RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #46 (Bob Cousy)

Guys who truly made a difference . . . Arizin is the next 50s guy for me, by the stats is might be Neil Johnston but they were teammates and when Arizin went into the military the team fell apart. Combine that with Johnston's great offense/lacksadaisical defense rep and you get an Amare Stoudamire type player, only in a weaker era.

60s guys, I am looking at Sam Jones, Hal Greer, Dave Debusschere, maybe Chet Walker. Thurmond is hurt by his offense and his team winning a title just after trading him for Cliff Ray. 70s there are a bunch of guys who are impressive Daniels, Cowens, Unseld, Hayes, McAdoo just among big men. Of these, I'd rather have Dave Cowens though the stats don't always back me up but having watched them a lot, he was Alonzo Mourning's attitude with stretch the floor midrange shooting.

80s, Sidney Moncrief had a short career but every time I saw him he was brutally effective, particularly defensively. Bobby Jones is another great two way player with limited time (not length of career for him but minutes per game). On the other end, Adrian Dantley is probably the next great scorer over Nique (and King/Aguirre/Marques/etc.). To paraphrase LA Bird, the only real argument for Nique over English is style over substance. No one left is as offensively impressive to me as English and Dantley except for the shorter modern careers like Westbrook and Harden.

90s have been picked through pretty well except for the oddity that is Dennis Rodman; GOAT rebounder in regular season, but big dropoffs in the postseason or I'd probably be looking at him here. 00s we have Mutombo's defense (okay, 90s and 00s), Ray Allen's scoring, and Manu Ginobili, the Bobby Jones of the modern era. Current stars like Westbrook, Harden, etc. could get into the conversation as well.

Vote: Alex English
Alternate: Adrian Dantley

pandrade83 · Post #3 » by **pandrade83** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:17 pm

1st choice: Wes Unseld
Honorable Mention: Russell Westbrook

If you're not giving Unseld a look, you're missing a gem. You're getting a guy who was a high performer by advanced metrics (VORP, BPM), was selected to be an MVP, was a strong playoff performer & enjoyed strong team success.

Advanced Metrics

Unseld hit 5+ scores for both BPM 3 times & VORP twice - that we know of - one of which didn't come in a double digit WS year. If we make the reasonably safe assumption that he hit those scores in ALL of his double digit WS year, that gives him 6 years of a BPM Score of 5+ and 5 years of a VORP Score of 5+ and It's highly likely that if we had RAPM, the metric would've loved him as well.

What's so impressive about that? Since I've been supporting him, last round was the 1st time where the run-off candidates combined to get more of such seasons than Unseld.

MVP Season

In the '68-'69 season, Unseld was selected MVP over guys who are already in like Wilt, Russell, West, Baylor, Frazier & Hondo. He is clearly well respected by his peers. People have said that Unseld's MVP was a little weak - and I get that - but remember you're voting for slot #45! It's noteworthy that Unseld's arrival coincided with a 21 win improvement without a change in the team's core, or a change in the coach. Washington went from 36 to 57 wins and finished with the best record in the league - that's why he won MVP - he had a major impact on winning. A team with Unseld & Monroe as it's two best players beat out Wilt/West, Russell/Hondo, Frazier/Reed, which is pretty impressive.

Strong playoff performer

In the playoffs, he maintains his strong performance - averaging 10/15/4/with 1.8 TOs (on fairly limited data) which is right on par with his career averages.

The most infamous defeat one of his teams suffer isn't really on him (the '75 Finals). He does his thing - 12-17-4 on 54% TS. That's who he was. Hayes crippled the team offensively - yes, he scored 20 PPG but he shot a miserable TS% of just 46%.

Strong Team Success

Unseld was the team playoff leader in WS and then VORP/BPM for 4 Finals Teams* as he was vital to his teams' playoff success as mentioned by his strong playoff numbers above. Unseld only misses the playoffs once in a strong 13 year career that sees him pace his team in every year but 2# in VORP & BPM - and before that in WS.

* - Hayes outpaced Unseld in Playoff VORP; Unseld outpaced Hayes in Playoff BPM as well as regular season VORP and BPM during their title year of '78.
# - ('74 - injuries & '81 - injuries + final year)

Unseld would make a fantastic addition to our List. You're getting an MVP who is recognized as a high impact performer by advanced metrics, who had decent longevity, was a strong playoff performer and was the driver of a consistent winner.

You just don't see guys who achieved that much this late; there's guys left who achieved higher peaks, but had much worse longevity - Unseld brings very high impact years over a sustained run as a winner; the really high peak players remaining (Westbrook, Tmac, McAdoo, Walton) can't say that. Of our remaining MVP's who didn't play in a segregated era, Unseld has the most quality years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I loved watching Allen Iverson play. His style, his determination & his explosiveness were all captivating. The man had a relentless motor. He's on my all-time "favorite guys to watch" team - but he's not in my Top 50.

Watching him play, you can kind of tell, deep down in a place you don't totally want to admit that your ceiling is capped with him because of efficiency issues.

But what if, you could capture the competitive fire, never say die attitude, motor at max 100% of the time, reckless abandonment & "I can't wait to see this guy play" factor in a sabermetric friendly version? I present to you Russell Westbrook (full disclosure: my favorite player to watch in the league).

The advanced metrics actually love him

One of the biggest knocks on Westbrook is going to be around efficiency - his detractors are going to say that he wasn't an efficient player and that they have stylistic concerns about him. Some (but not all) of these metrics I'm going to present will somewhat over-state his impact. The point isn't to say he had the best season ever (like VORP will) - rather this is to illustrate that all the sabermetrics actually recognize his impact - and should dispel some efficiency concerns.

RAPM - he finished 4th in ESPN's RPM Wins each of the last 2 years, 7th in '15, and 13th in RPM in '14 and a strong "pre-prime" of being 21st in the chained RAPM from '08-'11.
VORP - Last year Russell Westbrook posted the highest single season VORP Score EVER.
BPM - Westbrook has finished 1st in this metric twice ('15 & '17) and holds 2 of the Top 10 scores EVER.
WS - FWIW, he already has more career Win Shares than Willis Reed - who has been in the last several run-offs. He's hit 13 WS + twice - of our remaining candidates from last round, only Reed got to that level twice.
PER - last time he broke the 30 barrier. That's relevant because here is your list of guys who also have:

Steph Curry
Anthony Davis
Lebron James
Dwayne Wade
Tracy McGrady
Shaq
David Robinson
MJ
Chamberlain

That's an impressive group. Everyone else is in but Tmac & AD.

An ability to perform well against other elite guards when it matters

In his lone encounter against Paul in the playoffs
Westbrook - 28/9/6 - 61% TS
Paul - 23/12/4 - 61% TS

vs. Steph in the playoffs:

Westbrook - 27/11/7 - 51.2% TS
Steph - 28/6/6 - 61.3% TS

vs. Wade in the '12 Finals:

Westbrook - 27/7/6 - 51% TS
Wade - 23/6/5 - 51% TS

vs. Harden in LY Playoffs:

Westbrook - 34/10/10 * not technically a triple double - rounding here - 51% TS
Harden - 32/7/6 - 57% TS - so much flopping - worse FG & 3PT%'s than Westbrook :noway:

Westbrook doesn't necessarily win all these matchups (2 are wins; 1's a draw & 1's a loss; but in EVERY matchup he competes and acquits himself well) - say what you will about Westbrook but you'll never see anything like this shameful performance:

Watch on YouTube

Elephant in the room: Stylistics & KD

I'll tackle the KD thing - why did he leave? I'll put it in KD's own words:

"he didn't like the organization or playing for Billy Donovan. His roster wasn't that good, it was just him and russ."

"imagine taking russ off that team, see how bad they were. Kd can't win a championship with those cats."

This wasn't a Westbrook issue - this is an org & Billy Donovan issue.

As for stylistics - I know Westbrook took a lot of flack for the style he played last year. But look at the mess Westbrook still got 10 apg with:

Watch on YouTube

Then you have Oladipo - who is basically a homeless man's Westbrook - who somehow managed to shoot a worse TS% than Westbrook last year - as did Sabonis. You're only real offensive weapon - Enes Kanter - can't stay on the floor in the playoffs because of things like this:

Watch on YouTube

I know Adams was there - but I feel like Adams usage rate was probably optimized last year. I want him scoring in the 12-15 PPG range on a high TS%. And that's sort of the point - in that situation, Westbrook probably optimized OKC's chances of winning.

This is a guy who is a strong playoff performer and is a very high efficiency guy who has had an incredibly high peak and already turned in 6 very high quality seasons & he hasn't had a BAD season yet. It's time for him to get some support.

dhsilv2 · Post #4 » by **dhsilv2** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:30 pm

Interesting player worth discussion at this point, or at least before Walton.

Alex Groza

Banned for life from the NBA due to point shaving, but in his two seasons he posted an 18 and a 17.9 WS. Now normally a 50's player winshare would be inflated, but in Groza's case he played 64 and 66 games. So he was on 82 game pace for a 22 WS in his two years. I bring him up for a few reasons. The first is that Walton it seems is started to get some people looking at him and here we have a guy who from everything I can read and tell dominated for 2 years before being banned. He along with Ralph Beard (a point guard who would have competed with cousy) were both banned from the league after the 51 season. For those who put a lot of weight on the all nba team you cannot ignore that two of the 10 best players in the league were banned for life at 23 and 24 years old. Another allstar was banned in 54 further reducing the poor talent pool but who's name I can't recall off hand.

I don't expect Groza to get any traction, after all this group is a bit more biased towards longevity than I think the general basketball world which makes his short career an instant deal breaker. I certainly don't blame people for being fans of longevity, but as we move forward I feel like the Groza test should apply at some level. If someone wasn't clearly more dominate than Groza then they need to have done enough with longevity to make up for the difference.

dhsilv2 · Post #5 » by **dhsilv2** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:41 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
Vote: Alex English
Alternate: Adrian Dantley?

Since you have a question mark next to Dantley, why not Iverson, Westbrook (not my choice here), or Tmac? Clearly 3 rather different careers here and different levels of success, but I feel all 3 are going to or are getting more traction. So why Dantley?

2x all nba and 6x allstar doesn't hold up next to these 3. None of them won a title. They were all scoring champs. Career length is a bit short of Westbrook, but Iverson is in the 900 game range and Tmac is as well.

134.2 WS 44.0 VORP for Dantley
97.3 WS 50.6 VORP for Tmac
99.0 WS 44.1 VORP for Iverson
80.1 WS 48.5 VORP for Westbrook

Dantley doesn't really show me a lot of in his playoff stats. I could argue the per game performance for all 3 of my comps were better playoff performers. Even if you discount Tmac for not making it out of the first round, I'm not sure how you can put Dantley over Iverson or Westbrook.

So I guess what is left is if Dantley was enough of a high quality intangables/leader type to offset the differences in stats? I think he was seen as a better defender, but was it meaningful enough?

SactoKingsFan · Post #6 » by **SactoKingsFan** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:34 pm

dhsilv2 wrote:Interesting player worth discussion at this point, or at least before Walton.

Alex Groza

Banned for life from the NBA due to point shaving, but in his two seasons he posted an 18 and a 17.9 WS. Now normally a 50's player winshare would be inflated, but in Groza's case he played 64 and 66 games. So he was on 82 game pace for a 22 WS in his two years. I bring him up for a few reasons. The first is that Walton it seems is started to get some people looking at him and here we have a guy who from everything I can read and tell dominated for 2 years before being banned. He along with Ralph Beard (a point guard who would have competed with cousy) were both banned from the league after the 51 season. For those who put a lot of weight on the all nba team you cannot ignore that two of the 10 best players in the league were banned for life at 23 and 24 years old. Another allstar was banned in 54 further reducing the poor talent pool but who's name I can't recall off hand.

I don't expect Groza to get any traction, after all this group is a bit more biased towards longevity than I think the general basketball world which makes his short career an instant deal breaker. I certainly don't blame people for being fans of longevity, but as we move forward I feel like the Groza test should apply at some level. If someone wasn't clearly more dominate than Groza then they need to have done enough with longevity to make up for the difference.

Don't plan on voting for Groza at any point. His case is very weak even compared to Walton. The next 50s star that gets in should be Paul Arizin . He shouldn't be too far below Schayes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS 3T using Tapatalk

dhsilv2 · Post #7 » by **dhsilv2** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:58 pm

SactoKingsFan wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:Interesting player worth discussion at this point, or at least before Walton.

Alex Groza

Banned for life from the NBA due to point shaving, but in his two seasons he posted an 18 and a 17.9 WS. Now normally a 50's player winshare would be inflated, but in Groza's case he played 64 and 66 games. So he was on 82 game pace for a 22 WS in his two years. I bring him up for a few reasons. The first is that Walton it seems is started to get some people looking at him and here we have a guy who from everything I can read and tell dominated for 2 years before being banned. He along with Ralph Beard (a point guard who would have competed with cousy) were both banned from the league after the 51 season. For those who put a lot of weight on the all nba team you cannot ignore that two of the 10 best players in the league were banned for life at 23 and 24 years old. Another allstar was banned in 54 further reducing the poor talent pool but who's name I can't recall off hand.

I don't expect Groza to get any traction, after all this group is a bit more biased towards longevity than I think the general basketball world which makes his short career an instant deal breaker. I certainly don't blame people for being fans of longevity, but as we move forward I feel like the Groza test should apply at some level. If someone wasn't clearly more dominate than Groza then they need to have done enough with longevity to make up for the difference.
Don't plan on voting for Groza at any point. His case is very weak even compared to Walton. The next 50s star that gets in should be Paul Arizin . He shouldn't be too far below Schayes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS 3T using Tapatalk

can you explain "very weak" even next to walkton? I don't plan to vote for either myself as I thnk both just didn't play long enough at a level that matters in walton's case, but Groza's 2 years are just lacking a title vs Walton's year and a half from what I am seeing.

SactoKingsFan · Post #8 » by **SactoKingsFan** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:18 pm

dhsilv2 wrote:
SactoKingsFan wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:Interesting player worth discussion at this point, or at least before Walton.

Alex Groza

Banned for life from the NBA due to point shaving, but in his two seasons he posted an 18 and a 17.9 WS. Now normally a 50's player winshare would be inflated, but in Groza's case he played 64 and 66 games. So he was on 82 game pace for a 22 WS in his two years. I bring him up for a few reasons. The first is that Walton it seems is started to get some people looking at him and here we have a guy who from everything I can read and tell dominated for 2 years before being banned. He along with Ralph Beard (a point guard who would have competed with cousy) were both banned from the league after the 51 season. For those who put a lot of weight on the all nba team you cannot ignore that two of the 10 best players in the league were banned for life at 23 and 24 years old. Another allstar was banned in 54 further reducing the poor talent pool but who's name I can't recall off hand.

I don't expect Groza to get any traction, after all this group is a bit more biased towards longevity than I think the general basketball world which makes his short career an instant deal breaker. I certainly don't blame people for being fans of longevity, but as we move forward I feel like the Groza test should apply at some level. If someone wasn't clearly more dominate than Groza then they need to have done enough with longevity to make up for the difference.
Don't plan on voting for Groza at any point. His case is very weak even compared to Walton. The next 50s star that gets in should be Paul Arizin . He shouldn't be too far below Schayes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS 3T using Tapatalk

can you explain "very weak" even next to walkton? I don't plan to vote for either myself as I thnk both just didn't play long enough at a level that matters in walton's case, but Groza's 2 years are just lacking a title vs Walton's year and a half from what I am seeing.

I wouldn't vote for Walton as my primary or alt candidate but I'd give him the clear edge in a run-off against Groza. He arguably had a top 15 all-time peak. Walton had that 1.5 season peak/ prime against much tougher competition plus a super role player season in Boston.

Sent from my ONEPLUS 3T using Tapatalk

Post #9 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:38 pm

dhsilv2 wrote:
SactoKingsFan wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:Interesting player worth discussion at this point, or at least before Walton.

Alex Groza

Banned for life from the NBA due to point shaving, but in his two seasons he posted an 18 and a 17.9 WS. Now normally a 50's player winshare would be inflated, but in Groza's case he played 64 and 66 games. So he was on 82 game pace for a 22 WS in his two years. I bring him up for a few reasons. The first is that Walton it seems is started to get some people looking at him and here we have a guy who from everything I can read and tell dominated for 2 years before being banned. He along with Ralph Beard (a point guard who would have competed with cousy) were both banned from the league after the 51 season. For those who put a lot of weight on the all nba team you cannot ignore that two of the 10 best players in the league were banned for life at 23 and 24 years old. Another allstar was banned in 54 further reducing the poor talent pool but who's name I can't recall off hand.

I don't expect Groza to get any traction, after all this group is a bit more biased towards longevity than I think the general basketball world which makes his short career an instant deal breaker. I certainly don't blame people for being fans of longevity, but as we move forward I feel like the Groza test should apply at some level. If someone wasn't clearly more dominate than Groza then they need to have done enough with longevity to make up for the difference.
Don't plan on voting for Groza at any point. His case is very weak even compared to Walton. The next 50s star that gets in should be Paul Arizin . He shouldn't be too far below Schayes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS 3T using Tapatalk

can you explain "very weak" even next to walkton? I don't plan to vote for either myself as I thnk both just didn't play long enough at a level that matters in walton's case, but Groza's 2 years are just lacking a title vs Walton's year and a half from what I am seeing.

The only reason why Walton gets discussed here at all is that some of us think he'd have been a GOAT candidate if he'd just been able to stay healthy. It's fine for folks to disagree with that assessment, but I've never heard of anyone anywhere make an argument for Groza along those same lines.

dhsilv2 · Post #10 » by **dhsilv2** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:54 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
SactoKingsFan wrote:Don't plan on voting for Groza at any point. His case is very weak even compared to Walton. The next 50s star that gets in should be Paul Arizin . He shouldn't be too far below Schayes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS 3T using Tapatalk

can you explain "very weak" even next to walkton? I don't plan to vote for either myself as I thnk both just didn't play long enough at a level that matters in walton's case, but Groza's 2 years are just lacking a title vs Walton's year and a half from what I am seeing.

The only reason why Walton gets discussed here at all is that some of us think he'd have been a GOAT candidate if he'd just been able to stay healthy. It's fine for folks to disagree with that assessment, but I've never heard of anyone anywhere make an argument for Groza along those same lines.

Well Groza played in 51 not the 70's. A completely different era with far less fans and he wasn't exactly winning titles or in a major market.

But he both is an interesting case study given the stats and more importantly the plays getting banned from the nba in that era are a concern with validity of all nba selections for the next 7-10 years.

Dr Positivity · Post #11 » by **Dr Positivity** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:27 pm

Westbrook and Harden are overdue to get serious consideration in my opinion. I rate Dwight below them

Post #12 » by **penbeast0** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:06 pm

dhsilv2 wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:
Vote: Alex English
Alternate: Adrian Dantley?

Since you have a question mark next to Dantley, why not Iverson, Westbrook (not my choice here), or Tmac? Clearly 3 rather different careers here and different levels of success, but I feel all 3 are going to or are getting more traction. So why Dantley?

2x all nba and 6x allstar doesn't hold up next to these 3. None of them won a title. They were all scoring champs. Career length is a bit short of Westbrook, but Iverson is in the 900 game range and Tmac is as well.

134.2 WS 44.0 VORP for Dantley
97.3 WS 50.6 VORP for Tmac
99.0 WS 44.1 VORP for Iverson
80.1 WS 48.5 VORP for Westbrook

Dantley doesn't really show me a lot of in his playoff stats. I could argue the per game performance for all 3 of my comps were better playoff performers. Even if you discount Tmac for not making it out of the first round, I'm not sure how you can put Dantley over Iverson or Westbrook.

So I guess what is left is if Dantley was enough of a high quality intangables/leader type to offset the differences in stats? I think he was seen as a better defender, but was it meaningful enough?

I thought about Tmac, similar problems to Dantley as he tended to be superman when he was the main threat but didn't play nearly as well when Yao was healthy plus some of his coaches have commented on his lack of professionalism. Iverson to me epitomizes the me first, team 2nd type of playground ballhog that I don't think translates to wins. Dantley has some of the same issues, his scoring doesn't seem to translate to team greatness to the degree it should and Dantley had a blowup with Frank Layden but Chuck Daly, who I respect much more, used him as an example of professionalism. However, in the end, it comes down to stats in these cases. For a high volume scorer, the MASSIVE efficiency difference between Dantley and Iverson/Tmac is just too much for me.

Westbrook I'm looking at, Sidney Moncrief as well, there comes a point where short career greatness overcomes long career very good . . . but I don't think we are quite there yet.

dhsilv2 · Post #13 » by **dhsilv2** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:07 am

Vote Reed - Reed remains the best career of an MVP here, slightly pushing out Cowen and Iverson. A big man who was an above average defender, had a solid jump shot, and was considered a high intangibles guy on two title teams. Sure you only get 6 maybe 7 stand out seasons from him, but his career carried with it some rather iconic moments.

Alt Iverson Of the volume scorers that are getting traction, the best season/playoff run imo is strongly in favor of Iverson. Iverson was given a rather odd career, it wasn't until he was older that he had his first legit "star" level co player in Melo, but Melo as we all know was hardly the right mix for Iverson. Iverson gave his body to the game, he was wearing what looked like battle armor by the end. I tend to think Iverson was also a better play maker than he's given credit for. If influence on the game matters to you, Iverson would have been in ages ago. For all the coach issue he had, I have to pause and point out Larry Brown was known as a tough coach to play for, and yet somehow they had a pretty good run together.

Others I'm looking at - Unseld and Cowens.

Post #14 » by **trex_8063** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:18 am

Apropos to this section of the list, I was just watching (possibly re-watching, I don't remember if I watched it at the time) G5 of the '01 ECF (Bucks/Sixers): watching Ray Allen (who should have traction here imo) at his peak, Allen Iverson (arguably at his peak, too), as well as late-prime Dikembe Mutombo.

Iverson looks a little better defensively than I remembered (though it's the playoffs in a tied series; perhaps he didn't give this kind of effort on a night-to-night basis). Deke still has fairly good mobility at this stage, though he is a bit mechanical in the offensive low-post.

Post #15 » by **trex_8063** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 2:09 am

dhsilv2 wrote:
Pablo Novi wrote:
micahclay wrote:
Sure, glad to do so. Again, sorry about that; the one time I forget is the one time it's actually relevant lol.

Accolades:
Cousy - 13x AS, 12x All-NBA, 1x MVP, 6x Champion
Schayes - 12x AS, 12X All-NBA, 1x Champion
Reed - 7x AS, 5x All-NBA, 1x MVP, 2x Champion, 2x FMVP, 1x All-Defensive

I don't care about accolades at all, but I posted these for the purpose of dispelling the idea that Cousy has a clear accolades advantage. I don't feel he does, especially since those championships were primarily due to Russell.

There's a significant problem with your "12x All-NBA" for both Cousy and Schayes.
Cousy had TEN 1st-Teams, Schayes had SIX.

ONLY TEN players have ever gotten 10 or more ALL-League 1st-Team selections (a super-select, tiny group over the last 80 years). Many more have gotten 6 1st-Team selections.

That's not an insignificant difference; I'd say that Cousy DID have "a clear accolades advantage."

The issue is that the league was big man dominate in those days and Cousy was getting those awards as a point guard. I get that you'll disagree but if you were to ask even at the time who the best players were you'd get a list with virtually no guards on it.

I wanted to chime in on this discussion, have transferred it to the recent thread.
I hate to gang up on Pablo while he's going thru some serious and scary stuff at home, so my apologies for the timing. fwiw, I definitely want you to continue participating, and I'd not be upset if Cousy got voted in any time now. There are a handful more guys I'd prefer got voted in before he does, though only 2-3 that I feel strongly about.

While everyone has been free to bring forth their own criteria rather than adopt some panel-dictated criteria, I did want to speak to what I see as some really relevant flaws with this criteria (that relies to such a large degree on All-NBA honors and ignores strength of competition for those honors), as far as its ability to be a truly germane method.
And I've been trying to think of ways to express why I feel it's faulty (even though I know you've arrived at it after much deliberation)......

So it's basically trying to "level the playing field" between the positions (guard All-NBA worth just as much as a "big" All-NBA), even though historically basketball has [very very clearly] been a "big man's game": until fairly recently (and especially before the 3pt line), the list of the best/most productive/most impactful players in any given year would have been heavily dominated by big men (PF's and C's).
But the premise of this criteria would appear to say, "It doesn't matter that one position inherently has more potential to impact the game or be better, and---on average---is better.........players should only be assessed by how good they are relative to their own positions, and the best of one position should be given the same prestigious placement as the best of another position, none given favoritism over the other (regardless if one is better)."

If we applied this principle to rating football players, we are thus saying the best punter in the history of [American/NFL] football should be considered a top 15-25 player EVER.
I hope I don't need to elaborate extensively on why that's a flawed method for football rankings, given that best-ever punter's impact on and import to the game are not equal to [probably not even close to] the 100th-best quarterback or 100th-best running back, for examples. I mean, his value is comically minuscule compared to literally hundreds (if not thousands) of other players.
Yet this method would nonetheless direct us to this somewhat ludicrous result.

I know that seems a bit of a strawman due to the vast inherent differences in the two sports, and perhaps it is......but not completely. Because this IS the premise we're talking about with this criteria: success compared ONLY to those at one's same position, and ALL positions being given essentially equal consideration, regardless of the [often obvious] differences in quality/impact between positions.
Or would we be saying that this method is inappropriate for football because the differences between positions are "too big", but that the differences in basketball player positions don't matter 'cause it's close enough? Because that's a very arbitrary [almost whimsical] distinction.

So that's one method of explaining why I think the system is flawed.
To outline another explanation I'm going to back-track to my prior statements regarding basketball being [historically] a "big man's game". I recall multiple times growing up hearing someone say to a tall person something like, "You're tall; you must play basketball" or "You're tall; you should play basketball."
I mean, height was such a widely recognized asset in the sport that basically EVERYONE was aware of it, and practically assumed that tall persons must at least dabble in the game. And indeed, thru much of the NBA/ABA/BAA/NBL's history we saw the collection of the most dominant players [from any given year, until fairly recently] were mostly "big men".

So----when you boil it down----if we're saying that guard All-NBA's are worth the same as "big men" All-NBA's, regardless of era/competition/etc......we are, in essence, leveling the playing field for height.......the positions played are simply dictated by that height (for the most part, with a few historic exceptions).

Thus, if we're simply going to level the playing field based on height, why not go all the way? Shouldn't we by trying to assess who was the "inch-for-inch" best? Maybe we should, by the gist of this thinking, be giving someone like Muggsy Bogues traction here. I'm not sure there's anyone left on the table who---inch for inch---did better in his career.

Lastly, I can't help being skeptical of a criteria that utilizes a VERY narrow scope of the available information and yields results which [at times] cannot be supported by almost ANY other means. To me, that's problematic.

But this is just me.

euroleague · Post #16 » by **euroleague** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:01 am

Tired of voting for players that never get in.

My voting is the same last thread, but after this I'm out:

Pick: Cousy
Alt: Harden
HM1: Domnique Wilkins
HM2: Westbrook

Pick: Cousy - Cousey's passing influenced the way the game was played hugely, and he did so in an unconventional way that didn't gain any unfair advantage a la goaltending. He won an MVP as his prime was ending, and his offensive style lives on far past his retirement and beyond his success leading the Celtics pre-Russell (questionable how Russell's passing would've developed without Cousey).

When Cousy joined the league, the Celtics were a 20 win team, and he immediately brought them to 40 his rookie year. He changed a bottom dwelling team to an immediate contender, and went on to contend with an elite offense in the eastern conference before Russell ever joined. He won MVP, and led the league in assists many times on his way to 10 all-nba first teams.

Alt: Harden - Harden has redefined flopping, and will probably get a rule change. However, it can't be argued that he is a very effective scorer and passer, who led his team to the WCF and is capable of leading teams with no secondary star better than Eric Gordon to 55+ wins. Multiple MVP level seasons.

Hm1: Dominique - a player with epic head to head battles against larry bird, and a great locker room guy who could score in huge volume when he wished. 1988 ECSF - if that had gone slightly differently, it would've been the Hawks vs the Pistons in the ECF... And both those teams were better than the Lakers. 99% of that Pistons loss in 1988 was nerves.

HM2: Westbrook - Westbrook was 1b to Durant's 1a, and Durant was in a long time ago. He averaged a 3x double, which is significant simply because for the entire history of the nba only Oscar had done it (although it's a little meaningless). He had a huge impact on the game, and showed that he can elevate a team as a solo first option. This year, playing more normal minute totals with a back-up in PG, I expect he will do much better in terms of wins.

scrabbarista · Post #17 » by **scrabbarista** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:05 am

46. Elvin Hayes
47. Bob Cousy

For combined (RS) points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals, Elvin Hayes is 9th in the history of the NBA and ABA combined. If you aren't giving him consideration around the 46th spot, then career totals should probably not enter into your thought at any point on this list. 9th and 46th! C'mon! Let's not go so far down the analytics rabbit hole that we forget that the simple numbers matter, too.

Hayes was the most productive player on the '78 Bullets title team, although Unseld was generally more heralded. By my count, there is only a handful of players remaining who were the best player on a title team, so Hayes at least needs to start receiving consideration.

Hayes' MVP finishes, in spite of the fact that apparently not a single person with a vote actually liked him:

1971-72 NBA 0.006 (17)
1972-73 NBA 0.021 (10)
1973-74 NBA 0.082 (5)
1974-75 NBA 0.299 (3)
1975-76 NBA 0.018 (8)
1976-77 NBA 0.020 (7)
1978-79 NBA 0.126 (3)

Hayes also led the league in scoring in '69, and was a 12x All-Star.

For me, his combination of longevity and production for a championship team make him too hard to ignore.

70sFan · Post #18 » by **70sFan** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:08 am

dhsilv2 wrote:
SactoKingsFan wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:Interesting player worth discussion at this point, or at least before Walton.

Alex Groza

Banned for life from the NBA due to point shaving, but in his two seasons he posted an 18 and a 17.9 WS. Now normally a 50's player winshare would be inflated, but in Groza's case he played 64 and 66 games. So he was on 82 game pace for a 22 WS in his two years. I bring him up for a few reasons. The first is that Walton it seems is started to get some people looking at him and here we have a guy who from everything I can read and tell dominated for 2 years before being banned. He along with Ralph Beard (a point guard who would have competed with cousy) were both banned from the league after the 51 season. For those who put a lot of weight on the all nba team you cannot ignore that two of the 10 best players in the league were banned for life at 23 and 24 years old. Another allstar was banned in 54 further reducing the poor talent pool but who's name I can't recall off hand.

I don't expect Groza to get any traction, after all this group is a bit more biased towards longevity than I think the general basketball world which makes his short career an instant deal breaker. I certainly don't blame people for being fans of longevity, but as we move forward I feel like the Groza test should apply at some level. If someone wasn't clearly more dominate than Groza then they need to have done enough with longevity to make up for the difference.
Don't plan on voting for Groza at any point. His case is very weak even compared to Walton. The next 50s star that gets in should be Paul Arizin . He shouldn't be too far below Schayes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS 3T using Tapatalk

can you explain "very weak" even next to walkton? I don't plan to vote for either myself as I thnk both just didn't play long enough at a level that matters in walton's case, but Groza's 2 years are just lacking a title vs Walton's year and a half from what I am seeing.

To be honest, Groza played exactly 2 seasons. Meanwhile Walton played in 2 incomplete seasons before his 1,5 year peak. He also played two solid seasons with decent amount of games before his 1985-86 season.

People don't remember that when he played in Clippers (which was very rare) he was still one of the best centers in the league. Even though he missed more games than not during that span, he still played much more games than Groza.

Post #19 » by **penbeast0** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:36 am

Groza won't get much if any consideration in the top 100 . . . and doesn't deserve it. Short career candidates would be Walton, Moncrief, Hawkins, and some of the active guys.

LA Bird · Post #20 » by **LA Bird** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:26 pm

Carrying over the Cousy discussion from last round...

Winsome Gerbil wrote:
LA Bird wrote:Cousy was not a clear #2 to Russell as Pippen was to Jordan and arguments for Cousy should be less ring based and more focused on his years before 1957 when he was actually leading good offensive teams rather than just riding Russell's coattail to championships.

No no -- I attempted that exact same argument re Paul Pierce vs. A.I. and we weren't having any of it. We don't get to change the rules player to player.

There is no "we" who determine the rules of the project - everybody has their own criterias. I stated mine in the criteria thread and it would be helpful to read that before accusing me of changing my criterias based on the player. Your argument against Pierce was largely rejected because you reduced his entire career down to just him winning a title under Garnett which is clearly understating what he did in the rest of his career. I would have voted for Pierce ahead of Iverson even if he didn't win a title.

What really happened is that Cousy showed tremendous ability to be portable and function as the #2 on a (6x) championship team to a great interior defensive force, and THAT, not earlier head to head individual matchups as franchise guys or playoff success in the years before the championship runs, is how you should judge guys.

By definition: Portability is how well a player's skill translate, or travel to, different team situations and still maintain impact.

Simplifying Cousy's career, we have two team situations - 1951~56 (Pre-Russell) and 1957~63 (Post-Russell).
Given the lack of more in-depth box score stas, I will mainly look at Boston's team offense and Cousy's individual shooting efficiency, both relative to league average to compare the two situations.

Celtics offense
Pre-Russ: +3.3 RS, +7.9 PO
Post-Russ: -1.4 RS, -2.3 PO

Individual TS%
Pre-Russ: +0.9 RS, +2.5 PO
Post-Russ: -2.5 RS, -5.4 PO

Before Russell, we see Cousy scoring at above average efficiency, leading great team offenses and stepping up in the playoffs. After Russell, his individual scoring and team offensive efficiency both dropped to below average and tanked further in the playoffs. There is no evidence to show Cousy was portable and maintained his offensive impact under a new team situation especially in the postseason when the Celtics were winning their championships. Cousy's WOWY during the Russell years (6.80 IN, 6.72 OUT, +0.08 NET) didn't show him being a massive impact player either.