RealGM Top 100 List 2017: #12

[Jaivl]

Thanx for the compliments.
Before Dr J, the "original" creator of hangtime was Elgin Baylor - although seemingly (as I remember things) a lot of his hanging didn't end in dunks as much as in late-shot flip-ins - he was noted for unusually strong wrists - so he could get those shots off and in really late. He "invented" all kinds of moves and shots approaching the rim.

btw, my All-Time FAVORITE players were/are Jerry West & Elgin Baylor - who are why I've been a life-time (58 years) Lakers fan.

Back then, it was a horribly nasty racist age - as a young man, raised in the home of an exceptionally TOLERANT dad; the nastiness just shocked the bleep out of me. (I went to high school outside of Boston and got to attend a number of C's games at the Gaaaden - that THEIR fans would boo the great Bill Russell (screaming out the "N" word at him and the other C's black players) turned me into a non-Celtics fan for life.

During highschool, I had almost "negative" "leaping" ability; so at 5'8" I was never gonna make the varsity team (although I played for several hours EVERY day. I'd go with the team to all our away games. At EVERY away game there'd be:
TWO sets of cheerleaders, leading two SEPARATE sets of fans, seated in two SEPARATE seating sections.

When a black player scored, the black cheerleaders would rise and lead the black fans. Meanwhile, the white cheerleaders and fans remained silent (if not scowling). Then, when a white player scored; it'd be the exact same thing but in reverse.

My dad would take our family some 2-4 times a year on trips into the Deep South. He'd take me off to the side before EVERY trip (as his eldest son); and he'd say to me, "Son, you know the routine; but here we go again. You will see stuff that will enrage the bleep out of you, scandalize you. But you will say NOTHING and do NOTHING - or you'll get us all killed. So, you either agree or you're not going with us.

And what we saw was just horrible. Gang bangs of 5 or more cowards on one or two black guys. Segregation EVERYWHERE.

And perhaps the worst, was what I called the "3 Bathroom 'System'": one for "men"; one for "women" and one labeled "Colored" - which was an absolute abomination: no running water, no electricity, never cleaned. These were as far removed into the far corner of the lot as was possible because of the stench and the huge black swarm of flies.

I had pretty much given up hope that the two races would ever get along.

I had had the great fortune to have seen the Harlem Globetrotters LIVE a number of times during the 1959-60 season; so I "experienced" their incredible Point Guard, Wilt Chamberlain. I "followed" him into the NBA (which was not nearly the draw the 'Trotters were back then.

And then, a couple of years later, I experienced West-Baylor. (There was also "O"-Jerry Lucas; but they were not equals on the court in terms of ability - so those two didn't move me nearly as much as did Jerry & Elgin). It was the virtual equality of skills of Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside, their TEAM-work, their artistry, their "bi-racial" harmony that pulled me out of my youthful "desperation" of thinking things would never change.

Those two caused me to decide to dedicate ALL my free time for the rest of my life to heavy-duty peace-justice activism.

So that's both why I've been a Lakers fan ever since West came into the League and joined Baylor; and why, they are really the only two players for whom I have a personal bias in favor of.

Which makes it not easy for me to argue ANYONE over either of them - even Dr J; but he really was a phenom.

Even if I disagree with having J this high, this is a really interesting post.

[BasketballFan7]

I applaud you on your knowledge of those ERA's. Basically the way you explained Dr. J sounds identical to MJ.

Dr. J has been known quite often to be the original MJ from what I've heard as well.

You have shined a new light on me with Dr. J and I suppose he was better than his stats would suggest relative to Jerry West and Oscar because as 27 year that and what I've heard/read are the only things that I can go on.

Thanx for the compliments.
Before Dr J, the "original" creator of hangtime was Elgin Baylor - although seemingly (as I remember things) a lot of his hanging didn't end in dunks as much as in late-shot flip-ins - he was noted for unusually strong wrists - so he could get those shots off and in really late. He "invented" all kinds of moves and shots approaching the rim.

btw, my All-Time FAVORITE players were/are Jerry West & Elgin Baylor - who are why I've been a life-time (58 years) Lakers fan.

Back then, it was a horribly nasty racist age - as a young man, raised in the home of an exceptionally TOLERANT dad; the nastiness just shocked the bleep out of me. (I went to high school outside of Boston and got to attend a number of C's games at the Gaaaden - that THEIR fans would boo the great Bill Russell (screaming out the "N" word at him and the other C's black players) turned me into a non-Celtics fan for life.

During highschool, I had almost "negative" "leaping" ability; so at 5'8" I was never gonna make the varsity team (although I played for several hours EVERY day. I'd go with the team to all our away games. At EVERY away game there'd be:
TWO sets of cheerleaders, leading two SEPARATE sets of fans, seated in two SEPARATE seating sections.

When a black player scored, the black cheerleaders would rise and lead the black fans. Meanwhile, the white cheerleaders and fans remained silent (if not scowling). Then, when a white player scored; it'd be the exact same thing but in reverse.

My dad would take our family some 2-4 times a year on trips into the Deep South. He'd take me off to the side before EVERY trip (as his eldest son); and he'd say to me, "Son, you know the routine; but here we go again. You will see stuff that will enrage the bleep out of you, scandalize you. But you will say NOTHING and do NOTHING - or you'll get us all killed. So, you either agree or you're not going with us.

And what we saw was just horrible. Gang bangs of 5 or more cowards on one or two black guys. Segregation EVERYWHERE.

And perhaps the worst, was what I called the "3 Bathroom 'System'": one for "men"; one for "women" and one labeled "Colored" - which was an absolute abomination: no running water, no electricity, never cleaned. These were as far removed into the far corner of the lot as was possible because of the stench and the huge black swarm of flies.

I had pretty much given up hope that the two races would ever get along.

I had had the great fortune to have seen the Harlem Globetrotters LIVE a number of times during the 1959-60 season; so I "experienced" their incredible Point Guard, Wilt Chamberlain. I "followed" him into the NBA (which was not nearly the draw the 'Trotters were back then.

And then, a couple of years later, I experienced West-Baylor. (There was also "O"-Jerry Lucas; but they were not equals on the court in terms of ability - so those two didn't move me nearly as much as did Jerry & Elgin). It was the virtual equality of skills of Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside, their TEAM-work, their artistry, their "bi-racial" harmony that pulled me out of my youthful "desperation" of thinking things would never change.

Those two caused me to decide to dedicate ALL my free time for the rest of my life to heavy-duty peace-justice activism.

So that's both why I've been a Lakers fan ever since West came into the League and joined Baylor; and why, they are really the only two players for whom I have a personal bias in favor of.

Which makes it not easy for me to argue ANYONE over either of them - even Dr J; but he really was a phenom.

Mind if I ask how old you are?

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

He says he is a lifetime (58 years) Lakers fan.

[penbeast0]

Even if the ABA was not up to snuff in it's first year (and it wasn't), Hawkins was 1st team All-NBA as soon as he jumped, and even with his second serious knee injury taking away his athleticism, he was still a better player than Derrick Rose has been so far in his career.

Rose also suffered a significant injury. I watched a lot of his games during his MVP season and I that's what i'm going by.

You realize Connie Hawkins suffered a brutal knee injury after 1.5 seasons in Pittsburgh. He retooled his game to be more of a jump shooter and less of a slasher and became All-NBA in Phoenix, then tore it up again. When he came back he had to move inside because he no longer had quickness to guard 3's and because a valuable defense and passing hub (things which he was lauded for in the ABA too admittedly). Rose's knee injury was also bad, but he hasn't changed his game much; just isn't as good at it. Wasn't that impressed by Rose's MVP season; haven't been impressed since.

[BasketballFan7]

PockyCandy's video:

Watch on YouTube

Most of the first 2/3 of the video is near the rim action. However, there are a few instances where he exhibits his ball handling by going between the legs or using a spin move.

The last three minutes show jump shots, passes, and blocks. The game commentator on at least two occasions references Erving's shooting ability.

ABA footage is very rare, so this video's content was drawn from a restricted number of games. Despite that, it demonstrates that Erving was more diverse than what common perception leads one to believe.

[dontcalltimeout]

difference maker on defense. Even at Malone's best, we're talking about a difference on the scale of Gobert vs LaMarcus Aldridge.

That's an utterly ridiculous statement. I mean, that shows no knowledge of Mailman at all. And a rather distorted one of KG.

In Karl Malone's first few years he:

1) was a poor FT shooter
2) was a poor passer
3) was a middling defender

But his work ethic was Jordanian in scale, and he turned all of those traits by his prime, which lasted forever BTW. He was a tough buckaroo defensively for the entire decade of the 90s. He had strong quick hands, was immensely physical, and was just flat mean. People were scared of him, with reason. His coach was Jerry Sloan, and he passed on every ounce of that scrappy, dirty, and yes cheap spirit to his charges.

Comparing him to LaMarcus Aldridge would be slanderous if it were not so ridiculously far off to be parody.

If I go around the league now, with its sad assortment of "PFs", for a player who exists in the same sort of space as Mailman once did it would have to be something like a bigger stronger prime Taj Gibson. Or a more consistent Derrick Favors. A PF version of PJ Tucker. A tough rugged s.o.b. who was going to give you a working over every night you played him. You'd have the bruises the next morning.

Don't worry, I'm sure he wasn't saying Gobert was as good as Garnett.

See, even though I don't think that was a ridiculous statement... I see player analogy is not the way to go, because then everyone brings in their own feelings about whether Aldridge is a good/solid defender or an insult to Malone, etc.

Suffice it to say, between KG and Malone: one of the two players is in the conversation for GOAT defender, the other was at times a "nice" defender that isn't close to being able to anchor a defense. One of the two players was DPOY-level up until he was 37 years old, the other was OK at man defense and middling at everything else at the same age.

[andrewww]

Vote: Jerry West
Alternate: Oscar Robertson

Relative to their eras, these 2 were not only the most dominant in the shot clock era, but would be incredible talents in today's game as well. They had the misfortune of playing in the same era as Red's Celtics unfortunately. Great 2 way player, could shoot, score and distribute where needed. There's a reason they called Jerry West "Mr. Clutch".

[trex_8063]

There's been some interesting discussion, particularly wrt George Mikan. I'm not ready to lend him my support yet; extreme dominance, but serious question marks wrt strength of era (I have some data I'll get around to sharing regarding popularity of basketball near his era (as well as getting into the late 60's thru mid-70's), which imo bears a lot of relevance toward size of player pool).

The discussion between Garnett and Malone has been interesting. Though at times people are making statements to the effect that Garnett has business being compared to other players in contention presently unless one is putting ALL of their faith in impact metrics alone. These statements seem [to me] to imply that Garnett---when measured by more conventional box-based metrics---is like Draymond Green or something.....but that's simply not the case.

Looking at Garnett vs Mailman as measured by all of the "catch-all" box-based metrics, Malone doesn't have a single season that measures up to '04 Garnett statistically. Karl Malone doesn't have any four (even non-consecutive) seasons which match '03-'06 Garnett.
But then Malone's calling card is his longevity. But even in terms of looking at LARGE samples of seasons, Garnett still remains very close to him [statistically]:

Karl Malone '89-'02 rs (14 seasons): 25.5 PER, .229 WS/48, +6.4 BPM, 115 ORtg/101 DRtg (+14) in 37.9 mpg.
Kevin Garnett '99-'12 (14 seasons): 24.4 PER, .207 WS/48, +6.5 BPM, 111 ORtg/98 DRtg (+13) in 36.7 mpg.

'89-'02 Mailman in playoffs: 22.9 PER, .160 WS/48, +4.8 BPM, 108 ORtg/103 DRtg (+5) in 41.4 mpg
'99-'12 KG in playoffs: 21.8 PER, .160 WS/48, +5.0 BPM, 105 ORtg/98 DRtg (+7) in 38.5 mpg

^^So there's a clear but small advantage to Malone in the rs. In the playoffs, otoh, his metrics actually fall marginally behind Garnett; although Malone is averaging +2.9 mpg, which might pull this to even (or even a negligible edge to Malone). But just showing that this is indeed close even before we get into scouting/skillset analysis or impact metrics.

Can look at larger samples, too. How about best 16 consecutive seasons?:

Karl Malone '88-'03 rs (16 seasons): 24.9 PER, .221 WS/48, +6.0 BPM, 114 ORtg/101 DRtg (+13) in 37.9 mpg.
Kevin Garnett '98-'13 (16 seasons): 23.9 PER, .198 WS/48, +6.1 BPM, 111 ORtg/98 DRtg (+13) in 36.5 mpg.

'88-'03 Mailman in playoffs: 22.3 PER, .151 WS/48, +4.2 BPM, 107 ORtg/103 DRtg (+4) in 41.5 mpg
'98-'13 KG in playoffs: 21.4 PER, .153 WS/48, +4.8 BPM, 104 ORtg/98 DRtg (+6) in 38.3 mpg

No major change there, either.

And let's not lose sight of the fact that Malone had the privilege of playing next to one of the greatest playmakers of all-time, too. Now, I've stated in the past that whole "Malone relied on Stockton" narrative has been way overblown by many persons in the past as a means of poo-pooing on Karl. However, my saying it's been overblown is NOT the same as me saying Malone didn't benefit at all.
At any rate, that's a consideration when making these statistical comparisons.


And then yes, there's the impact. wrt this, I am on record cautioning people about how they use impact metrics (such as RAPM), because it does not directly translate to "player goodness". Role/utilization, team fit, etc etc all play into this as well.
That being said, we saw Garnett stand at the top of the heap [repeatedly] in Minnesota, with [usually] crappy teammates and a "role" which was "do everything for us". Then he went to Boston (tail-end of his prime, past peak) with a completely different array of teammates and a completely different role.......and he still came out top of the league in RAPM (handily).

For reasons that have been stated in the scouting type reports on Garnett by posters like drza, Elgee, and SSB, I think his impact is highly portable, and what I've just stated in the above paragraph, could be looked at as the tangible proof.

Malone, otoh, is sometimes not even above his own teammate Stockton in impact metrics (despite some of this being during his peak-ish seasons).

A lot of this is defense, which people have been going back and forth about; some saying Malone = Dirk defensively, which others are saying Malone nearly = Garnett defensively. Well, I think both statements miss the mark, but between the two, the "Malone = Dirk" is certainly closer to the truth. Mailman isn't particularly close to Garnett defensively; not sure how you can arrive at that conclusion unless you're just doing something along the lines of steals + blocks.....which fwiw, would label James Harden a FAR superior defender to guys like Joe Dumars and Bruce Bowen.


Anyway, I haven't any more time right now (which sucks, because there's been a bunch of good stuff in the last couple threads I wanted to comment on). I might be off the grid the next few days, not sure; will try to get back to things. But anyway, my votes:

1st vote: Kevin Garnett
2nd vote: Karl Malone

[penbeast0]

Fair enough, I get it.

Here's my last objection/suggestion: Eliminate players whose career started before the shot clock. Essentially you're ruling out Mikan, Cousy, Schayes, Arizin and maybe a few more whose impact are truly hard to quantify relative to where the league went and was going.

I'm always bumped when I see Mikan at an obviously "honorary" #30 or #50 all-time where the list maker(s) abandon the criteria that determined the rest of the list to pay homage to a spearhead, as you put it.


Babe Ruth is the obvious cross sport comparison, Otto Graham is maybe the better, if less obvious comparison.

I think that's where our difference in approach is really highlighted.

Still, my goal is solely to contribute, not disrupt, so I won't dwell on my own narratives.

We have done that in the past but for this one, the preliminary discussions indicated that people WANTED to try to place Mikan on the list (and possibly Mikkelson, Fulks, etc.). I do agree with all the discussions of his era EXCEPT for the one about skill sets. You can only play in the time period you are born in and if you are born in an era where the game is set shots and hook shots, if you are the best, most dominant, set and hook player I don't think that counts against you. I do think the segregation and smaller player pool definitely do and should count against Mikan.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #127 (am then turning it over to you, penbeast0, I'll be back Sunday evening):

Garnett - 6
Karl Malone - 5
Mikan - 2
West - 1
Oscar - 1
Erving - 1
Moses Malone - 1

[Senior]

How are people accounting for the playoff disparity between Mail and Dirk? Dirk certainly wasn't perfect in the playoffs, and people are always going to remember the 06/07 eliminations, but Malone never became as potent and resilient an offensive weapon that post-08 Dirk was. Forget about the RS numbers for a moment and put Malone on the 11 Mavs instead of Dirk. Are they winning the title? I don't think we need to go over Malone's playoff shortcomings, but there was more to it than MJ - the Rockets, Blazers, and Sonics can all attest to that. Even after all that, if Malone's skillset allowed him to play at the level that his RS numbers indicated, he'd have 2 rings because those Finals were already close.

Just can't see Malone this high or above Dirk, West, KG, or Oscar. Everyone's scoring and overall offense held steady in the playoffs (except KG) against elite defenses and KG brings way more to the table than Malone does. Malone putting up a trillion points in the RS just doesn't matter when high-level defenses can take away a lot of what makes him great.

[penbeast0]

...
West 62-69 v Russell averages:
...

Oscar 63-67 v Russell and Wilt averages:
....

If Russell is the GOAT defender with a horizontal and vertical game and Wilt is a very good defensive player with a nasty vertical game who didn't play much horizontal defense . . . is it fair to count Oscar's series against Wilt?

Against the Celtics, Oscar shot .485, .398, and .408 (against Sixers Wilt .427 and .517) . . . and remember he normally is a .485% shooter. I think that's pretty significant differential if you think this comparison is valuable. It certainly changes your last set of data points.

[andrewww]

If Russell is the GOAT defender with a horizontal and vertical game and Wilt is a very good defensive player with a nasty vertical game who didn't play much horizontal defense . . . is it fair to count Oscar's series against Wilt?

Against the Celtics, Oscar shot .485, .398, and .408 (against Sixers Wilt .427 and .517) . . . and remember he normally is a .485% shooter. I think that's pretty significant differential if you think this comparison is valuable. It certainly changes your last set of data points.

Would this be an indicator that Oscar's PS play dropped off similar to Mailman's?

[wojoaderge]

You realize Connie Hawkins suffered a brutal knee injury after 1.5 seasons in Pittsburgh. He retooled his game to be more of a jump shooter and less of a slasher and became All-NBA in Phoenix, then tore it up again. When he came back he had to move inside because he no longer had quickness to guard 3's and because a valuable defense and passing hub (things which he was lauded for in the ABA too admittedly).

Is The Hawk in your Top 100? If he is, i'm willing to listen to more when you vote for him.

[penbeast0]

If Russell is the GOAT defender with a horizontal and vertical game and Wilt is a very good defensive player with a nasty vertical game who didn't play much horizontal defense . . . is it fair to count Oscar's series against Wilt?

Against the Celtics, Oscar shot .485, .398, and .408 (against Sixers Wilt .427 and .517) . . . and remember he normally is a .485% shooter. I think that's pretty significant differential if you think this comparison is valuable. It certainly changes your last set of data points.

Would this be an indicator that Oscar's PS play dropped off similar to Mailman's?

No, it didn't. He was actually a very effective postseason player. It's just another indication that even though Wilt in Philly was a very good defensive player, he was still not Bill Russell.

[penbeast0]

You realize Connie Hawkins suffered a brutal knee injury after 1.5 seasons in Pittsburgh. He retooled his game to be more of a jump shooter and less of a slasher and became All-NBA in Phoenix, then tore it up again. When he came back he had to move inside because he no longer had quickness to guard 3's and because a valuable defense and passing hub (things which he was lauded for in the ABA too admittedly).

Is The Hawk in your Top 100? If he is, i'm willing to listen to more when you vote for him.

Probably not. I tend to focus on a 5-8 year prime with bonuses for longevity but not particularly for peak (which gets subsumed into the focus on prime). Connie had 1 great ABA year then another great half year . . . but injury and didn't make the playoffs. Then he had one very good NBA year (equivalent to Rose's MVP year), injury and decreased fairly substantially. As we hit the lower fifty, there are a lot of guys like Bob Dandridge or Jamaal Wilkes that might not make it but that have a much stronger 5-8 year prime than Hawkins even though his peak blows them away. He's right there with Bill Walton in terms of peak but not prime talent . . . and Walton's less likely to make my top 100 than Hawkins since he had even less years of being valuable.

[Doctor MJ]

Even if the ABA was not up to snuff in it's first year (and it wasn't), Hawkins was 1st team All-NBA as soon as he jumped, and even with his second serious knee injury taking away his athleticism, he was still a better player than Derrick Rose has been so far in his career.

Rose also suffered a significant injury. I watched a lot of his games during his MVP season and I that's what i'm going by.

You realize Connie Hawkins suffered a brutal knee injury after 1.5 seasons in Pittsburgh. He retooled his game to be more of a jump shooter and less of a slasher and became All-NBA in Phoenix, then tore it up again. When he came back he had to move inside because he no longer had quickness to guard 3's and because a valuable defense and passing hub (things which he was lauded for in the ABA too admittedly). Rose's knee injury was also bad, but he hasn't changed his game much; just isn't as good at it. Wasn't that impressed by Rose's MVP season; haven't been impressed since.

I'll add to the chorus.

Hawkins and Haywood over Rose is pretty clear cut to me.

I think anyone championing Rose in this project is focusing far too much on a single award rather than thinking about what Rose contributed to the Bulls.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Doctor MJ]

You realize Connie Hawkins suffered a brutal knee injury after 1.5 seasons in Pittsburgh. He retooled his game to be more of a jump shooter and less of a slasher and became All-NBA in Phoenix, then tore it up again. When he came back he had to move inside because he no longer had quickness to guard 3's and because a valuable defense and passing hub (things which he was lauded for in the ABA too admittedly).

Is The Hawk in your Top 100? If he is, i'm willing to listen to more when you vote for him.

Probably not. I tend to focus on a 5-8 year prime with bonuses for longevity but not particularly for peak (which gets subsumed into the focus on prime). Connie had 1 great ABA year then another great half year . . . but injury and didn't make the playoffs. Then he had one very good NBA year (equivalent to Rose's MVP year), injury and decreased fairly substantially. As we hit the lower fifty, there are a lot of guys like Bob Dandridge or Jamaal Wilkes that might not make it but that have a much stronger 5-8 year prime than Hawkins even though his peak blows them away. He's right there with Bill Walton in terms of peak but not prime talent . . . and Walton's less likely to make my top 100 than Hawkins since he had even less years of being valuable.

Not looking to argue but just for the record I generally have Walton and Hawkins in my top 100. That might seem like a contradiction given what I said of Rose so to speak to that a bit:

Walton basically is what Rose supporters would argue Rose was. Walton was the most impactful player of the '70s when he was healthy playing his best. He is historically noteworthy for the effect he had on his team and frankly much beyond that.

Rose was a guy we all knew was nowhere near the best in the game. He wouldn't have won MVP is basically any other year and in the playoffs his team got out to bed by the finals loser without too much complaint.

You can argue neither has the longevity to be top 100, but Rose really isn't even in the "peak so high we must consider him" tier.

What about Hawkins? Well I thin most see my perspective on him as a bit rose tinted.


The thing is that things were weird back then. Hawkins played in the ABL long before the ABA and when he came into the ABA the veteran nature of his game was so clear cut. This was a guy who could play point guar and center with the air game of Baylor and a much better sense of what a good shot was. So I struggle to see him as a bad longevity guy. He only is one if you stick quite literally to NBA/ABA accolades.

This isn't to say that I don't give others a longevity edge over Hawkins, but I don't see his longevity like Walton or Rose.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[wojoaderge]

I think anyone championing Rose in this project is focusing far too much on a single award rather than thinking about what Rose contributed to the Bulls.

. . . and yet i'm still gonna vote for him. I'm not understanding the expending of energy on putting down a single voter's vote for a guy who's probably not gonna make it.

[Outside]

Back after being gone for a few days. Missed the #11 thread. Looking through the #12 thread, there seems to be a much wider range of candidates being discussed, which is totally appropriate, because this range outside the top 10 has a ton of quality players that you could make a case for, and they're so close that putting guy at 12 or 22 is perfectly reasonable.

Vote: Jerry West
Alternate: KG

West was an elite complete player. A great scorer who increased his production in the playoffs, and a great defender. Had numerous heartbreaking losses to the Russell Celtics but finally got a title in 1972. He didn't win an MVP because Russell and Wilt kept hogging it, then Kareem at the end of West's career (with Oscar and Willis Reed thrown in there in off years), but West received votes in 10 seasons, came in 2nd four times, and was top 5 four other seasons. West was an early prototype of the scoring point guard or non-role specific guard, with seven years as a top 10 scorer and 10 seasons in top 10 assists. If he'd won more titles and MVPs, he be a lock for top 10 in this list, but losing out on those fronts to other top 10 greats makes him more of an afterthought than he should be.

KG is another complete player but doesn't have the playoff resume that West does.

Next on my list are Oscar, Moses, and John Havlicek, though I'm conflicted about Mikan and whether he belongs up here.

[penbeast0]

...


The thing is that things were weird back then. Hawkins played in the ABL long before the ABA and when he came into the ABA the veteran nature of his game was so clear cut. This was a guy who could play point guar and center with the air game of Baylor and a much better sense of what a good shot was. So I struggle to see him as a bad longevity guy. He only is one if you stick quite literally to NBA/ABA accolades.

This isn't to say that I don't give others a longevity edge over Hawkins, but I don't see his longevity like Walton or Rose.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Hawkins may make my top 100, I don't know. I'd have to look seriously at him v. Dandridge/Wilkes/whoever is his competition at whatever point I start thinking about him. And yes, he was a great player for 10 years before making it to the NBA . . . ABL MVP at age 19 (over solid NBA players like Bill Bridges and George Yardley though the ABL wasn't impressive overall) then 7 playground years as the greatest player not in the NBA until his ABA MVP and dominating before his injury in ABA's 1st two seasons, which were well below NBA level at that point.

Trouble is, I don't think we are including any but the NBA/ABA seasons . . . so no Euroleague years for Sabonis and no Bob Kurland or Marques Haynes so I don't see how you can give Hawkins or Sabonis a longevity bonus for years not in the league.