I don't know how much longer this will go; gettin' harder to justify the time and attention it takes to keep it rolling. Anyway, target stop time for this thread will be Tuesday morning.
Dr Spaceman wrote:.
Mutnt wrote:.
RSCD_3 wrote:.
Quotatious wrote:.
Dr Positivity wrote:.
drza wrote:.
eminence wrote:.
yoyoboy wrote:.
RebelWithoutACause wrote:.
LA Bird wrote:.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:.
Gregoire wrote:.
PaulieWal wrote:.
The-Power wrote:.
SKF_85 wrote:.
Narigo wrote:.
Joao Saraiva wrote:.
PCProductions wrote:.
Moonbeam wrote:.
theonlyclutch wrote:.
BallerHogger wrote:.
michievous wrote:.
JordansBulls wrote:.
Clyde Frazier wrote:.
thizznation wrote:.
SideshowBob wrote:.
fpliii wrote:.
"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
1st ballot: Elgin Baylor '61 To some degree the volume vs. efficiency considerations of Baylor (among others from this era) should be viewed with a bit of leniency, imo, as efficiency and "finding a good shot" just wasn't on anyone's radar in the early 1960's. Any way you slice it, though, Baylor was an excellent (if not quite elite) scorer, and underrated playmaker for the SF position, as well as a GOAT-level rebounder for his position, and likely a better defender than some other perimeter players on the table presently (e.g. Nash, Harden).
Baylor '61 rs per 100 possession estimates: 31.1 pts, 17.75 reb, 4.55 ast @ +2.91% rTS. 28.2 PER, .227 WS/48 in 42.9 mpg Baylor '61 playoff per 100 possession estimates: 32.5 pts, 13.1 reb, 3.9 ast @ +6.89% rTS (53.83% TS, which would be a little above average even by today's standards). 28.0 PER, .248 WS/48 in 45.0 mpg
Some additional stuff about prime Baylor in general (copied from prior thread):
Spoiler:
Here's some more info regarding Baylor's impact, draw your own conclusions.....
In '58 (before Baylor), the Lakers were 19-53 (.264) with an SRS of -5.78.
In '59 they obtain rookie Elgin Baylor (and he's the only relevant transaction that occurred), and improve to 33-39 (.458) and -1.42 SRS (improvement of 14 wins and +4.36 SRS). They would also make it to the finals by first defeating a -1.36 SRS Detroit team 2-1, and then defeating the +2.89 SRS defending champ St. Louis Hawks 4-2. wrt to how that improvement was managed...... Yeah, we always tend to think of Baylor as primarily an offensive player; but there's some to suggest he had a significant impact defensively, too. His reputation is mostly as a "decent" (but not great) defender, though I wonder if perhaps his prowess on the glass reduced a lot of easy second-chance opportunities for opponents (he was 3rd in the league in rebounds right off the bat in his rookie season). Because in terms of rORTG, the Lakers in '58 (before Baylor) were -0.8 (ranked 6th of 8), and in rDRTG were +4.5 (8th of 8, and +2.5 to the 7th place team!). In '59, their rORTG improves to +0.6 (a jump of 1.4, up to 4th of 8); but rDRTG improves to +1.7 (a big jump of 2.8, from a distant last place to 6th of 8). The team is 33-37 (.471) with him, 0-2 without him.
In '60, an aging Vern Mikkelsen has retired, aging Larry Foust misses some games and is playing a reduced role, too. Meanwhile the offensive primacy of the wildly inefficient (even for the era) Hot Rod Hundley increases, as well as a marginally increase in role for the even worse Slick Leonard (ridiculously bad 37.3% TS.....that's even -9% relative to league avg; similar to someone shooting 44% TS or so today; you'd have to be an elite defender to get ANY playing time at all today, and no way would you be getting 28+ mpg and be 6th on the team in FGA/g.....goes to show how efficiency just wasn't on the radar yet). And they also obtained rookie Rudy LaRusso (who would eventually become a pretty good player, but is a fairly inefficient scorer in his rookie season). They also obtained the somewhat inefficient Frank Selvy as well as an aging 6'11" Ray Felix in mid-season trades. Anyway, their rORTG falls to -3.4 (8th of 8), though their defense continues to improve to +0.1 rDRTG (4th of 8), as they finish 25-50 (-4.14 SRS). The team is 23-47 (.329) with him, 2-3 (.400) without him.
In '61, we have the arrival of rookie Jerry West. He's not yet the player he would become, but nonetheless is the clear 2nd-best behind Baylor. This affords them to reduce the role of Hundley and Leonard in the backcourt. rORTG improves to -1.3 (7th of 8), rDRTG continues to improve to -1.2 (4th of 8). The team is 34-39 (.466) with him, 2-4 (.333) without him.
In '62, West is now a legit superstar, too. Slick Leonard is gone, and Hundley's role is further diminished; LaRusso continues to improve and get more efficient. Non-surprisingly, the team rORTG improves to +1.4 (3rd of 9). Critics might argue Baylor missing games contributed to this improvement in rORTG, but I'm more inclined to think it's the additive effects of a) the improvements in West and LaRusso, b) the loss of Leonard, and c) the reduced role of Hundley; especially in light of the following....... Baylor misses 32 games, not due to injury, but rather to military service: he's only able to play if he can get a weekend pass to quickly travel to the game, play, and then come back. So he likely barely gets to practice, and yet still establishes himself among the league's elite---->Per 100 possession estimates: 33.6 pts, 16.3 reb, 4.1 ast @ +1.34% rTS in a whopping 44.4 mpg. The team is 37-11 (.771) with him, 17-15 (.531) without him. Some of his missed games may have overlapped with West's missed games, but the thing is: West only missed 5 games total that year. And NO ONE else in their main rotation missed more than 2 games all year. They make it to the finals and take the Russell Celtics to 7 games. Baylor averages 40.6 ppg, 17.9 rpg, and 3.7 apg in the series @ 51.0% TS (+3.1 rTS). In a close game 5 victory, Baylor logs [what I think is still an NBA finals record] 61 pts (and I believe 22 reb as well).
EDIT: I'd also add this quote from The Rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor....
.....Fans specifically came to see him [Baylor]. When he was on military duty and playing sporadically, they called the box office before games to ask if he would be appearing. The Lakers front office had run figures calculating Baylor’s ability to sell tickets, and they determined that in games when he did not play, the Lakers drew an average of 2,000 fewer fans. That amounted to approximately $6,000 per game, or $200,000 over the course of a season….
Going back to our agreement that impact = goodness + fit + utilization......I don't think Baylor was utilized ideally (something that I think is unfortunately true for MANY old era players). Yet there's still several indicators of substantial impact circa his peak, especially in '62.
Correctly utilized, I think Baylor would be the best SF not named Lebron or Kevin Durant today: a roughly Carmelo Anthony level of scorer but a better playmaker, a roughly neutral level defender, and possibly the GOAT rebounding SF outside of Shawn Marion (roughly equal to peak Lebron in this regard).
2nd ballot: Kevin McHale '87 I kinda went thru a big comparison between Howard/McHale, which I'll copy in the spoiler; it details my difficulty in deciding between the two:
Spoiler:
McHale vs. Dwight is an interesting comparison...... Offense Peak Dwight is much more athletic and---related to that---is a superior finisher: pretty much devastating when he gets the ball <3 ft from the rim; is basically the GOAT finisher outside of prime Shaq and perhaps peak Robinson (finishing >75% from that range in '10 and '11, despite huge volume there--->like 50+% of his shot load, often going thru 2 or 3 defenders and getting And1's). Has developed a nice little short-range jump hook (with either hand), too. Draws tons of fouls (and was shooting nearly 60% from the FT-line at his peak; which is not good, but not godawful for a big either; getting a 60% ft-shooter to the line is still fairly efficient scoring).
Admittedly, that's where his offensive prowess ends. He has no jump-shot or range to speak of at all, limited repertoire of post-moves, not much of a passer, and a touch turnover prone. Still, I don't mean to imply offensive mediocrity on his part (many of his critics attempt to do so, and it's absolutely untrue, imo). His hands, strength, explosiveness, etc, allow him to be in a GOAT-level tier when he gets the ball near the rim, and that cannot be trivialized. If taking a hack-a-Howard strategy, peak Howard's not as big a liability at the line as most versions of Shaq, Wilt, or Russell. Combined with even his limited post repertoire, this makes him a well-above average offensive player.
McHale, though, has a case for the GOAT where low-post game is concerned. Great footwork, makes excellent use of his lower body to create space and effectively post up to receive the ball in a position to score. Has a myriad of effective moves; I especially like the quick fake followed by the up-and-under for the layup; or the fake shot low-side, fake shot high-side, then (when defend leaves the ground) he ducks back under for the easy layup. And he made these moves quickly, much quicker than you'd think he's capable of when you see him run up the court; he simply doesn't appear as though he could possibly move that fast. He has the short-range jump hooks, the fall-away jumper, was a pretty good finisher despite vastly inferior athleticism (relative to Howard); just very nice soft touch near the rim. Had range out to at least 12-14 ft. And >83% FT-shooter at his peak. Guy was a scoring machine dropping 31.9 pts/100 possessions at 65.5% TS while playing damn near 40 mpg. Now certainly we can acknowledge that Bird's playmaking and the wealth of talent around him helped his efficiency. otoh, it also stole some primacy away from him. I could see peak McHale in other circumstances dropping 28-29 ppg (~36 per 100 poss) at maybe 61-62% TS in that time period. And he's less turnover prone than Dwight, and a bit better passer (when he chose to do so, though he was mostly a black hole if you gave him the ball in the post......not saying that's a bad thing, fwiw, when you consider what the typical result of giving him the ball in the post was).
So offensively, I give McHale a solid edge.
Defense McHale in ‘87 was an All-Defensive 1st Team forward, who often had to spend time guarding outside his position (on the opposing SF) to help hide Bird (though in Bird’s defense: Larry was a fantastic post defender). But that’s just one thing that helps illustrate McHale’s defensive versatility, because he was also an excellent low post defender, and he was also Boston’s primary rim protector, coming up with 2.7 blk/100 possessions.
So despite Dwight’s 3 DPOY awards (which I think marginally overstate his defensive value), I do think it’s close defensively. I probably give the small edge to Dwight, though, based him being sort of the sole anchor to his team’s defense, and the guy that they try to filter everything to. Although in the past I’ve criticized Dwight for his lack of footwork and timing (where it relates to shot-blocking), noting for example that in ‘13 Howard was avg 3.5 blk/100 possessions with a BLK% of 4.9%; meanwhile a 36-yr-old Tim Duncan was avg 4.5 blk/100 possessions with a BLK% of 6.4%. Even though he’s (even after his back surgery) considerably more athletic than a 36-yr-old Duncan, he’s getting soundly trounced in his shot-blocking stats. The primary reason, at least according to my observations, was that Duncan ascribed to (and executed) the fundamentals seen in shot-blockers like Russell and Dikembe, which involves keeping your arms up, moving your feet to stay close to the presumed shooter (so you’re in position to make the easier block), waiting for him to go up with the shot and then going up AFTER him to tip the ball just after it leaves his fingers…..a technique that requires attention to keeping your hands/arms up, footwork and timing; as opposed to relying on outstanding elevation. Dwight has a habit of doing the latter: just sort of vaguely drifting in the direction of a potential shooter, then relying on his outstanding athleticism, gathering himself for a giant leap and batting at the air in region of the arcing shot (occasionally coming up with the amazing grand-standing type of block).
However, I will say something for this method: while strictly speaking it may not be as effective in actually coming up with blocks, it does allow him to CHANGE more shots (because as he’s more just playing a region, rather than a player, he can “get in on” more plays defensively). And I do see Howard change a lot of shots that he doesn’t actually get a paw on.
I’ve also previously criticized this technique of his because it potentially puts him out of position for the defensive rebound; but I think I simply need to retract this criticism, looking at Dwight defensive rebounding numbers (which are obviously hyper-elite).
So overall, I likely give Dwight the small edge defensively.
Rebounding Here Dwight clearly has a sizable edge. Even relative to positional norms and expectations, it’s Dwight by a solid margin. I’ll point out one thing in McHale’s defense on this, however: part of what is depressing his rebounding numbers is what I’d mentioned above about him being forced to defend outside his natural position (guarding SF’s….that is: perimeter players)......this is at times putting him out of position for the defensive rebound.
Intangibles This is sort of vague, and of lesser import. I’ll give McHale the edge here….he just seems like the better teammate, and the more professional and cerebral player.
Durability This is the one that kinda hurts McHale. Based on all of the above, I’d give the small edge to McHale overall…...at least until faced with the reality that in his peak season, McHale’s body did break down and he played thru a serious injury (a friggin’ broken bone, iirc! Guy’s tough as nails) in the playoffs. While still good, even hobbled, he obviously wasn’t the McHale we’d seen throughout the rs. Howard, otoh, was healthy thru both rs and playoffs at his peak. So that’s a consideration which brings the comparison roughly back to parity for me.
Honestly, I’ve gone back on forth on this comparison, and I’m still not sure who I’ll rank in front.
I did ultimately go with Howard based on health (and performance) in the playoffs, but it was really tight for me. With Howard out of the picture, I'm fairly comfortable going with McHale here.
3rd ballot: Connie Hawkins '68 Touch of mystery surrounding early Hawkins, but here is how I see it.....
Physically, he’s listed as 6’8” (and from all photographic evidence I’ve seen, I think he’s a legit 6’8”.....not like a “generously 6’8” in his shoes” type of situation), and 210 lbs on bbref. He’s got a wirey strong build, a pretty long reach, and massive hands (which enable all the one-handed palm pass fakes, crazy sweeping scoop shots, etc):
And he’s got some grace, speed, and ups, as you can get a little sense of from in the videos below, as well as seeing some of the one-handed palming plays (and bear in mind when watching that almost all of that footage is him PAST his physical prime). Overall physically, he’s kinda reminiscent of Scottie Pippen, but with bigger hands.
He’s got some solid mid-range touch (again, see in videos below), and some good handles and passing for a biggish guy (was the original “point forward”, if I’m not mistaken).
Now before we get into what he did in his peak season (‘68), let’s first take a quick look at what he was still capable of in his late 20’s AFTER knee surgery (which I’m sure you’re all aware of how well players were typically able to come back after knee surgery in that day and age). Coming into the NBA as a 28-year-old rookie, one year after knee surgery, he went for a 10th-in-the-league 19.74 PER and .147 WS/48 in 40.9 mpg. His per 100 poss estimates: 24.8 pts, 10.5 reb, 4.85 ast @ +5.16% rTS. And fwiw, he was awarded All-NBA 1st Team honors alongside Billy Cunningham, and ahead of forwards Lou Hudson and Gus Johnson. Did nearly as well (on larger minutes) in the playoffs that year: somewhat inflated by pace, but he avg 25.4 ppg/13.9 rpg/5.9 apg in the ‘70 playoffs.
Again: this is what he was capable of past his physical prime. Statistically, he’s not far behind [an arguably peak] Walt Frazier, who we voted in at #32.
Anyway, I wanted to throw a little spotlight on what he was capable of in the NBA post-surgery because I want everyone cognizant of the very real possibility (if not the likelihood) that he was even better before his knee injury. If you don’t think the knee injury affected him, consider his scoring averages (it’s all that’s available on game log data of the time) in ‘69 before the injury: he was averaging 33.4 ppg pre-injury. In the 11 rs games AFTER coming back from injury: 19.9 ppg, followed by a significantly sub-standard (poor, actually) playoffs. I realize I cannot precisely extrapolate what he was in ‘70 by citing his late-season (post-injury) stats from ‘69; but anyway take it for what it’s worth.
In the ‘69 ABA season (marginally stronger than the ‘68 ABA, imo) there was also a presumably near-peak Rick Barry around for 35 games to compare to….. ‘69 Barry per 100 poss estimates: 36.0 pts, 9.95 reb, 4.1 ast @ +11.35% rTS PER 29.6, .301 WS/48 in 38.9 mpg
**‘69 Hawkins per 100 poss estimates: 33.6 pts, 12.6 reb, 4.35 ast @ +8.25% rTS. PER 29.7, .293 WS/48 in 39.4 mpg. **this includes the aforementioned 11 games (11 of 47 total) AFTER coming back from the injury, btw. Given the scoring drop I already outlined, it’s safe to assume his overall pre-injury numbers were a little better than what a near-peak Barry was doing in the same league. Frankly, he was probably a better player (before the injury) in '69 than he was in '68.
Now on to his ‘68 peak season (perhaps only peak by default, because he was actually healthy from start to finish)…... Yes, the ABA of the late 60’s was not overly loaded with talent, as Clyde Frazier pointed out. It wasn’t total bush-league, either. Mel Daniels was there, and there were several other legitimately “good” (if not truly “All-Star level”) players around: Donnie Freeman, Louie Dampier, Larry Jones, Roger Brown, Doug Moe, John Beasley, etc. And at any rate, Hawkins didn’t just distinguish himself in this crowd…….he utterly crushed them. He led the league handily in PER and WS/48, for instance, despite playing a league-leading 44.9 mpg. He had nearly twice as many OWS as the 2nd-place guy. He dominated that league to a degree that we haven’t often seen. Seriously: do a search for seasons with >28 PER (his was 28.8), >.270 WS/48 (his was .273), and >40 mpg (his was a whopping 44.9) in NBA and ABA history…...you come up with just 10 NBA seasons (3 of Kareem, 3 of Wilt, 2 of Jordan, 1 of Robinson, 1 of Shaq), and only 1 in ABA history (Connie Hawkins). If we change the requirement to 42 mpg, five of those NBA seasons disappear, btw.
Per 100 possession estimates for ‘68: 26.6 pts, 13.4 reb, 4.55 ast, just 2.8 tov @ +11.45% rTS. His 59.7% TS would be elite even by today’s standards.
And then he got even better in the playoffs.PER 30.0 and .310 WS/48 in 44.0 mpg in the playoffs, as he led the Pipers to the title. His numbers in the playoffs are gross even with considerations of pace: 29.9 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.6 apg, 3.4 topg @ 65.1% TS (which is like +16.8 rTS!!).
So yeah: regardless of the strength of the ABA in ‘68, I look at all of the above and absolutely I believe he’s a valid candidate at this stage.
"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
In the ‘69 ABA season (marginally stronger than the ‘68 ABA, imo) there was also a presumably near-peak Rick Barry around for 35 games to compare to….. ‘69 Barry per 100 poss estimates: 36.0 pts, 9.95 reb, 4.1 ast @ +11.35% rTS PER 29.6, .301 WS/48 in 38.9 mpg
**‘69 Hawkins per 100 poss estimates: 33.6 pts, 12.6 reb, 4.35 ast @ +8.25% rTS. PER 29.7, .293 WS/48 in 39.4 mpg. **this includes the aforementioned 11 games (11 of 47 total) AFTER coming back from the injury, btw. Given the scoring drop I already outlined, it’s safe to assume his pre-injury numbers were significantly better than what a near-peak Barry was doing. Frankly, he was probably a better player (before the injury) in '69 than he was in '68.
Just to point out, 5 of 35 of Rick Barry's games in 69 were when he tried to come back before shutting it down, so this also affected his numbers. The splits for Barry are 34.9ppg before the all-star break to 33.4 before the all-star break for Hawkins. Using your per 100 poss estimates as a guide that would translate to roughly 37 pts per 100 for Barry to 37.1 for Hawkins and Barry is more efficient at .615 TS% to .584. So I disagree that Hawkins scoring numbers pre injury are better. Rick Barry pre injury in 69 is clearly destroying the ABA at a level as strongly as Hawkins ever did. He breaks the .300 WS/48 threshold at .301 and if only the first 30 games it would've been higher. Rick Barry's TS% goes up 8.4 points from 67 to 69 and an aging Cliff Hagan's goes up 6.7 points from 66 to 68. Barry's WS/48 goes up .083 in his 35 games and Hagan's goes up .101. So when I look at a season like Hawkins being .597 (+.114) in TS% and .273 WS it makes perfect sense to me it would be elevated by the league. Just using the small sample size of Barry and Hagan's average TS and WS difference that would put Hawkins at .52 TS% (+0.37) and .181 WS/48. That may not be totally fair, but In 1970 he was at .563 TS% (+.052) and .147 WS/48 which isn't that far off.
Hawkins if he had played a full season in 69 at pre all star break would have a better case than 68 to me, his scoring volume in 69 is decisively higher, he went from 21.5 pts per 36 to 27.6 including the injury. Either way I am sold that he is worth top 40-50 consideration, but I don't trust the 1968 ABA stats enough to use them reliably over say the recent peak Harden, Blake, Love seasons. Frankly I think I have looked into too much of the stats already for a case like this. An argument for Hawkins for me would have to be based on his skillset which to me looks like a combination of great athleticism, ball handling and touch, with the ability to dribble like a guard giving passing ability, but is that better than Blake?
In the ‘69 ABA season (marginally stronger than the ‘68 ABA, imo) there was also a presumably near-peak Rick Barry around for 35 games to compare to….. ‘69 Barry per 100 poss estimates: 36.0 pts, 9.95 reb, 4.1 ast @ +11.35% rTS PER 29.6, .301 WS/48 in 38.9 mpg
**‘69 Hawkins per 100 poss estimates: 33.6 pts, 12.6 reb, 4.35 ast @ +8.25% rTS. PER 29.7, .293 WS/48 in 39.4 mpg. **this includes the aforementioned 11 games (11 of 47 total) AFTER coming back from the injury, btw. Given the scoring drop I already outlined, it’s safe to assume his pre-injury numbers were significantly better than what a near-peak Barry was doing. Frankly, he was probably a better player (before the injury) in '69 than he was in '68.
Just to point out, 5 of 35 of Rick Barry's games in 69 were when he tried to come back before shutting it down, so this also affected his numbers. The splits for Barry are 34.9ppg before the all-star break to 33.4 before the all-star break for Hawkins. Using your per 100 poss estimates as a guide that would translate to roughly 37 pts per 100 for Barry to 37.1 for Hawkins and Barry is more efficient at .615 TS% to .584. So I disagree that Hawkins scoring numbers pre injury are better.
Rick Barry prior to his injury was actually averaging 35.9 ppg (vs. 33.4 ppg for pre-injury Hawkins); down to 22.8 ppg in the 5 games he attempted to come back (not quite as severe a drop-off as we see in post-injury Hawkins, but close).
But I doubt Hawkins was shooting 58.4 TS% before the injury and 58.4% after, too. He was likely better before and worse after. Barry, too, probably saw a little drop post-injury. The game log data of the time isn't complete enough to determine, but I'm guessing pre-injury Hawkins was somewhere very close to what he'd done in '68 (basically about 60% TS), and Barry was probably around 62% or so TS pre-injury (on what was likely nearly identical volume per 100 possessions, as you noted).
So yeah, small edge to Barry as a scorer. I didn't mean to imply pre-injury Hawkins had significantly better SCORING numbers than Barry (though I can see how it could be interpreted that way based on how I structured that sentence). To clarify: I was citing the scoring drop for Hawkins (because the ppg is basically the only thing available in the incomplete game log data) as evidence that likely ALL of Hawkins' numbers were down post-injury--->like rebs, ast, shooting efficiency, etc.....all the OTHER things that go into PER and WS/48. And THAT'S what I was suggesting was likely "significantly better" than what Barry was doing in the same league: Hawkins' pre-injury total box/advanced metrics (like PER and WS/48).
Because while Barry's cumulative season stats likely also took a hurt based on those 5 games he attempted to come back, Hawkins' post-injury woes would likely have effected his MORE (due to sample size: 11 of 47 games---23.4% of his total rs sample were post-injury, vs. just 14.1% of the rs sample for Barry)......and yet his cumulative rs stats still compare very equally with Barry's: scoring numbers a little behind, but higher in both rebounds and assists per 100 possessions; and basically a dead heat by PER and WS/48 (Hawkins is -0.008 WS/48, but +0.1 PER, and on +0.5 mpg).
Dr Positivity wrote: Rick Barry pre injury in 69 is clearly destroying the ABA at a level as strongly as Hawkins ever did.
See my above as explanation why I don't think this is quite true; close to Hawkins, but not quite.
Dr Positivity wrote:He breaks the .300 WS/48 threshold at .301 and if only the first 30 games it would've been higher. Rick Barry's TS% goes up 8.4 points from 67 to 69 and an aging Cliff Hagan's goes up 6.7 points from 66 to 68. Barry's WS/48 goes up .083 in his 35 games and Hagan's goes up .101. So when I look at a season like Hawkins being .597 (+.114) in TS% and .273 WS it makes perfect sense to me it would be elevated by the league.
Of course his numbers are elevated by the league. No one is denying this or saying otherwise. The fact that myself and Quotatious (and EVERYONE else for that matter) recognize this is the ONLY reason Hawkins hasn't been voted in yet. If we took his rs and playoff dominance at face-value---gave it every once of credit we'd give to someone doing similar in the post-merger NBA---Hawkins would have been voted in a LONG time ago. Again, I'm going to quote myself:
trex_8063 wrote:Seriously: do a search for seasons with >28 PER (his was 28.8), >.270 WS/48 (his was .273), and >40 mpg (his was a whopping 44.9) in NBA and ABA history…...you come up with just 10 NBA seasons (3 of Kareem, 3 of Wilt, 2 of Jordan, 1 of Robinson, 1 of Shaq), and only 1 in ABA history (Connie Hawkins). If we change the requirement to 42 mpg (again: Hawkins was playing 44.9 mpg), five of those NBA seasons disappear, btw.
And then he got even better in the playoffs.PER 30.0 and .310 WS/48 in 44.0 mpg in the playoffs, as he led the Pipers to the title. His numbers in the playoffs are gross even with considerations of pace: 29.9 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.6 apg, 3.4 topg @ 65.1% TS (which is like +16.8 rTS!!).
If you search for playoffs, >29 PER, >.300 WS/48, >42 mpg.......you come up with precisely two seasons in all of the NBA/BAA's history (one of Wilt, one of Kareem), and two seasons in ABA history ('76 Erving and '68 Hawkins).
If we took this at face-value similar to how we would the post-merger NBA, Hawkins would have been voted a top 10 (maybe top 5) peak. But we recognize that the early ABA was somewhat stunted for talent......and thus he hasn't entered the conversation until now.
"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
Most of the players left are from the 60s/70s and I don't know enough about them to cast a vote. Just a few questions:
1. Is anybody thinking of voting for Dolph Schayes soon? In their playoff primes, Schayes appears to be consistently better than Pettit in advanced stats and overall, his 58 season seems pretty close to Pettit's peak as well.
2. Where can I find game logs for ABA seasons? Other than basketball-reference (which doesn't have anything before 1970), the only one I can find is this: http://www.remembertheaba.com/PlayoffPages/PlayoffResults.html Interestingly, Larry Brown was the leading scorer with 28 points in 1968 ABA Finals Game 2.
In the ‘69 ABA season (marginally stronger than the ‘68 ABA, imo) there was also a presumably near-peak Rick Barry around for 35 games to compare to….. ‘69 Barry per 100 poss estimates: 36.0 pts, 9.95 reb, 4.1 ast @ +11.35% rTS PER 29.6, .301 WS/48 in 38.9 mpg
**‘69 Hawkins per 100 poss estimates: 33.6 pts, 12.6 reb, 4.35 ast @ +8.25% rTS. PER 29.7, .293 WS/48 in 39.4 mpg. **this includes the aforementioned 11 games (11 of 47 total) AFTER coming back from the injury, btw. Given the scoring drop I already outlined, it’s safe to assume his pre-injury numbers were significantly better than what a near-peak Barry was doing. Frankly, he was probably a better player (before the injury) in '69 than he was in '68.
Just to point out, 5 of 35 of Rick Barry's games in 69 were when he tried to come back before shutting it down, so this also affected his numbers. The splits for Barry are 34.9ppg before the all-star break to 33.4 before the all-star break for Hawkins. Using your per 100 poss estimates as a guide that would translate to roughly 37 pts per 100 for Barry to 37.1 for Hawkins and Barry is more efficient at .615 TS% to .584. So I disagree that Hawkins scoring numbers pre injury are better.
Rick Barry prior to his injury was actually averaging 35.9 ppg (vs. 33.4 ppg for pre-injury Hawkins); down to 22.8 ppg in the 5 games he attempted to come back (not quite as severe a drop-off as we see in post-injury Hawkins, but close).
But I doubt Hawkins was shooting 58.4 TS% before the injury and 58.4% after, too. He was likely better before and worse after. Barry, too, probably saw a little drop post-injury. The game log data of the time isn't complete enough to determine, but I'm guessing pre-injury Hawkins was somewhere very close to what he'd done in '68 (basically about 60% TS), and Barry was probably around 62% or so TS pre-injury (on what was likely nearly identical volume per 100 possessions, as you noted).
So yeah, small edge to Barry as a scorer. I didn't mean to imply pre-injury Hawkins had significantly better SCORING numbers than Barry (though I can see how it could be interpreted that way based on how I structured that sentence). To clarify: I was citing the scoring drop for Hawkins (because the ppg is basically the only thing available in the incomplete game log data) as evidence that likely ALL of Hawkins' numbers were down post-injury--->like rebs, ast, shooting efficiency, etc.....all the OTHER things that go into PER and WS/48. And THAT'S what I was suggesting was likely "significantly better" than what Barry was doing in the same league: Hawkins' pre-injury total box/advanced metrics (like PER and WS/48).
Because while Barry's cumulative season stats likely also took a hurt based on those 5 games he attempted to come back, Hawkins' post-injury woes would likely have effected his MORE (due to sample size: 11 of 47 games---23.4% of his total rs sample were post-injury, vs. just 14.1% of the rs sample for Barry)......and yet his cumulative rs stats still compare very equally with Barry's: scoring numbers a little behind, but higher in both rebounds and assists per 100 possessions; and basically a dead heat by PER and WS/48 (Hawkins is -0.008 WS/48, but +0.1 PER, and on +0.5 mpg).
Dr Positivity wrote: Rick Barry pre injury in 69 is clearly destroying the ABA at a level as strongly as Hawkins ever did.
See my above as explanation why I don't think this is quite true; close to Hawkins, but not quite.
Dr Positivity wrote:He breaks the .300 WS/48 threshold at .301 and if only the first 30 games it would've been higher. Rick Barry's TS% goes up 8.4 points from 67 to 69 and an aging Cliff Hagan's goes up 6.7 points from 66 to 68. Barry's WS/48 goes up .083 in his 35 games and Hagan's goes up .101. So when I look at a season like Hawkins being .597 (+.114) in TS% and .273 WS it makes perfect sense to me it would be elevated by the league.
Of course his numbers are elevated by the league. No one is denying this or saying otherwise. The fact that myself and Quotatious (and EVERYONE else for that matter) recognize this is the ONLY reason Hawkins hasn't been voted in yet. If we took his rs and playoff dominance at face-value---gave it every once of credit we'd give to someone doing similar in the post-merger NBA---Hawkins would have been voted in a LONG time ago. Again, I'm going to quote myself:
trex_8063 wrote:Seriously: do a search for seasons with >28 PER (his was 28.8), >.270 WS/48 (his was .273), and >40 mpg (his was a whopping 44.9) in NBA and ABA history…...you come up with just 10 NBA seasons (3 of Kareem, 3 of Wilt, 2 of Jordan, 1 of Robinson, 1 of Shaq), and only 1 in ABA history (Connie Hawkins). If we change the requirement to 42 mpg (again: Hawkins was playing 44.9 mpg), five of those NBA seasons disappear, btw.
And then he got even better in the playoffs.PER 30.0 and .310 WS/48 in 44.0 mpg in the playoffs, as he led the Pipers to the title. His numbers in the playoffs are gross even with considerations of pace: 29.9 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.6 apg, 3.4 topg @ 65.1% TS (which is like +16.8 rTS!!).
If you search for playoffs, >29 PER, >.300 WS/48, >42 mpg.......you come up with precisely two seasons in all of the NBA/BAA's history (one of Wilt, one of Kareem), and two seasons in ABA history ('76 Erving and '68 Hawkins).
If we took this at face-value similar to how we would the post-merger NBA, Hawkins would have been voted a top 10 (maybe top 5) peak. But we recognize that the early ABA was somewhat stunted for talent......and thus he hasn't entered the conversation until now.
42 minutes is a tad arbitrary and cuts down the pool from which to draw competition quite a bit, especially for more modern eras (3 players did those minutes in last years playoffs, 7 the year before - mostly 1 rounders, 4 the year before, 2 the year before that - though lockout).
And whilst maybe this is poor comparison versus someone I think maybe slid, you say would be top 5/top 10, if in the NBA. I'd say maybe if he had the numbers and the team success he did in from ABA in the NBA (and assume he could play the same minutes ,without losing productivity at a greater rate, versus significantly better competition). But imagine his team don't run through easy competition they just go to the conference semis. Let's look at his (ABA) numbers versus peak Chris Paul. He's only gone in recently (26). Paul was doing similarly bonkers numbers RS and playoffs. Then again maybe that's just me thinking Paul should be higher.
I'm not anti-Hawkins. I love watching him. I just don't know what to do with those ABA numbers.
LA Bird wrote:Most of the players left are from the 60s/70s and I don't know enough about them to cast a vote. Just a few questions:
1. Is anybody thinking of voting for Dolph Schayes soon? In their playoff primes, Schayes appears to be consistently better than Pettit in advanced stats and overall, his 58 season seems pretty close to Pettit's peak as well.
2. Where can I find game logs for ABA seasons? Other than basketball-reference (which doesn't have anything before 1970), the only one I can find is this: http://www.remembertheaba.com/PlayoffPages/PlayoffResults.html Interestingly, Larry Brown was the leading scorer with 28 points in 1968 ABA Finals Game 2.
I'd guess not. Historically nobody ranks Schayes up there with Pettit. Also people are a lot more confident with Pettit in terms of him maintaining his advanced stats into a more competitive talent pool, and has a game that I think some argue is more era-portable. His RS metrics aren't that close to Pettit's peak (PER especially).
Such a case seems contingent on hefty weighting of really small playoff samples (if your taking a later Schayes year) or rating early-mid fifties as equivalent to late 50s-early 60s (if an earlier Schayes year).
Transplanting this from last thread, as still relevant here:
Owly wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:My problem with Connie Hawkins is as I understand it while by the mid 70s the ABA had caught up to the NBA, late 60s ABA is a lot less comparable as valid competition. I can't take those numbers at face value as if they happened in the NBA at the time. For example Rick Barry was 1st in the ABA in TS% in 69 which was a far cry from the Kobe-esque efficiency at best of the rest of his career (67 was one of his best efficiency years in the NBA, but still +.038 TS% compared to +.113 in 69). Another example just looking at it, Cliff Hagan had a much better statistical year in 68 ABA than 66 NBA, despite the age factor (he was 35 when he left the NBA). Looking at Hawkins stats vs eg. Blake Griffin's peak who seems like a similar player, the difference is Hawkins efficiency for his league, but when considering cases like Barry's TS% shooting up in late 60s ABA, I don't trust ABA efficiency
Although fwiw, Barry himself is becoming a valid candidate for many at this point (mostly going with '75, but some feel '67 is right there, too; late-60's version of Barry is definitely no joke). That in mind, I'm going to quote some passages of my prior post regarding Hawkins:
trex_8063 wrote:......I want everyone cognizant of the very real possibility (if not the likelihood) that he was even better before his knee injury. If you don’t think the knee injury affected him, consider his scoring averages (it’s all that’s available on game log data of the time) in ‘69 before the injury: he was averaging 33.4 ppg pre-injury. In the 11 rs games AFTER coming back from injury: 19.9 ppg, followed by a significantly sub-standard (poor, actually) playoffs.....
.....In the ‘69 ABA season (marginally stronger than the ‘68 ABA, imo) there was also a presumably near-peak Rick Barry around for 35 games to compare to….. ‘69 Barry per 100 poss estimates: 36.0 pts, 9.95 reb, 4.1 ast @ +11.35% rTS PER 29.6, .301 WS/48 in 38.9 mpg
**‘69 Hawkins per 100 poss estimates: 33.6 pts, 12.6 reb, 4.35 ast @ +8.25% rTS. PER 29.7, .293 WS/48 in 39.4 mpg. **this includes the aforementioned 11 games (11 of 47 total) AFTER coming back from the injury, btw. Given the scoring drop I already outlined, it’s safe to assume his pre-injury numbers were significantly better than what a near-peak Barry was doing. Frankly, he was probably a better player (before the injury) in '69 than he was in '68.
But '68 ends up being his peak year by default (because it's the only pre-injury season where he was healthy throughout).
And wrt '68, I'm going to quote another passage from my prior post:
trex_8063 wrote: Yes, the ABA of the late 60’s was not overly loaded with talent, as Clyde Frazier pointed out. It wasn’t total bush-league, either. Mel Daniels was there, and there were several other legitimately “good” (if not truly “All-Star level”) players around: Donnie Freeman, Louie Dampier, Larry Jones, Roger Brown, Doug Moe, John Beasley, etc. And at any rate, Hawkins didn’t just distinguish himself in this crowd…….he utterly crushed them. He led the league handily in PER and WS/48, for instance, despite playing a league-leading 44.9 mpg. He had nearly twice as many OWS as the 2nd-place guy. He dominated that league to a degree that we haven’t often seen. Seriously: do a search for seasons with >28 PER (his was 28.8), >.270 WS/48 (his was .273), and >40 mpg (his was a whopping 44.9) in NBA and ABA history…...you come up with just 10 NBA seasons (3 of Kareem, 3 of Wilt, 2 of Jordan, 1 of Robinson, 1 of Shaq), and only 1 in ABA history (Connie Hawkins). If we change the requirement to 42 mpg, five of those NBA seasons disappear, btw.
Per 100 possession estimates for ‘68: 26.6 pts, 13.4 reb, 4.55 ast, just 2.8 tov @ +11.45% rTS. His 59.7% TS would be elite even by today’s standards.
And then he got even better in the playoffs.PER 30.0 and .310 WS/48 in 44.0 mpg in the playoffs, as he led the Pipers to the title. His numbers in the playoffs are gross even with considerations of pace: 29.9 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.6 apg, 3.4 topg @ 65.1% TS (which is like +16.8 rTS!!).
How much (if any) better than that do you realistically expect the other candidates on the table at this point to be capable of in that league? Do you expect, for instance, that Bob McAdoo would have had an NBA/ABA all-time record PER of 32.0 and maybe ~.325 WS/48 while playing 43 mpg or some such (and doing the same in the playoffs) in the '68 ABA? I personally don't feel that's realistic to assume; and that's basically what's necessary to set him so definitively [far] ahead of Hawkins.
I think the anchor to Barry is the stronger case here (though for me it's a weaker claim, I'm not so high on Barry).
McAdoo hung up 34.5ppg, on .569 TS% (30.6 on .594 in '74) got 14.1 rebounds, 2.1 blocks (3.3 in '74) and 1.1 steals playing 9 RS games against the Celtics (Cowens presumably the matchup there), 4 against Milwaukee (all with Jabbar), 4 versus the Bullets (presumably matched up versus Hayes), 4 versus Detroit (Lanier). Even if you don't like the likes of somewhat aging Thurmond + Boerwinkle (x4); George Johnson and Clifford Ray (x4); Sam Lacey (x4); Elmore Smith (x4) how do they compare to the ABA's best bigs after Mel Daniels (Red Robbins, Byron Beck, Bob Netolicky, Cincinattus Powell - including F-Cs here so some dubious "bigs"). Only Daniels is ABA by choice. In '69 Bill McGill arrived and he had been NBA quality (but injury wracked).
I'd guess that McAdoo just maintaining his NBA stats would give him higher advanced stats than in the NBA (because of the lower productivity/efficiency of the "average" early ABA player - and because versus a lower standard he'd have a larger impact and benefit from higher team performance postivively impacting WS) but it's not hard to imagine they'd be much better. See for instance the difference between Spencer Haywood's ABA and NBA numbers (NBA to ABA and vice-versa conversions vary but this one works I think in terms of the degree of difference of difficulty - showing what could be done versus early ABA bigs). I figure McAdoo would destroy the early ABA.
I do too; don't get me wrong, I don't think that's in question at all. What I'm questioning is whether or not he'd destroy it to a greater degree than Hawkins did.
"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
Dr Positivity wrote: Just to point out, 5 of 35 of Rick Barry's games in 69 were when he tried to come back before shutting it down, so this also affected his numbers. The splits for Barry are 34.9ppg before the all-star break to 33.4 before the all-star break for Hawkins. Using your per 100 poss estimates as a guide that would translate to roughly 37 pts per 100 for Barry to 37.1 for Hawkins and Barry is more efficient at .615 TS% to .584. So I disagree that Hawkins scoring numbers pre injury are better.
Rick Barry prior to his injury was actually averaging 35.9 ppg (vs. 33.4 ppg for pre-injury Hawkins); down to 22.8 ppg in the 5 games he attempted to come back (not quite as severe a drop-off as we see in post-injury Hawkins, but close).
But I doubt Hawkins was shooting 58.4 TS% before the injury and 58.4% after, too. He was likely better before and worse after. Barry, too, probably saw a little drop post-injury. The game log data of the time isn't complete enough to determine, but I'm guessing pre-injury Hawkins was somewhere very close to what he'd done in '68 (basically about 60% TS), and Barry was probably around 62% or so TS pre-injury (on what was likely nearly identical volume per 100 possessions, as you noted).
So yeah, small edge to Barry as a scorer. I didn't mean to imply pre-injury Hawkins had significantly better SCORING numbers than Barry (though I can see how it could be interpreted that way based on how I structured that sentence). To clarify: I was citing the scoring drop for Hawkins (because the ppg is basically the only thing available in the incomplete game log data) as evidence that likely ALL of Hawkins' numbers were down post-injury--->like rebs, ast, shooting efficiency, etc.....all the OTHER things that go into PER and WS/48. And THAT'S what I was suggesting was likely "significantly better" than what Barry was doing in the same league: Hawkins' pre-injury total box/advanced metrics (like PER and WS/48).
Because while Barry's cumulative season stats likely also took a hurt based on those 5 games he attempted to come back, Hawkins' post-injury woes would likely have effected his MORE (due to sample size: 11 of 47 games---23.4% of his total rs sample were post-injury, vs. just 14.1% of the rs sample for Barry)......and yet his cumulative rs stats still compare very equally with Barry's: scoring numbers a little behind, but higher in both rebounds and assists per 100 possessions; and basically a dead heat by PER and WS/48 (Hawkins is -0.008 WS/48, but +0.1 PER, and on +0.5 mpg).
Dr Positivity wrote: Rick Barry pre injury in 69 is clearly destroying the ABA at a level as strongly as Hawkins ever did.
See my above as explanation why I don't think this is quite true; close to Hawkins, but not quite.
Dr Positivity wrote:He breaks the .300 WS/48 threshold at .301 and if only the first 30 games it would've been higher. Rick Barry's TS% goes up 8.4 points from 67 to 69 and an aging Cliff Hagan's goes up 6.7 points from 66 to 68. Barry's WS/48 goes up .083 in his 35 games and Hagan's goes up .101. So when I look at a season like Hawkins being .597 (+.114) in TS% and .273 WS it makes perfect sense to me it would be elevated by the league.
Of course his numbers are elevated by the league. No one is denying this or saying otherwise. The fact that myself and Quotatious (and EVERYONE else for that matter) recognize this is the ONLY reason Hawkins hasn't been voted in yet. If we took his rs and playoff dominance at face-value---gave it every once of credit we'd give to someone doing similar in the post-merger NBA---Hawkins would have been voted in a LONG time ago. Again, I'm going to quote myself:
trex_8063 wrote:Seriously: do a search for seasons with >28 PER (his was 28.8), >.270 WS/48 (his was .273), and >40 mpg (his was a whopping 44.9) in NBA and ABA history…...you come up with just 10 NBA seasons (3 of Kareem, 3 of Wilt, 2 of Jordan, 1 of Robinson, 1 of Shaq), and only 1 in ABA history (Connie Hawkins). If we change the requirement to 42 mpg (again: Hawkins was playing 44.9 mpg), five of those NBA seasons disappear, btw.
And then he got even better in the playoffs.PER 30.0 and .310 WS/48 in 44.0 mpg in the playoffs, as he led the Pipers to the title. His numbers in the playoffs are gross even with considerations of pace: 29.9 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.6 apg, 3.4 topg @ 65.1% TS (which is like +16.8 rTS!!).
If you search for playoffs, >29 PER, >.300 WS/48, >42 mpg.......you come up with precisely two seasons in all of the NBA/BAA's history (one of Wilt, one of Kareem), and two seasons in ABA history ('76 Erving and '68 Hawkins).
If we took this at face-value similar to how we would the post-merger NBA, Hawkins would have been voted a top 10 (maybe top 5) peak. But we recognize that the early ABA was somewhat stunted for talent......and thus he hasn't entered the conversation until now.
42 minutes is a tad arbitrary and cuts down the pool from which to draw competition quite a bit, especially for more modern eras (3 players did those minutes in last years playoffs, 7 the year before - mostly 1 rounders, 4 the year before, 2 the year before that - though lockout).
I didn't think 42 was a particular unfair arbitrary cut-off for a superstar in the playoffs (they tend to get bigger playing time in the playoffs), and that's precisely 3.5 quarters of play. Though I admit I did want to highlight that Hawkins didn't do this in a limited minutes fashion, but rather while playing damn near the whole game.
Nonetheless, you can lower the mpg requirement to 36 mpg: still only 6 qualifying NBA seasons: Lebron '09, Jordan '91, Wilt '64, Kareem '77, Hakeem '88 (in a 1st round exit), Cousy '56 (in a 1st round exit); and then still just the same two qualifying seasons in the ABA.
Fair point about whether such a playoff run accompanied a title run or a 2nd round exit, though. That would change things.
fwiw, I think CP3 went too low in this project, too. I'd have had him 5-6 places higher, personally.
"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
fwiw, I've altered my support post for Hawkins to say "a little better" than Barry, as opposed to "significantly better" for the '69 season. I admit I wasn't aware that 5 of Barry's 35 games that year were after trying to come back after injury; that does tighten things up somewhat.
I'm still reasonably comfortable going with Hawkins for my 3rd ballot. McAdoo's right there, though. He was the other guy I was strongly considering for my 3rd ballot (and will almost assuredly be who I back next).
"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
LA Bird wrote:Most of the players left are from the 60s/70s and I don't know enough about them to cast a vote. Just a few questions:
1. Is anybody thinking of voting for Dolph Schayes soon? In their playoff primes, Schayes appears to be consistently better than Pettit in advanced stats and overall, his 58 season seems pretty close to Pettit's peak as well.
2. Where can I find game logs for ABA seasons? Other than basketball-reference (which doesn't have anything before 1970), the only one I can find is this: http://www.remembertheaba.com/PlayoffPages/PlayoffResults.html Interestingly, Larry Brown was the leading scorer with 28 points in 1968 ABA Finals Game 2.
bbref does have some minimal game log data for the '69 ABA season, btw. They don't have the 1968-69 year highlighted on the left of a player's main page; but if you, for instance, click on a player's game log data for another year and then pull down the "Game Logs" submenu, you'll see 1968-69 available for ABA.
As to Schayes..... No, I can't see myself backing him (and if you go into the threads in the early 40's of the Top 100 Project, you'll see I was Schayes' biggest and earliest champion). The big thing that held him back in the eyes of others were questions about his ability to translate into a more competitive era; I argued against speculating too much on era portability (noisy business).
But two things are different (for me) wrt this project: 1) I suppose I've simply softened a little on era portability speculation. I think it's possible to scrutinize a player's attributes and talents, and make some reasonable (if not entirely accurate) estimations based on those things. 2) Whereas in an ATL I think in-era accomplishment should carry some weight (just weighting some eras lighter than others), in a Peaks Project.....I think our task is to actually define how good a player was.......not just how good he was in a very specific set of circumstances (like those which define an era). So we're tasked with not simply evaluating their productivity and impact within their circumstance, but thinking about how productive and impactful they might be in a variety of circumstances and eras. Pettit has both the physical tools, and some aspects of his game already showing in the late 50's/early 60's which show promise even in a modern setting. Schayes---whom I still have in my top 45 on my ATL---I must admit just doesn't have as much in these regards as far as peak is concerned.
"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
Ballot 1 - Bob McAdoo 1975 Ballot 2 - Scottie Pippen 1994 Ballot 3 - Kevin Love 2014
I am on board with the K Love support. He has amazing combination of scoring and floor spacing on offense with solid passing. Defensively +/- has never been as low on him as his reputation. He brought a team that's wretched at winning to 48 win point differential.
My nominations will be: 1. 96 Penny Hardaway 2. 61 Elgin Baylor 3. 99 Jason Kidd
I've already explained all 3 in previous threads but my main argument for each comes out to be: Penny - offensively he's more capable of leading a great team than probably anyone left and defensively he's above average.
Elgin - High level scoring on above average efficiency, high volume passing, and GOAT rebounding for a SF all in one package. The next season in 62 he's worse statistically as a whole but he missed a lot of games so his impact is easier to spot and his team has a +4.6 SRS when he plays and a -2.2 SRS without him when adjusting for injuries.
Kidd - One of the highest single season on/off scores ever. It is also the best offensive team he's been on. Now 03 has the advantage of a superior postseason but I don't think he was a better player then just that he was in a weaker conference.
1. Rick Barry 1975 - Led the team to the title and league in scoring 2. Nique 1986 - Finished second to peak Bird in MVP voting, led in scoring was the #2 seed and finished ahead of Hakeem, Magic and Kareem in MVP voting 3. Penny 1996 - #3 in MVP voting, the best player on the Magic even over Shaq and led them to 60 wins.
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships." - Michael Jordan
Dr Positivity wrote:Ballot 1 - Bob McAdoo 1975 Ballot 2 - Scottie Pippen 1994 Ballot 3 - Kevin Love 2014
I am on board with the K Love support. He has amazing combination of scoring and floor spacing on offense with solid passing. Defensively +/- has never been as low on him as his reputation. He brought a team that's wretched at winning to 48 win point differential.
How do you view the comparison between '94 Pippen and '14 Love? The Bulls in '94 actually had a lower SRS (believe it or not) than the Wolves in '14, does that get attributed to the difference in supporting cast? (Implying MIN supporting cast > CHI supporting cast)
theonlyclutch's AT FGA-limited team - The Malevolent Eight
PG: 2008 Chauncey Billups/ 2013 Kyle Lowry SG: 2005 Manu Ginobili/2012 James Harden SF: 1982 Julius Erving PF: 2013 Matt Bonner/ 2010 Amir Johnson C: 1977 Kareem Abdul Jabaar
Ballot #1 - Artis Gilmore '75 Ballot #2 - Connie Hawkins '68 Ballot #3 - Bob McAdoo '75
Already explained why I'm voting for Gilmore and Hawkins in the previous thread. McAdoo was really a beast on offense and pretty good on the boards in '75. Amazing scorer, both in the regular season, and in the playoffs, when he averaged over 37 ppg on 53% TS against the Unseld/Hayes Bullets, and took them to 7 games (obviously the Bullets were a much better team on paper). He was still a little worse compared to Hawkins in the playoffs, though. That's why I have Connie at 2 and Bob at 3. I also have some concerns about McAdoo's defense. He was playing out of position at center (he was really a PF, not a center), where he usually had to guard bigger players, and also carried a heavy load on offense, so that average/poor defense is justifiable considering those circumstances, but I'm not convinced if he could be a good defender in any context (same applies to Hawkins), so I'm putting Gilmore over both of them. Hawkins and McAdoo are better offensively, but Gilmore was a very capable scorer in his own right, and a top 10-15 all-time defender. That gap on defense is clearly bigger and more important than the gap on offense in Connie's and Bob's favor, in my opinion (especially considering that Gilmore was a center, and a great rim protector, which makes his defense more of an asset than it would be if he was a perimeter player).
Why 95-96 as Pippen's peak? I find it hard to justify, considering how inefficient he was as scorer in the postseason that year - 39% FG and 47% TS...Ouch. He was still hugely impactful as an all-around player, played awesome defense in the playoffs that year, and even had higher overall BPM for the playoffs than Jordan did, but I still think that '91, '92, '94 and '95 would be better choices for his peak.
Question for the Love people: How can you put Love over McAdoo or Reed? He's great but those guys were MVPs.
Also why Hawk over Baylor? Elgin achieved nearly the same level of statistical dominance at his peak with a stronger league around him (yes the 61 NBA > 68 ABA). I mean even in 68 I'm not sure you can argue Connie is that much better than Elgin when you look at how Rick Barry's production shifted in the ABA (had the same raw averages per minute almost to a tee but went from 53 TS to 62 and 58 TS). Connie's only edge IMO is efficiency and the strength of the league almost 100% accounts for that.
E-Balla wrote:Question for the Love people: How can you put Love over McAdoo or Reed? He's great but those guys were MVPs.
Because that is an implicit judgement of a player's goodness via their team records, which is not consistent with how peaks have been selected. That's equivalent to saying Wade/T-Mac couldn't be selected before Nash/Dirk/Durant/Curry because the latter have MVPs...
theonlyclutch's AT FGA-limited team - The Malevolent Eight
PG: 2008 Chauncey Billups/ 2013 Kyle Lowry SG: 2005 Manu Ginobili/2012 James Harden SF: 1982 Julius Erving PF: 2013 Matt Bonner/ 2010 Amir Johnson C: 1977 Kareem Abdul Jabaar
