RealGM Top 100 List #97 -- Only 4 spots left

[penbeast0]

PG: Tim Hardaway, Mark Price, and maybe Mookie Blaylock are the players I'm looking at . . . should mention Penny Hardaway though he never impressed me as much as he did the TV guys of his day.

Wings: Marques Johnson has the most impressive peak. Bailey Howell, Chet Walker, Jamaal Wilkes and Bob Dandridge had longer careers, if lower peaks, and also come to mind. Bill Sharman has been brought up too.

Bigs: Amare Stoudamire and Jerry Lucas bring great scoring and rebounding respectively but defensive questions. Bill Walton has the highest peak (though that's it for true career value -- 1 year then failed to stay healthy to the playoffs the next and 1 year as a reserve role player). Yao Ming should get a mention too.

Compare --
Hardaway, Price, and Blaylock as the top PGs;
Sharman and Hornacek as pure 2's.
Walker, Wilkes, Dandridge, and Hornacek as the top wings
Howell, Amare, Lucas, and Walt Bellamy as top scoring bigs
Yao Ming, Marques Johnson, Penny Hardaway, or Gus Williams as the top short peak player

I keep changing my mind; let's see who else gets support.

[trex_8063]

I keep changing my mind; let's see who else gets support.

I know what you mean. I was initially pretty set on Jerry Lucas.....then started waffling between him and Walt Bellamy......then after taking close look at Neil Johnston, felt pretty much a flip there too. I'm happy Johnston is in. As we got to these last few spots, I discovered an impending feeling of.....not panic, but a recognition that Johnston was one a handful of remaining players for whom I would have been both sad and disappointed in us if he somehow missed the cut.

With him in, I guess I'm again leaning Lucas or Bellamy, though I also feel strongly (to varying degrees) that George McGinnis, Tim Hardaway, Joe Dumars, Amar'e Stoudemire, and Bill Sharman all belong in the top 100, too. Obviously, there isn't room for all of them.

Chet Walker, Dennis Johnson, Bailey Howell, Marques Johnson, Connie Hawkins, and Spencer Haywood are all worth serious consideration as well (imo). Hmmm.....

[penbeast0]

Breaking it down by position, I look at the PGs (Tim Hardaway, Mark Price, Mookie Blaylock, Penny Hardaway, Gus WIlliams) and end up favoring Gus Williams for his playoff numbers.
At the SG, I am looking at Hornacek, Dumars, and Sharman and the numbers clearly say Hornacek. However, I lean Dumars slightly for the defense. (DJ isn't quite as good as Dumars with similar strengths).
At the forward, looking at Walker, Howell, Marques Johnson, and Dandridge and, taking into account playoff resume, Dandridge squeaks ahead, again for the defensive edge.
Finally in terms of bigs, Lucas, Haywood, or Amare (Yao's numbers just don't stand up, especially considering his short career). I think I would go with Amare Stoudamire despite his weak defense. Lucas and Haywood weren't guys who played good defense either and Amare is just more efficient than either and scores more than Lucas. Lucas's rebounding edge drops taking pace into account and while he's clearly the smartest and most court aware, Amare's prime was pretty impressive.

Ok, now:

Gus Williams, Dumars, Dandridge, or Amare.
In terms of offense, it's Amare, Gus, Dandridge, then Dumars; in terms of defense, it reverses.
It really doesn't resolve itself in any mental formulation very clearly.

So, tentatively, I will vote for Bob Dandridge as most versatile and guy most likely to be on a championship team. That and he was a heck of a player for the Bullets as well as the Bucks.

[trex_8063]

Since I've name-dropped George McGinnis a couple times, figured I should maybe post a closer evaluation of him.....

Here are the year-by-year Per 100 and relative TS% numbers for his prime ('73-'79, 551 rs games), ABA where indicated:

'73: 28.8 pts, 13.0 reb, 2.6 ast, 2.0 stl, 5.1 tov @ +1.18% rts (ABA)
'74: 29.5 pts, 17.1 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.3 stl, 0.6 blk, 5.6 tov @ +0.88% rts (ABA)
'75: 33.7 pts, 16.1 reb, 7.1 ast, 2.9 stl, 0.8 blk, 6.0 tov @ -0.09% rts (ABA)
'76: 26.8 pts, 14.7 reb, 5.4 ast, 3.0 stl, 0.6 blk @ -2.15% rts
'77: 27.0 pts, 14.6 reb, 4.8 ast, 2.6 stl, 0.6 blk @ -0.75% rts
'78: 27.7 pts, 14.2 reb, 5.1 ast, 2.4 stl, 0.5 blk, 5.5 tov @ +0.65% rts
'79: 30.5 pts, 15.3 reb, 5.0 ast, 2.3 stl, 0.9 blk, 6.1 tov @ +0.32% rts

TOTAL PRIME:
Per 100 poss: 29.2 pts, 15.1 reb, 4.8 ast, 2.5 stl, 0.7 blk, 5.7 tov @ +0.04% rts
PER 21.9, .152 WS/48 in 37.4 mpg

Breakdown by league.....
ABA PRIME (241 rs games):
Per 100 poss: 30.7 pts, 15.4 reb, 4.5 ast, 2.4 stl, 0.7 blk, 5.6 tov @ +0.65% rts
PER 23.1, .162 WS/48 in 40.7 mpg
BPM in '74: +3.8. VORP in '74: +4.8
BPM in '75: +6.7. VORP in '75: +7.0.

NBA PRIME (310 rs games):
Per 100 poss: 27.9 pts, 14.7 reb, 5.1 ast, 2.6 stl, 0.6 blk, 5.8 tov @ -0.60% rts
PER 20.8, .143 WS/48 in 34.8 mpg
Avg BPM +4.1.
Cumulative VORP: +16.6.


His shooting efficiency is only OK, and turnovers are an issue. But his production is otherwise remarkable, and he shows signs of that "all-around game" (kinda like a bigger volume Draymond Green or something). Statistically, he's more than comparable to the crowd we're considering.


As career narrative and general legacy stuff:
*Was an ABA All-Star all three of those ABA years, NBA All-Star 3 of 4 years.
*Won two ABA titles alongside Mel Daniels ('72 and '73). 1 NBA finals appearance in '77, too.
*2-Time All-ABA 1st Team, 1-Time All-ABA 2nd Team.
*1-Time All-NBA 1st Team, 1-Time All-NBA 2nd Team.
*Was co-MVP of the ABA in '75, with prime (near-peak) Julius Erving; and did this alongside prime/peak Artis Gilmore and Dan Issel, too.
*Twice factored into NBA MVP voting (finishing as high as #5 in '76).
*#79 in RealGM RPoY shares.


Does he not deserve serious consideration at this point?

[Sasaki]

I know I asked this before, but does the fact that Stoudamire only played 1.5 seasons longer than Yao really more than make up for his inferior defense?

I think I would go with Joe Dumars at this point. Dumars is also versatile, played a big role on a major championship team, and has the defense to back it up.

[penbeast0]

Amare also played a lot BETTER offensively than Yao. He was a dominant force on at least that side of the ball.

[penbeast0]

Since I've name-dropped George McGinnis a couple times, figured I should maybe post a closer evaluation of him.....

Here are the year-by-year Per 100 and relative TS% numbers for his prime ('73-'79, 551 rs games), ABA where indicated:

'73: 28.8 pts, 13.0 reb, 2.6 ast, 2.0 stl, 5.1 tov @ +1.18% rts (ABA)
'74: 29.5 pts, 17.1 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.3 stl, 0.6 blk, 5.6 tov @ +0.88% rts (ABA)
'75: 33.7 pts, 16.1 reb, 7.1 ast, 2.9 stl, 0.8 blk, 6.0 tov @ -0.09% rts (ABA)
'76: 26.8 pts, 14.7 reb, 5.4 ast, 3.0 stl, 0.6 blk @ -2.15% rts
'77: 27.0 pts, 14.6 reb, 4.8 ast, 2.6 stl, 0.6 blk @ -0.75% rts
'78: 27.7 pts, 14.2 reb, 5.1 ast, 2.4 stl, 0.5 blk, 5.5 tov @ +0.65% rts
'79: 30.5 pts, 15.3 reb, 5.0 ast, 2.3 stl, 0.9 blk, 6.1 tov @ +0.32% rts

TOTAL PRIME:
Per 100 poss: 29.2 pts, 15.1 reb, 4.8 ast, 2.5 stl, 0.7 blk, 5.7 tov @ +0.04% rts
PER 21.9, .152 WS/48 in 37.4 mpg

Breakdown by league.....
ABA PRIME (241 rs games):
Per 100 poss: 30.7 pts, 15.4 reb, 4.5 ast, 2.4 stl, 0.7 blk, 5.6 tov @ +0.65% rts
PER 23.1, .162 WS/48 in 40.7 mpg
BPM in '74: +3.8. VORP in '74: +4.8
BPM in '75: +6.7. VORP in '75: +7.0.

NBA PRIME (310 rs games):
Per 100 poss: 27.9 pts, 14.7 reb, 5.1 ast, 2.6 stl, 0.6 blk, 5.8 tov @ -0.60% rts
PER 20.8, .143 WS/48 in 34.8 mpg
Avg BPM +4.1.
Cumulative VORP: +16.6.


His shooting efficiency is only OK, and turnovers are an issue. But his production is otherwise remarkable, and he shows signs of that "all-around game" (kinda like a bigger volume Draymond Green or something). Statistically, he's more than comparable to the crowd we're considering.


As career narrative and general legacy stuff:
*Was an ABA All-Star all three of those ABA years, NBA All-Star 3 of 4 years.
*Won two ABA titles alongside Mel Daniels ('72 and '73). 1 NBA finals appearance in '77, too.
*2-Time All-ABA 1st Team, 1-Time All-ABA 2nd Team.
*1-Time All-NBA 1st Team, 1-Time All-NBA 2nd Team.
*Was co-MVP of the ABA in '75, with prime (near-peak) Julius Erving; and did this alongside prime/peak Artis Gilmore and Dan Issel, too.
*Twice factored into NBA MVP voting (finishing as high as #5 in '76).
*#79 in RealGM RPoY shares.


Does he not deserve serious consideration at this point?

McGoo was a fun player and I always love ABA guys. He was superathletic and a powerhouse rebounder; but . . . not a really good defender or high BBIQ guy and 5.5 to 6.0 turnovers per 100 is a pretty significant problem comparing him to someone like Jerry Lucas or Amare Stoudamire. Compare him to contemporary Spencer Haywood even and Haywood looks like he has a (not huge) edge.

[trex_8063]

Since I've name-dropped George McGinnis a couple times, figured I should maybe post a closer evaluation of him.....

Here are the year-by-year Per 100 and relative TS% numbers for his prime ('73-'79, 551 rs games), ABA where indicated:

'73: 28.8 pts, 13.0 reb, 2.6 ast, 2.0 stl, 5.1 tov @ +1.18% rts (ABA)
'74: 29.5 pts, 17.1 reb, 3.8 ast, 2.3 stl, 0.6 blk, 5.6 tov @ +0.88% rts (ABA)
'75: 33.7 pts, 16.1 reb, 7.1 ast, 2.9 stl, 0.8 blk, 6.0 tov @ -0.09% rts (ABA)
'76: 26.8 pts, 14.7 reb, 5.4 ast, 3.0 stl, 0.6 blk @ -2.15% rts
'77: 27.0 pts, 14.6 reb, 4.8 ast, 2.6 stl, 0.6 blk @ -0.75% rts
'78: 27.7 pts, 14.2 reb, 5.1 ast, 2.4 stl, 0.5 blk, 5.5 tov @ +0.65% rts
'79: 30.5 pts, 15.3 reb, 5.0 ast, 2.3 stl, 0.9 blk, 6.1 tov @ +0.32% rts

TOTAL PRIME:
Per 100 poss: 29.2 pts, 15.1 reb, 4.8 ast, 2.5 stl, 0.7 blk, 5.7 tov @ +0.04% rts
PER 21.9, .152 WS/48 in 37.4 mpg

Breakdown by league.....
ABA PRIME (241 rs games):
Per 100 poss: 30.7 pts, 15.4 reb, 4.5 ast, 2.4 stl, 0.7 blk, 5.6 tov @ +0.65% rts
PER 23.1, .162 WS/48 in 40.7 mpg
BPM in '74: +3.8. VORP in '74: +4.8
BPM in '75: +6.7. VORP in '75: +7.0.

NBA PRIME (310 rs games):
Per 100 poss: 27.9 pts, 14.7 reb, 5.1 ast, 2.6 stl, 0.6 blk, 5.8 tov @ -0.60% rts
PER 20.8, .143 WS/48 in 34.8 mpg
Avg BPM +4.1.
Cumulative VORP: +16.6.


His shooting efficiency is only OK, and turnovers are an issue. But his production is otherwise remarkable, and he shows signs of that "all-around game" (kinda like a bigger volume Draymond Green or something). Statistically, he's more than comparable to the crowd we're considering.


As career narrative and general legacy stuff:
*Was an ABA All-Star all three of those ABA years, NBA All-Star 3 of 4 years.
*Won two ABA titles alongside Mel Daniels ('72 and '73). 1 NBA finals appearance in '77, too.
*2-Time All-ABA 1st Team, 1-Time All-ABA 2nd Team.
*1-Time All-NBA 1st Team, 1-Time All-NBA 2nd Team.
*Was co-MVP of the ABA in '75, with prime (near-peak) Julius Erving; and did this alongside prime/peak Artis Gilmore and Dan Issel, too.
*Twice factored into NBA MVP voting (finishing as high as #5 in '76).
*#79 in RealGM RPoY shares.


Does he not deserve serious consideration at this point?

McGoo was a fun player and I always love ABA guys. He was superathletic and a powerhouse rebounder; but . . . not a really good defender or high BBIQ guy and 5.5 to 6.0 turnovers per 100 is a pretty significant problem comparing him to someone like Jerry Lucas or Amare Stoudamire. Compare him to contemporary Spencer Haywood even and Haywood looks like he has a (not huge) edge.

idk....
His ABA season aside, his biggest statistical years came for some fairly poor Sonics teams (biggest fish in a little pond, perhaps); whereas McGinnis was doing the above prime stuff primarily for very good teams. If we generously call '70-'76 Haywood's prime, that gives us a 7-year period to compare to McGinnis' 7-year prime.

Haywood Per 100 poss and rts% by year......
'70: 29.5 pts, 19.2 reb, 2.2 ast, 3.0 tov @ +3.94% rts (ABA)
'71: 24.1 pts, 14.0 reb, 1.7 ast @ +0.37% rts
'72: 26.3 pts, 12.7 reb, 2.0 ast @ +2.29% rts
'73: 30.1 pts, 13.3 reb, 2.6 ast @ +3.38% rts
'74: 25.2 pts, 14.4 reb, 3.4 ast, 0.9 stl, 1.5 blk @ -0.44% rts
'75: 27.4 pts, 11.3 reb, 2.5 ast, 1.0 stl, 1.9 blk @ +0.87% rts
'76: 24.7 pts, 14.0 reb, 1.5 ast, 0.8 stl, 1.3 blk @ -0.63% rts

TOTAL PRIME (488 rs games):
Per 100 poss: 26.5-27.0 pts, 14.0-14.5 reb, 2.3 ast, 0.9 stl, 1.6 blk, (3.0 tov in ABA-only) @ +1.76% rts
PER 21.2, .150 WS/48 in 40.7 mpg

NBA PRIME (404 rs games):
Per 100 poss: 26-26.5 pts, 13.4 reb, 2.3 ast, 0.9 stl, 1.6 blk @ +1.21% rts
PER 19.6, .134 WS/48 in 39.7 mpg

Both performed similarly in the playoffs (though McGinnis has a MUCH larger sample size----like more than 3x----again, due to being a major contributor on multiple good teams).
Haywood rates similarly in accolades and ranks slightly higher in MVP award shares, though is #104 in RealGM RPoY shares (vs. #79 for McGinnis).
Careers were almost identical in length.
So idk, I certainly don't see an edge for Haywood (except for peak, maybe).

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Bob Dandridge

I like his longevity as far as being an incredibly useful wing on strong teams. He gives teams a versatile, vigorous defender on the wing who will compete each night, and he provides solid offense. Smart passer. Shouldered decent scoring volume as well.

[Owly]

Vote: Bill Sharman

Prior reasoning below in spoiler

Spoiler:

Happy with either of these choices but I'll vote Sharman.

I’ve had some advocacy for both.
Johnston has a huge range on these types of lists. If you aren’t making any adjustments for era (or a friendly one, e.g. accepting longevity is typically and reasonably less at that time), take the numbers at face value, value peaks highly and find crummy teammates to be responsible for team failures he could go really high. If you are more cynical on his numbers on poor teams, note that most Cs had good numbers in that era (not necessarily as good as his, but Mikan, Groza, Macauley, Foust, Lovellette all have very), are cynical on era, are more longevity based, weigh playoffs highly etc then you can more or less dismiss him. I am probably closer to more positions on list one than two, but there’s enough unknown to make one hesitant.
With Sharman, he is now the last guy who’s the best of his decade at his position who isn’t in (since DeBusschere filled the 60s PF spot). If you think you need a player at each position (or at least require certain skill sets fulfilling over the team, given Sharman’s strengths as a shooter and wing defender) then Sharman’s clear, substantial differentiation from his peers makes him a strong candidate. Here’s what I’d argued before (much overlap, but perhaps more fleshed out) ...

Bill Sharman

One of only two best players of (complete) decade at a position that isn't in yet (the other would be 60s PF, assuming you consider Pettit primarily 50s, and Baylor a SF, though if you move Baylor you just make it SF the position that isn't represented). And unlike the alternate spot (where I have Howell, but others will prefer others) Sharman is clearly ahead of the rest of the pack.

Sharman is one of only a handful of 50 at 50 guys still on the board (Dave Bing, Dave DeBusschere, Jerry Lucas, Pete Maravich, Earl Monroe, Bill Walton, Lenny Wilkens and James Worthy, I believe are the others).

Prior reasoning

As before I've a number of viable candidates but I'm going to

vote Bill Sharman

My rationale last time

To expand on best player at his position of his decade (and here I'll assume only one decade for each player), that wasn't quite true, looking at it we don't yet have a 60s PF yet (assuming Baylor is considered a small forward), which would give me another reason to support Bailey Howell. And obviously neither of those guys are at these guys level. And it's not to suggest that these people were good or ranked highly (solely) because they separated themselves from their peers at their position (inevitably most of the top 25 will will be top of their position-decade ranking).

50s
C Mikan (24)
PF Pettit (21)
SF Arizin (63)
SG
PG Cousy (71)

60s
C Russell (3)
PF
SF Baylor (33)
SG West (15)
PG Robertson (12)

70s
C Abdul-Jabbar (2)
PF Hayes (58)
SF Erving (14)
SG Gervin (38)
PG Frazier (28)

80s
C M Malone (19)
PF McHale (44)
SF Bird (10)
SG Moncrief (66)
PG Magic Johnson (8)

90s
C O'Neal (6)
PF K Malone (17)
SF Pippen (27)
SG Jordan (1)
PG Stockton (26)

2000 (to present because of incomplete decade)
C Howard (43)
PF Duncan (5)
SF James (7)
SG Bryant (13)
PG Nash (25)

Still, I think there is some value in being the best at your position or role in your time, because unless you think you can field a team exclusively of bigs then you need to put someone at each position (or it least in each role and fill out different skill sets). And Sharman isn't narrowly the best SG of the 50s (whereas whilst I have Howell at the top of 60s PFs I see that others might take Lucas, DeBusschere, Heinsohn or Connie Hawkins), he's a good distance ahead of the pack (particularly if you don't consider Ramsay a SG, Carl Braun is probably the next best SG). I just think Sharman therefore added significantly to his team's title chances.

Obviously era competition is a factor but I'd suggest that he's been sufficiently docked for that.

The more "pure" off guards of the 50s and 60s don't have blow you away metrics in part because of their role. But versus say Greer is it better to be the best in a weaker era or 3rd (West, S Jones voted above him) in a slightly stronger one. Sharman's metrics are clear that he is consistently adding value over "good" by the metrics, Greer isn't; part of that could be the SG role limiting boxscore output but that hurts Sharman too. Greer has longevity but if part of that is the league playing 82 game seasons rather than 70 how much help is that? How much value does longevity hold when your boxscore output peaks at .0.1651 WS/48 and PER peaks at 17.7 (with .124 and 15.7 career numbers)? Okay there's non boxscore stuff too but Sharman was committed to conditioning and a strong defender. Other anchoring arguments might involve Cousy (same era, broadly similar metrics overall, holding up better in the playoffs and being better on D) or Miller (similar roles as floor spacer shooter, on high-ish volumes but not renowned off the bounce creators).

Sharman as best shooter at the guard positions of his era ...
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... =ws_per_48
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _by=ts_pct
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _by=ft_pct

TL;DR version
So long as you think you need players to fulfill specific roles, in this instance mobile shooters to space the floor and defend the other team's guards, there's a degree to which it makes most sense comparing a player to peers at that position. Sharman was (I believe) by a long distance the best at his position in his time therefore I believe he added substantially to his team's title chances.

Any thoughts on this reasoning, does it make sense? Too crude? Too favourable to those with weak competition? Fine as a criterion but far from exhaustive (and era and position weakness concerns outweigh the positives)? Anyhow at this point obviously it's close but by this measure Sharman stands out from the pack.

[penbeast0]

Is Sharman clearly superior to Hornacek and Dumars? I don't see it except for accolades. I don't see him as a bad comp with them either but it's not by a long distance if at all.

[Owly]

Is Sharman clearly superior to Hornacek and Dumars? I don't see it except for accolades. I don't see him as a bad comp with them either but it's not by a long distance if at all.

Otoh I'd say what stands out is a better defender than Hornacek and a better shooter than Dumars. But I might look properly into those comps.

But what I'm getting at is what I argued for Sharman for a while ago in the spoilered body of the post which is, Sharman was the best at his position in his time (and I'd suggest by quite a distance). As a result Sharman, versus gives your team above all others a significant edge in title probability. Hornacek and Dumars are good but how much did they distance themselves from the pack. Certainly the accolades aren't favourable on this score for whatever that's worth. Now composite numbers (WS, PER) do a horrible job of capturing Dumars' D and Hornacek looks pretty impressive by WS/48. Still if Jordan is the elite first place (and obviously a freaky outlier and an unfair comparison), then you're looking how far are they behind Drexler, behind Miller? Richmond arrived a bit later and had a short peak but how much of an advantage do you have on a team with him (or Rice when he played SG). How much better are you than a team with Hawkins or Majerle. Obviously the larger the league the more competitors so whilst I can throw out a few names there are going to be a lot of teams against whom Hornacek or Dumars give you a large edge (moreso in the late 80s when the position was, otoh, thinner).

Maybe his advantage over Carl Braun seems bigger because Sharman is historically remembered and Carl Braun isn't. Maybe it's weak competition. Maybe I'm justifying an era-position "adjustment" (implicitly, like some stats position adjust) because I'm a Sharman fan. Maybe I'm reading to much into his D based on limited info. Maybe the above is too dismissive of the edge Dumars and Hornacek gave their teams (fwiw, given all the Isiah raised up when his team needed it talk, it was Dumars, over the title years, for whom a large number of shots correlated strongly with the Pistons winning; and so as I say I'm not sure PER, WS, WARP do him justice, he'd be someone for whom +/- type numbers would be interesting). It just seems to me having Sharman gave his team quite an edge.

[Quotatious]

Vote: Bill Sharman

Best shooter of his era, one of the first jumpshooters, sort of a prototypical Reggie Miller/Ray Allen, has a pretty good defensive reputation, as well. Efficient scorer for his era (usually about +5% above league average TS% throughout his career), looks like a pretty good playoff performer, too. Decent longevity, especially by 50s standards (much longer career and much better playoff performer than Neil Johnston, for example).

It's been a while since we had the last 50s player selected (Cousy at 71), and I think the gap between Sam Jones (selected at 68) and Sharman is already too big.

[trex_8063]

Vote: Bill Sharman

Best shooter of his era, one of the first jumpshooters, sort of a prototypical Reggie Miller/Ray Allen, has a pretty good defensive reputation, as well. Efficient scorer for his era (usually about +5% above league average TS% throughout his career), looks like a pretty good playoff performer, too. Decent longevity, especially by 50s standards (much longer career and much better playoff performer than Neil Johnston, for example).

It's been a while since we had the last 50s player selected (Cousy at 71), and I think the gap between Sam Jones (selected at 68) and Sharman is already too big.

Except for Neil Johnston at #96.

Since Sharman and Dandridge both have a couple votes, I feel I need to just pick a side (as we don't have the turnout at this point to avoid these two individuals being in the run-off). So I'm going to hop on the Bill Sharman bandwagon. I do want to see him voted in, anyway.

Excellent efficiency moderate volume scorer for a perennial contender, scrappy perimeter defender, and as has been mentioned: pretty decent longevity for the time period. While his size and athleticism might be increasingly problematic as moved forward in time (era portability blah blah), the 3pt line can only benefit his skill-set, so.....

Not necessarily my first pick, but content enough to support him at this spot.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #97 - Bill Sharman

Was back and forth between johnston, lucas and sharman in the last thread, and didn't bother voting as johnston had it locked up. Work is still crazy for me right now, so i'd like to put a tentative vote in for sharman. If I have time later today to do a little more research, I may change my vote.

Impressed with his longevity as well as efficiency relative to his era. Scoring as efficiently as he did may have been even more difficult given the celtics' gameplan of getting up as many shots as possible. Solid and consistent contributor to multiple celtics championship teams. One of the more accomplished guards of his era with 7 all NBA selections and 5th and 6th place MVP finishes.

[penbeast0]

So, with 2 hours left it's

Sharman 3
Dandridge 2

[trex_8063]

So, with 2 hours left it's

Sharman 3
Dandridge 2

You may have missed my vote (it's bolded, but within a body of text), but I jumped on the Sharman bandwagon. So that makes 4 votes for Bill Sharman (me, Quotatious, Clyde, and Owly).

[penbeast0]

Either way, Sharman takes this spot. Notice how as we end, with so few voters left, we are reaching consensus more and having fewer runoffs?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I was too busy to participate during this vote. Seeing how many votes Shaman got I doubt I could have kept him out of the top 100 by voting.

I did not think a shooting specialist who did not shoot well belonged in a all time top 100 list even if he was the best shooter of his era.

People talk about players being bigger and faster in the current era than other eras but when I compare 2014 to say 1980 what stands out most to me about the current is how good the outside shooting has become. Players are a little bigger and faster than 1980 but the improvement in shooting is even more impressive.

I like the 1980s inside scoring skills better than I like the current inside scoring skills.

The 1980s were far more advanced than the 1950s and early 1960s despite expansion.

By current standards or by 1980s standards Sharman was not a good shooter. Is Sharnan really as good a small off guard as say World B Free, Byron Scott, Fred Brown, Vinnie Johnson, Mahmoud Abdul Rauf, Otis Birdsong, Jason Terry . Hersey Hawkins, Zj J Redick or Lou Williams?

Sharman has a 42.6 career FG%. He shot well for his era but so what. He has championship rings but so does Byron Scott.

Being the best in a weaker era does not impress me as much as it impressed some other people.

[Laimbeer]