Moonbeam wrote: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).
I agree with the first sentence, but don't necessarily agree with the bolded. Cheeks was producing nearly identical pts and ast per 100 poss numbers on identical shooting efficiency, but with considerably fewer turnovers. Some context can apply, obviously, but still makes it hard for me to go along with that statement.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
I am leaning towards Archibald in the run off vote. I saw plenty of Archibald in Boston. Boston usually faced a packed in defense. Chris Ford was an excelent 3 point shooter but defenses still sagged of of Ford because Ford did not shoot enough.
The beauty of Archibald weaving his way through the big men was one of the things that increasingly shifted my focous away from Hockey and more towards basketball. Once Archibald got in the air near below the rim he could finish or pass. Archibald was one of those few guys who could get airborne without knowing whether he was passing or shooting and still not get turnovers. The never leave your feet without knowing what you are going to do rule is a smart rule but does that it was OK for Archibald to break because Archibald's vision was good enough and his creative mind was fast enough for him to get away with breaking that rule.
Archibald's penetration was very important during Bird's first 3 years. Archibalds soft fairly accurate touch off the backboard made shooting always an option if the passing lane did not open up. Bird got many assists by receiving Archibald's passes and then quickly passing to somebody else. Archibald would pull the defense towards him in the paint.
Archibald did not have good shooting range on the Celtics.
I wonder why Kansas City got better when Archibald left. Kansas City getting better when Archibald left is what makes me hesitate to vote for Archibald.
Cousy is a guy I could vote for based on his success and the fact that his playmaking skill looks good buy contemporary standards. Cousy was a great early playmaker. If I voted for Cousy it would be a vote for Cousy's playmaking. I saw Cousy make some difficult shots on film. Cousy's shooting percentage is horrible but since it is Cousy's playmaking that makes Cousy relevant I am OK with ignoring Cousy's shooting.
I will never vote for Sharman because Sharman is supposed to be a shooter but Sharman's shooting percentage is not as high enough for a guy being voted for as a shooter.
A big factor here is longevity. Cooz was Cooz for a good 10 years and then has another 2-3 years of good play. Tiny only had 4 healthy Prime years.
I also get that Cousy was inefficient and I am not one to let older legends off the hook for that but one can speculate that he might be more efficient in a more modern era. I mean it does seem that from a young age he was praised for gunning and those Boston fast paced oftenses (which he ran) did not encourage good shot taking.
Owly wrote: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)
'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.
Another good post. I'm jumping in at the point I do, because that's where I feel the need to respond.
I like Nance. I think he was a good guy doing what he could to help his team. But still, I don't see much similarity in the compliments of the two guys other than their off-court attitude, and hence why I have an immediate feeling of objection when I see them put next to each other. Stats and position make them obvious choices for comparison, but if Jones didn't have a reputation completely separate from that, I wouldn't be bringing him up here.
Re: borderline all-star, "missed ASG a few times in his prime". No, he made all-star only in '85, '89, and '93, and he never made an All-NBA team. That's what a borderline all-star is: A guy who squeaks in for one of the last sports now and then when the competition gets bad or his team goes on a run.
Now, you can certainly argue that he should have been rated higher. I don't damn a guy simply because he isn't loved by other observers, but it's not like it's a mystery why he'd be seen in this light, so I have to be convinced to see him as being quite a bit better than that.
I do think I rate him higher than most, but I suppose to me it just feels like you're implying somewhat that Nance is enough like Jones that we ought to be able to use box score differences as the tiebreaker. And to me, it just doesn't work that way. Nance is a guy who exists in my mind a bit beyond his box score-based reputation. Jones is a guy who is lives in between, around, and under where box score credit gets parceled out.
I believe this was mentioned a thread or 2 ago, but it's pretty fitting that cousy faces archibald in the runoff as cousy coached him on the royals / kings. This is an informative video that gives a good overview of archibald's career:
I'll have to go Cousy here. Archibald has an intriguing peak during which he can claim box box score dominance, and to lead the best offense in the game...but when this isn't something you can maintain, and your team was not a threat to opponents while you did this, it's just not enough.
I'm a big critic of Cousy, particularly the way his game aged, but I do believe that through the years he contributed sizable impact for the Celtics, a team that was certainly a threat and then some to opponents.
I'll go with Archibald in the run-off since he was clearly more dominant during his extended peak than any version of Cousy. I also have less concerns about Archibald's portability.
Run off vote: Nate Archibald Great peak before his first injury in KC on a bad team. Nobody else led the league in passing and scoring. The failure of the Archibald Walker back court to get better win results than the Taylor Boone back court does make wonder about the quality of Archibald's play in the 1975-76 season.
Moonbeam wrote: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).
I agree with the first sentence, but don't necessarily agree with the bolded. Cheeks was producing nearly identical pts and ast per 100 poss numbers on identical shooting efficiency, but with considerably fewer turnovers. Some context can apply, obviously, but still makes it hard for me to go along with that statement.
Good point. Cheeks was awesome. He along with Mo Lucas are two of my "most underrated guys on the PC board" players. Something about Mo, Mo, Mo!
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
Surprising, we usually get accused of overrating the Mo Cheeks types -- low scoring but high efficiency + defense. At the moment, those type of voters are talking about Bobby Jones, Larry Nance (and for me, Dennis Rodman) but we are definitely here.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
I'll have to go Cousy here. Archibald has an intriguing peak during which he can claim box box score dominance, and to lead the best offense in the game...but when this isn't something you can maintain, and your team was not a threat to opponents while you did this, it's just not enough.
I'm a big critic of Cousy, particularly the way his game aged, but I do believe that through the years he contributed sizable impact for the Celtics, a team that was certainly a threat and then some to opponents.
(normally I'd just And1 Doc's post but need to actually vote here and everything).
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
trex_8063 wrote: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!?!
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.
My runoff vote goes for Bob Cousy. Loved reading every post between him and Tiny but I'm more convinced by the arguments on Cousy. I feel he goes well in this spot.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:Run off vote: Nate Archibald Great peak before his first injury in KC on a bad team. Nobody else led the league in passing and scoring. The failure of the Archibald Walker back court to get better win results than the Taylor Boone back court does make wonder about the quality of Archibald's play in the 1975-76 season.
Depends how you define it. Oscar led the league in ppg and apg in '68, it's just that at that time they used totals rather than per game (with minimum thesholds) for official "leaders".
Doctor MJ wrote:
Owly wrote: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)
'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.
Another good post. I'm jumping in at the point I do, because that's where I feel the need to respond.
I like Nance. I think he was a good guy doing what he could to help his team. But still, I don't see much similarity in the compliments of the two guys other than their off-court attitude, and hence why I have an immediate feeling of objection when I see them put next to each other. Stats and position make them obvious choices for comparison, but if Jones didn't have a reputation completely separate from that, I wouldn't be bringing him up here.
Re: borderline all-star, "missed ASG a few times in his prime". No, he made all-star only in '85, '89, and '93, and he never made an All-NBA team. That's what a borderline all-star is: A guy who squeaks in for one of the last sports now and then when the competition gets bad or his team goes on a run.
Now, you can certainly argue that he should have been rated higher. I don't damn a guy simply because he isn't loved by other observers, but it's not like it's a mystery why he'd be seen in this light, so I have to be convinced to see him as being quite a bit better than that.
I do think I rate him higher than most, but I suppose to me it just feels like you're implying somewhat that Nance is enough like Jones that we ought to be able to use box score differences as the tiebreaker. And to me, it just doesn't work that way. Nance is a guy who exists in my mind a bit beyond his box score-based reputation. Jones is a guy who is lives in between, around, and under where box score credit gets parceled out.
On the bolded (because it stands out from the rest, and the tone/message is different). Is it it ASG that is your default starting point? Accolades? Would we be okay calling Reggie Miller a borderline all-star (5 times, never more than twice consecutively), 3 Third Teams (not available for a large chunk of Nance's career), less MVP shares than Nance.
Either it's a real issue, and he is someone you define as "a borderline all-star" or it's a marginal point, in which case you note it in passing (e.g. "his [lack of] accolades may raise a red flag to some").
but it's not like it's a mystery why he'd be seen in this light
Why is he? (I've noted strong career value added by the metrics already plus intangiables etc)
The only reason I can see is that he wasn't a self promoter and that he hadn't been a blue chip, high pick prospect. Or again that he's not a high scorer (which would be an odd thing to highlight in the context of a Nance-Jones discussion).
1984 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:[blah, blah late first rounder, 20th pick blah] but nobody expected this much this soon
1985 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:[gushing praise blah, blah blah] Finally steped into the spotlight with his victory in the Slam Dunk Contest
1986 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:Won the NBA Slam Dunk Competition in Denver in 1984 and says that he has been stereotyped as nothing more than a dunker since that time ... While theres no doubting his dunking and leaping abilities, real fans know he's one of the best all-around forwards in the game ... Drafted without much fanfare as the 20th pick overall in 1981, he made rapid progress and become one of the brightest stars in the league
1987 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:Fell off his high perch ... The former "High-Atollah of Slamola" has paid the price for not wanting to be known as a dunk artist ... After winning the NBA Slam Dunk title in 1984, he eschewed the spotlight and did not even participate in the 1986 contest ... Paid the price for his reclusiveness by being left off the Western Conference All-Star team by both the fans and the coaches ... But be sure that opponents never overlook him ... One of the finest forwards in the game, he is an exceptional leaper and overpowering inside player ... The third ranking field-goal percentage shooter in the league at .581 last season .. Has never shot less than .521 in five pro seasons .. Born Feb 12, 1959, in Anderson, S.C.. .... Probably underpaid at a salary of $500,000 last season ... One of the great steals of the draft, he was taken on the 20th pick of the first round in 1981
1988 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:[Repeated dunk contest back story] ... Didn't like being regarded as one-dimensional, so he shied away from the spotlight ... How they've left him off the all-star team in the last two years is a mystery ... He's one of the few rays of hope in in a bleak Suns' picture
1989 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:Magnificent leaper with murderous inside game ... Generally underrated. Made All-Star Game just once
'90 came after his '89 All-Star game so there was merely an allusion to his second ASG.
1991 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:Underrated and unappreciated most of his career, he came to Cavs from Phoenix in a monster deal for Kevin Johnson on Feb 25, 1988 ... Smart, good passer, especially against double-teaming ... Complete pro who's unfortunately on down side of career [note: this transpired not to be true, just an injury hit down year] ... Career .522 shooting mark puts him in top 10 among active players ... Winner of first-ever Slam Dunk title. Too many associated him with flash over his abundant substance, though
1993 [yes, '93, they took one year of mentioning that he was underrated and just focused on the year he had for one year] Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:Always underrated. Quiet guy who never self-promotes ... Consistent, honest worker
'94 edition focused on the career he'd had, statistical landmark, how good he was for the oldest starting forward in the league "No sign of slowing down as he keeps himself in magnificent shape" his scoring tools, his timing.
I don't pretend to know intangiable impact to a high degree (though I'll certainly factor in what best info we have). Despite the train of "Nance is great, how dare you not vote for him" above based on aspects of your post -probably mostly my interpretation of the "but it's not like it's a mystery why he'd be seen in this light" line - through the last few posts there have been consistent threads of "I just think Bobby Jones is super-elite all-time intangiables guy." And for the most part I'd agree. My line of thinking isn't Nance is equal there and the numbers are better. It's that the numbers per minute are similar (Nance's, I'd suggest a little better), Nance gives you two extra seasons worth (and fwiw, might have gone longer without injuries) of minutes, and throw in that Nance was very highly regarded (Barry and Cohn ran out of ways to call him a leader by example e.g. pro's pro (x2), ultimate pro, consumate pro, a classy pro) and Jones has to be at the very ceiling of intangiables to add enough value to push his career ahead of Nance's. But I'm thinking you've got Jones there. I guess I was just hoping to get in a defensive minded box score stuffer who was good over a long spell in before all the offensive stars who were bigger names but played really well for a much shorter period (and/or maybe weren't so great on D, and perhaps intangiables), and concentrate that vote.
Anyhow Runoff vote: Cousy.
I'd take either over King. Archibald's case is peak, Cousy's consistency. Neither were great in the playoffs though that's not a huge concern to me (there's always a lot of things outside a players control, small sample, matchups, coaching, gameplanning etc that make numbers less reliable there, and Cousy and Archibald both have somewhat mitigating factors, Cousy that Boston became defense focused, Archibald the small prime sample, though playoffs still feels like an issue for both). Ultimately my inclination is that Cousy's gap over his peers for an extended spell should be enough to push him past Archibald. If I was playing more loose with hypotheticals and imagined a full healthy career I can see him in a while ago despite some defense and turnover (and aforementioned playoff) concerns. But I'm not allowing myself that luxury, in part because it's hard to know where to stop.
Only JordansBulls of first ballot voters in this thread yet to vote in the runoff. Cousy's got this one sewn up.
SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:Cousy is a guy I could vote for based on his success and the fact that his playmaking skill looks good buy contemporary standards. Cousy was a great early playmaker. If I voted for Cousy it would be a vote for Cousy's playmaking. I saw Cousy make some difficult shots on film. Cousy's shooting percentage is horrible but since it is Cousy's playmaking that makes Cousy relevant I am OK with ignoring Cousy's shooting.
I will never vote for Sharman because Sharman is supposed to be a shooter but Sharman's shooting percentage is not as high enough for a guy being voted for as a shooter.
I like Cousy's handles (and dislike that .gifs of him are used elsewhere as shorthand for "Ha ha, 50s basketball). Still Cousy was saying maybe 25 years ago that grade school kids could now pull off his moves. Cousy's (playmaking) numbers clearly stand out by comparison with his peers. Ditto Sharman's shooting
Note FT% is the most era neutral skill (arguably, at the margins, skews pro modern because earlier rims, balls, lighting etc were less regulation, more inconsistent).
Owly wrote:On the bolded (because it stands out from the rest, and the tone/message is different). Is it it ASG that is your default starting point? Accolades? Would we be okay calling Reggie Miller a borderline all-star (5 times, never more than twice consecutively), 3 Third Teams (not available for a large chunk of Nance's career), less MVP shares than Nance.
Either it's a real issue, and he is someone you define as "a borderline all-star" or it's a marginal point, in which case you note it in passing (e.g. "his [lack of] accolades may raise a red flag to some").
Accolades are a starting point yes. I'm not chained to them, but I don't simply brush aside the opinions of contemporary analysts either.
As noted, I think they really, really missed the mark with Reggie. I've yet to be convinced that they saw Nance totally wrong.
To be clear, in prior projects, I've always seen Nance as a guy who deserved to be in the Top 100, so at 71 we aren't way off the mark. I like Jones' game more though.
Owly wrote:
but it's not like it's a mystery why he'd be seen in this light
Why is he? (I've noted strong career value added by the metrics already plus intangiables etc)
The only reason I can see is that he wasn't a self promoter and that he hadn't been a blue chip, high pick prospect. Or again that he's not a high scorer (which would be an odd thing to highlight in the context of a Nance-Jones discussion).
1984 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:[blah, blah late first rounder, 20th pick blah] but nobody expected this much this soon
1985 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:[gushing praise blah, blah blah] Finally steped into the spotlight with his victory in the Slam Dunk Contest
1986 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:Won the NBA Slam Dunk Competition in Denver in 1984 and says that he has been stereotyped as nothing more than a dunker since that time ... While theres no doubting his dunking and leaping abilities, real fans know he's one of the best all-around forwards in the game ... Drafted without much fanfare as the 20th pick overall in 1981, he made rapid progress and become one of the brightest stars in the league
1987 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:Fell off his high perch ... The former "High-Atollah of Slamola" has paid the price for not wanting to be known as a dunk artist ... After winning the NBA Slam Dunk title in 1984, he eschewed the spotlight and did not even participate in the 1986 contest ... Paid the price for his reclusiveness by being left off the Western Conference All-Star team by both the fans and the coaches ... But be sure that opponents never overlook him ... One of the finest forwards in the game, he is an exceptional leaper and overpowering inside player ... The third ranking field-goal percentage shooter in the league at .581 last season .. Has never shot less than .521 in five pro seasons .. Born Feb 12, 1959, in Anderson, S.C.. .... Probably underpaid at a salary of $500,000 last season ... One of the great steals of the draft, he was taken on the 20th pick of the first round in 1981
1988 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:[Repeated dunk contest back story] ... Didn't like being regarded as one-dimensional, so he shied away from the spotlight ... How they've left him off the all-star team in the last two years is a mystery ... He's one of the few rays of hope in in a bleak Suns' picture
1989 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:Magnificent leaper with murderous inside game ... Generally underrated. Made All-Star Game just once
'90 came after his '89 All-Star game so there was merely an allusion to his second ASG.
1991 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:Underrated and unappreciated most of his career, he came to Cavs from Phoenix in a monster deal for Kevin Johnson on Feb 25, 1988 ... Smart, good passer, especially against double-teaming ... Complete pro who's unfortunately on down side of career [note: this transpired not to be true, just an injury hit down year] ... Career .522 shooting mark puts him in top 10 among active players ... Winner of first-ever Slam Dunk title. Too many associated him with flash over his abundant substance, though
1993 [yes, '93, they took one year of mentioning that he was underrated and just focused on the year he had for one year] Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball wrote:Always underrated. Quiet guy who never self-promotes ... Consistent, honest worker
'94 edition focused on the career he'd had, statistical landmark, how good he was for the oldest starting forward in the league "No sign of slowing down as he keeps himself in magnificent shape" his scoring tools, his timing.
I don't pretend to know intangiable impact to a high degree (though I'll certainly factor in what best info we have). Despite the train of "Nance is great, how dare you not vote for him" above based on aspects of your post -probably mostly my interpretation of the "but it's not like it's a mystery why he'd be seen in this light" line - through the last few posts there have been consistent threads of "I just think Bobby Jones is super-elite all-time intangiables guy." And for the most part I'd agree. My line of thinking isn't Nance is equal there and the numbers are better. It's that the numbers per minute are similar (Nance's, I'd suggest a little better), Nance gives you two extra seasons worth (and fwiw, might have gone longer without injuries) of minutes, and throw in that Nance was very highly regarded (Barry and Cohn ran out of ways to call him a leader by example e.g. pro's pro (x2), ultimate pro, consumate pro, a classy pro) and Jones has to be at the very ceiling of intangiables to add enough value to push his career ahead of Nance's. But I'm thinking you've got Jones there. I guess I was just hoping to get in a defensive minded box score stuffer who was good over a long spell in before all the offensive stars who were bigger names but played really well for a much shorter period (and/or maybe weren't so great on D, and perhaps intangiables), and concentrate that vote.
Nance was a guy who just didn't rack up eye-popping numbers. The only thing he was consistently on the league leader board for was blocks, and even there he was a 2-3 block guy in an era where the very top guys were in the 4-5 block range. There's nothing about that's going to necessarily drive a guy to be seen as a clear cut franchise player.
Again, doesn't mean he wasn't, but if I'm comparing him to, say, Elton Brand, it's far from trivial to argue that Nance was clearly the better player.
And again, you can say all that same stuff about Jones, it's just that to me Jones' story pops out beyond those norms much more saliently.
Doctor MJ wrote:Nance was a guy who just didn't rack up eye-popping numbers. The only thing he was consistently on the league leader board for was blocks, and even there he was a 2-3 block guy in an era where the very top guys were in the 4-5 block range.
It can't be omitted that at the time that he played, those top guys in the 4-5 block range were all centers. In fact, in 1991-92, Nance set an NBA single-season record for highest block per game average for a forward since the league had been keeping track:
At 33, the Cavaliers' Larry Nance is supposed to be coming back to earth. Instead, Nance is blocking more shots than ever before and has a chance to block more shots this season than any other forward in NBA history. Nance is averaging 3.19 blocks per game -- third best in the league. The previous high for a forward was Washington's Elvin Hayes with 2.96 in 1973-74, the first season that the NBA began counting blocks. “That is something,” said Nance. “I don’t jump as high as I used to, but I like blocking shots more now than ever. I think the fact we have a great shot-blocker like (Hot Rod) Williams makes me even better.” (Akron Beacon Journal, Feb 26, 1992)
Seeing how no forward in NBA history has ever been in the 4-5 block range for a season since the statistic has been officially recorded:
1. Mark Eaton, C 5.56 1984-85 UTA 2. Manute Bol, C 4.96 1985-86 WSB 3. Elmore Smith, C 4.85 1973-74 LAL 4. Mark Eaton, C 4.61 1985-86 UTA 5. Hakeem Olajuwon, C 4.59 1989-90 HOU 6. Dikembe Mutombo, C 4.49 1995-96 DEN 7. David Robinson, C 4.49 1991-92 SAS 8. Hakeem Olajuwon, C 4.34 1991-92 HOU 9. Manute Bol, C 4.31 1988-89 GSW 10. Tree Rollins, C 4.29 1982-83 ATL 11. Mark Eaton, C 4.28 1983-84 UTA 12. Hakeem Olajuwon, C 4.17 1992-93 HOU 13. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, C 4.12 1975-76 LAL 14. Dikembe Mutombo, C 4.10 1993-94 DEN 15. Mark Eaton, C 4.06 1986-87 UTA 16. Patrick Ewing, C 3.99 1989-90 NYK
.
That's hardly fair to expect it of Nance. Since Nance set the record in '92, Kirilenko's had some seasons of 3.2 and 3.3 blocks, and Ibaka currently holds the record at 3.65 in '11-12. None of which are in the 4-5 range.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters
Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
Doctor MJ wrote:Nance was a guy who just didn't rack up eye-popping numbers. The only thing he was consistently on the league leader board for was blocks, and even there he was a 2-3 block guy in an era where the very top guys were in the 4-5 block range.
It can't be omitted that at the time that he played, those top guys in the 4-5 block range were all centers. In fact, in 1991-92, Nance set an NBA single-season record for highest block per game average for a forward since the league had been keeping track:
At 33, the Cavaliers' Larry Nance is supposed to be coming back to earth. Instead, Nance is blocking more shots than ever before and has a chance to block more shots this season than any other forward in NBA history. Nance is averaging 3.19 blocks per game -- third best in the league. The previous high for a forward was Washington's Elvin Hayes with 2.96 in 1973-74, the first season that the NBA began counting blocks. “That is something,” said Nance. “I don’t jump as high as I used to, but I like blocking shots more now than ever. I think the fact we have a great shot-blocker like (Hot Rod) Williams makes me even better.” (Akron Beacon Journal, Feb 26, 1992)
Seeing how no forward in NBA history has ever been in the 4-5 block range for a season since the statistic has been officially recorded:
1. Mark Eaton, C 5.56 1984-85 UTA 2. Manute Bol, C 4.96 1985-86 WSB 3. Elmore Smith, C 4.85 1973-74 LAL 4. Mark Eaton, C 4.61 1985-86 UTA 5. Hakeem Olajuwon, C 4.59 1989-90 HOU 6. Dikembe Mutombo, C 4.49 1995-96 DEN 7. David Robinson, C 4.49 1991-92 SAS 8. Hakeem Olajuwon, C 4.34 1991-92 HOU 9. Manute Bol, C 4.31 1988-89 GSW 10. Tree Rollins, C 4.29 1982-83 ATL 11. Mark Eaton, C 4.28 1983-84 UTA 12. Hakeem Olajuwon, C 4.17 1992-93 HOU 13. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, C 4.12 1975-76 LAL 14. Dikembe Mutombo, C 4.10 1993-94 DEN 15. Mark Eaton, C 4.06 1986-87 UTA 16. Patrick Ewing, C 3.99 1989-90 NYK
.
That's hardly fair to expect it of Nance. Since Nance set the record in '92, Kirilenko's had some seasons of 3.2 and 3.3 blocks, and Ibaka currently holds the record at 3.65 in '11-12. None of which are in the 4-5 range.
That's fine Reg, but a block from a power forward isn't inherently more valuable than a block from a center, and the point here was specifically that this was his best stat, and even there he's not really superstar-looking.
From a box score perspective, Nance was a quite nice player in a bunch of areas, but it's pretty easy to see how that wouldn't necessarily lead to him being seen as an all-star lock.
