveness. Sometimes our decision-making is not great, but his aggressiveness is always there.”

Because of Westbrook’s relentless mentality, Archibald said he appreciates the Thunder guard more than other players around the league.

“At UCLA, he didn’t play that position,” Archibald said. “He was an off guard. Now you’ve put him in a position that’s kind of a little foreign, but he’s playing it. He’s out to prove that ‘I’m better than some of the guys before me.’ You have to feel that inside of you.”

[Owly]

I'm fine with Doc's subjective take,

I've always been pretty impressed with Nance, but I don't tend to classify him in that category of "everyone loved that guy as a huge team guy, and analytical analysis makes him look even better than I thought" where I have guys like Jones and Ginobili.

But every angle I've seen ranks him at least pretty well analytically, and he was certainly highly regarded as a teammate/pro/leader at least for the span where I have feedback on this (from the Barry scouting books)

Nance is a classy pro, an inspiration to Cleveland's younger players. After being the head honcho in Phoenix, he demonstrated supreme adaptive skills and molded himself into Cleveland's system, which didn't feature any one player.
Intangiables grade: AA

A consumate pro. "Couldn't ask for a better player to work with," noted one admirer. Undoubtedly, there were nights when his ankle was hurting, but you'd never hear a peep from Nance.
Intangiables grade: AA

A pro's pro ... Consistent ... Smart player ... Tremendous work ethic
Intangiables grade: AAA

Never one to toot his own horn, another reason he's never generated much attention ... A "behind the scenes" leader, offering encouragement to teammates, especially Cavs' younger players ... The ultimate pro
Intangiables grade: AAA

Off the court, completely self-effacing, one of the humblest stars in the league... Good with Cavs' rookies, taking them under his wing... A pro's pro... But he's not a fiery, on-court leader, which is what the Cavs so desperately need.
Intangiables grade: AAA

So, good post, and I'm glad that you don't object to my subjective stance.

Here's what I'll say, just in my perception with the recognition that my opinion on these guys is shaped largely with retrospective analysis (I watched Nance play, but I was too young to have any analysis worth talking about.):

They are two very different players.
Hear people praise Nance, and they'll talk about him being nice, humble, and having great verticality.
Hear people praise Jones, and they'll talk about him being nice, humble, and a man on fire out on the court.

Watch the highlights, you see Nance on the interior jump really high for a dunk or a block.
Watch the highlights, you see Jones dive on the ground, make steal way far from the net, chase down the fast break and get a block out of nowhere.

There's no doubt that Nance could jump high and reach higher, yet Jones blocked similar amounts of shots, rebounded similarly, and also was scene as a scary man defender out to the perimeter, and a terror in the passing lanes.

With Jones, you look at his body and you ask "How good can that guy possibly be?"
With Nance, you look at him and think, "Wow, that guy could be a superstar.", which of course he wasn't. He was the very definition of a borderline all-star despite being 6'10" with a vertical leap that was outlier good even for a guard.

So yeah, while in some sense it makes sense to see these guys as similar, I tend to see Jones as more like Larry Bird than Nance. Obviously Jones is nowhere near as capable as Bird, and to be clear I don't really have a problem with people siding with Nance here, but to me they just aren't in the same category.

See there are some things I would take issue with here.

Not that Nance was averse to playing above the rim but ...

Unlike his earlier years, when his game resided above the rim (he was the first winner of the of the Slam Dunk Championship), the 33-year old Nance is now primarily a jump shooter ... And a deadly one

That's after arguably his best year.

I can't help wonder if the difference in perception ("when you look at him") is partially a result of race (black guy is about -natural?- talent and athleticism, the white guy is fiery and overcomes the odds). I'm not saying Nance wasn't a good athlete or Jones didn't give his all.

But Jones wasn't exactly some slouch athletically

And Nance wasn't just about the athleticism as we'll go on to discuss. Nor does it hold true that Nance was the blue-chip prospect underachiever who should have been more and Jones the underdog hustler when you look at their respective draft positions (Jones 5, Nance 20).

Hear people praise Nance, and they'll talk about him being nice, humble, and having great verticality.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdBDOyzh8T8[/youtube]
Lenny Wilkens: Larry has brought, err, tremendous leadership to the ballclub. He's a guy that comes to play every night. He's, he's a winner. He does it. He's there delivering every night. And the players see that and respond to it.
Brad Daugherty: Larry brings to us a great deal of athletic ability and a great deal of (of, uh) mental concentration and that's what we needed basically, was a player with a great deal of experience who'd go out and put it on the floor for us each night, to lead by example and whatnot and he's that person.

They seem to be giving him a large share of the credit for their huge improvement. Whilst I'm not sure we can parse out what is Nance, what is internal growth, the Cavs certainly improved a lot in his first full season.

But the main thing from what they're saying is that the on court stuff isn't just verticality it's leadership by example, consistency and I'd suggest implicity with that ... hustle. His steals (over 1 a game each year in Phoenix after a low minute rookie year) too (when combined with the blocks and defensive reputation, i.e. not just Josh Smith) suggest a pretty impressive effort level.

And that's the key to my issue. If you have Jones's effort/intangiables in a super elite tier, that's fine. Nance was far from just athleticism. and

He was the very definition of a borderline all-star despite being 6'10" with a vertical leap that was outlier good even for a guard

Really?

In what sense?

In the literal, he missed the ASG a few times in his prime. Sure (though it'd be slightly odd to raise that in a comparison v Jones). It's a pretty crude bar though.

In the sense he wasn't a go-to scorer. Sure (though very odd to mention that in a comparison v Jones). Another pretty poor bar.

In the sense that he wasn't a top 20 player year on year (for about 10 years, injured '90 maybe not)? I'm not buying it. And thats the bottom end. He sometimes misses a few too many games, but metric wise (PER and WS/48) year in year out who is there that there is a consensus is better (and note often that guys who are better by the boxscore are worse on D (and intanigables and BPM)

Spoiler:

'84 (10)
Dantley
King
Bird
Moncrief
McHale
Magic
Vandeweghe
Erving
Moses
Jim Paxson

'85 (9, or maybe 10)
Bird
Magic
Jordan
Jabbar
McHale
Dantley
Moses
Cummings
Natt
(Isiah tied on WS/48)

'86 (8)
Bird
Magic
Dantley
McHale
Jabbar
Olajuwon
Barkley
Wilkins

'87 (6)
Magic
Jordan
Bird
McHale
Barkley
Wilkins

'88 (11)
Jordan
Barkley
Bird
Stockton
Drexler
McHale
Magic
Olajuwon
Lever
Moses
Aguirre

'89 (8)
Jordan
Magic
Barkley
Stockton
K. Malone
Price
Drexler
Olajuwon

'90 (24)
Jordan
Magic
Barkley
K. Malone
Robinson
Stockton
Drexler
Ewing
Porter
K. Johnson
McHale
Wilkins
Miller
Hornacek
Price
Chambers
Mullin
Olajuwon
Worthy
Charles Smith
Ricky Pierce
D Harper
Parish
Bird

'91 (15, or 17)
Jordan
Robinson
Barkley
Magic
Porter
K Malone
K Johnson
Stockton
Drexler
Miller
Olajuwon
McHale
Wilkins
Mullin
Pierce

(Parish, Pippen tied PER)

'92 (8)
Jordan
Robinson
K Malone
Drexler
Stockton
Daugherty
Barkley
Price

'93 (8)
Jordan
Barkley
K Malone
Olajuwon
Daugherty
Robinson
Price
Wilkins

Matching/besting both marks is a high requirement but as I said even from these guys there are some that, between D and intangiables Nance has a case on as better in the given season (mostly the exclusively scorer types). And fwiw, if he truly were on the AS borderline standard of player, it'd wouldn't be too big an ask. It's a crude measure but to me it fits with a guy typically on the periphery (probably more often outside) the top 10, in the top 15 than a guy around the 24th best player.

I don't think he was a perhiperal all-star, and I'd be surprised if you really thought he was in any sense that you value as measure of a player.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #71 - Cousy

Basically came down to cousy and archibald for me. Even with his drop in efficiency in the playoffs, I can appreciate cousy’s overall contributions to those celtics championship teams. He also made up for the low FG% somewhat by getting to the line. From 57-63 when he won 6 titles in 7 years, cousy was 2nd to only jerry west in FTAs per game among guards (min 10 GP). I would take his accolades with a grain of salt as I believe winning played a large factor in his dominating the awards. His MVP in 57 is probably the most questionable:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awa ... 7.html#mvp

That said, I’d still acknowledge that he was considered one of the best of his generation, and I at least factor in his contributions to the progression of the game. He also had his own moments in the playoffs individually, once putting up 50 pts on 10-22 from the field and 30-32 from the line in a win over syracuse in 1953. Basically going with longevity here over archibald, and while I definitely appreciate his contributions to the celtics title run in 81, the real lack of playoff basketball prior to that breaks the tie for me.

[Moonbeam]

Happy to see Worthy get some attention.

I'll cast another vote for Bob Cousy again, for the reasons outlined previously:

Spoiler:

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.

Hoping to see some support for the following other guys soon:

Joe Dumars
Ben Wallace
Maurice Cheeks
Bill Sharman
Horace Grant

Tiny supporters, can you tell me more about his role in Boston? I think that would be the key for me to seriously consider him at this point.

[Clyde Frazier]

As of post #17:

Bob Cousy - (3) trex_8063, Clyde Frazier, Moonbeam

Nate Archibald - (2) Quotatious, ronnymac2

Larry Nance - (1) Owly

Bobby Jones - (1) Doctor MJ

James Worthy - (1) JordansBulls

Dennis Rodman - (1) penbeast0 (EDIT: whoops)

[penbeast0]

Clyde, you missed my vote for Dennis Rodman . . . . not that it matters since he doesn't have 2 votes either.

That said, it looks like Cooz v. Tiny.

[ronnymac2]

Tiny supporters, can you tell me more about his role in Boston? I think that would be the key for me to seriously consider him at this point.

The way I see it, it was sort of like how Mo Cheeks fed all those stars on the Philly teams of the same period, except Cheeks was a superior defender. Archibald probably gets a slight edge offensively at that point in their careers (Archibald's latter prime or past prime vs. Cheeks' prime).

Or for a more contemporary example, think of Rajon Rondo's floor general abilities, but make him an 80 percent free throw shooter and give him positive assertiveness and perimeter shooting (so teams can't sag off him like they do with real Rajon Rondo). He was a table-setter, an organizer of the offense who could be counted on to knock down free throws, make the game easier for teammates with his penetration, and score when needed.

Remember, Bird's on-ball ability wasn't as developed at this stage...he really became the dominant Larry Bird in 1983. So having multiple creative threats in a multipolar alignment was beneficial to the team. This version of Tiny fit perfectly.