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

[Winsome Gerbil]

46) Allen Iverson
47) Russell Westbrook

Below is a list of the most productive full career level players in NBA history.

Min 20000 minutes and 20.0 PER, by PER
1) 27.9 Michael Jordan -- taken #1
2) 27.6 LeBron James -- taken #3
3) 26.4 Shaquille O'Neal -- taken #8
4) 26.2 David Robinson -- taken #18
5) 26.1 Wilt Chamberlain -- taken #6
6) 25.7 Chris Paul -- taken #23
7) 25.3 Bob Petit -- taken #24
8) 25.2 Kevin Durant -- taken #28
9) 24.6 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar -- taken #2
10) 24.6 Charles Barkley -- taken #19
11) 24.3 Dwayne Wade -- taken #22
12) 24.2 Tim Duncan -- taken #5
13) 24.1 Magic Johnson -- taken #7
14) 23.9 Karl Malone -- taken #14
15) 23.8 Russell Westbrook
16) 23.6 Hakeem Olajuwon -- taken #9
17) 23.5 Larry Bird -- taken #10
18) 23.2 Oscar Robertson -- taken #13
19) 22.9 Kobe Bryant -- taken #11
20) 22.9 James Harden
21) 22.9 Dirk Nowitzki -- taken #17
22) 22.9 Jerry West -- taken #15
23) 22.7 Elgin Baylor -- taken #32
24) 22.7 Kevin Garnett -- taken #12
25) 22.3 Moses Malone -- taken #20
23) 22.1 Tracy McGrady
27) 22.0 Julius Erving -- taken #16
28) 22.0 Dolph Schayes -- taken #45
29) 21.8 John Stockton -- taken #21
30) 21.8 Amar'e Stoudemire
31) 21.7 George Gervin -- taken #41
32) 21.7 Dwight Howard -- taken #44
33) 21.7 Bob Lanier
34) 21.6 Dominique Wilkins
35) 21.5 Adrian Dantley
36) 21.5 Pau Gasol
37) 21.2 Alonzo Mourning
38) 21.1 Clyde Drexler -- taken #33
39) 21.0 Patrick Ewing -- taken #27
40) 21.0 Dan Issel
41) 20.9 Carmelo Anthony
42) 20.9 Allen Iverson
43) 20.9 Chris Webber
44) 20.7 John Drew
45) 20.7 Kevin Johnson
46) 20.7 Bob McAdoo
47) 20.6 Chris Bosh
48) 20.6 Manu Ginobili
49) 20.6 Al Jefferson
50) 20.5 Elton Brand
51) 20.3 LaMarcus Aldridge
52) 20.2 Rick Barry -- taken #34
53) 20.2 Larry Foust
54) 20.2 Artis Gilmore -- taken #36
55) 20.1 Marques Johnson
56) 20.0 Kevin McHale -- taken #40
57) 20.0 Steve Nash -- taken #26

Others Taken Too Low PER:
64) Paul Pierce 19.7 -- taken #43
78) Walt Frazier 19.1 -- taken #38
88) Gary Payton 18.9 -- taken #35
89) Bill Russell 18.9 -- taken #4
101) Scottie Pippen 18.6 -- taken #30
109) Reggie Miller 18.4 -- taken #42
118) Isiah Thomas 18.1 -- taken #39
124) Jason Kidd 17.9 -- taken #37
143) John Havlicek 17.5 -- taken #31

Others Taken Too Few Minutes:
George Mikan 27.0 -- taken #25
Stephen Curry 23.4 -- taken #29


With just a little discretion from those lists you can sniff out who many of the snubs have been, and who the questionable people elevated over the snubs have been.

[dhsilv2]

I keep pointing this out, but today the all nba team and for some time (I think 56 looks like the first year they started doing this but that could have been accidental).

The first team all nba has voters vote for 3 positions. Guards, Forwards, and Centers. This allows for 2 people at the same position to make the first team, unless we are talking about a center. Centers only get 1 spot. So the question is not just that centers are seen as more valuable, but they are discriminated against in making all nba teams (this of course after the mid 50's where multiple centers would make the first team.

You can't tell me that power forwards should get two slots (which has happened alot) because they dribble the ball up the court or create more with their passing, especially traditionally where power forwards were often just smaller centers. Case and point if the Spurs didn't insist on calling Tim Duncan a power forward he would be much further down your list while playing exactly the same. Wilt and Russell had to play the same position so only one of them could make first team, but had the celtrics just called bill a power forward, boom he would jump up on your list because there was more room for a second forward.

This is incorrect.
There are FIVE 1st-Team selections and FIVE 2nd-Team selections (and FIVE 3rd-Team selections) each year.
For each "-Team" there are TWO spots for GUARDS (which represent 2 spots on each 5-man team on the court);
For each "-Team" there are TWO spots for FORWARDS (which represent 2 spots on each 5-man team on the court);
For each "-Team" there are ONE spots for a CENTER (which represent 1 spots on each 5-man team on the court).

In other words, on the 1st-Team, there are two spots for Guards, two spots for Forwards and one spot for Centers - EXACTLY the same as there are players on the court. Same for 2nd- and 3rd-Teams.

I'm not currently looking at the list from each individual year, but I'd bet that in the great majority of years, there has been one PG, one SG, one SF, one PF and one Center selected for the 1st-Team AND for the 2nd-Team AND for the 3rd-Team.

Power forwards and point guards are nothing like small forwards and shooting guards (which are actually similar roles).

Of course we constantly have that "position" doesn't mean much. Tim Duncan was always a center, the spurs liked to run two centers for example. Bird was a hybrid small forward power forward imo.

51-55 doesn't pass this as I've said. 60 doesn't pass the test (2 point guards). 61 has 2 point guards. West is generally listed as a point guard and if so then 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67 would be giving either Oscar or West free points. Second team for a good piece of that had two shooting guards, so i guess shooting guards get less points (Sam Jones and Hal Greer). 69 Baylor and Cunningham were both small forwards. 70 you have West and Frazier with Cunningham and Hawkins so possibly 2 points and 2 small forwards. Hondo and Cunningham in 71 both small forwards. If you're of the opinion west was a 2 guard then Bing and West were the guards. 72 West and Frazier again. 73 West and Tiny. 74 Barry and Havlicek were the forwards, both 3's. 78 David Thompson and George Gervin.

I guess we have to ask if Bird should be considered the 4? If not we have pretty much every bird Dr J year coming up. If you call him a 4 then we're good.

80 Bird and Dr J. 81 Bird and Dr J plus Gervin and Dennis Johnson (he was listed as a point that year so I guess that doesn't count). 82 Dr J and Bird. 83 same issue. 84 now was bird still a 4 as King is on the list plus we have IT and Magic both points.

85 Same Magic/IT issue and now bird is listed as a SF so him and king. 86 bird and nik plus IT and Magic.

Chuck was listed as a SF from 90-92 so I'll let others decide if malone and him were both really still power fowards those years. I know where I stand.
89 chuck and Malone. 90 Chuck and malone. 91 chuck and malone. 92 MJ and Drexler. 93 chuck and malone.

95 Penny and Stockton

98 Now we get into the Duncan era where if we're going to call him a 4 then well it was the era of 4's.
Duncan and Malone 99. Since you list Iverson as a point guard Iverson and Kidd. 00 Duncan and KG plus Kidd and Payton. 01 Duncan and Webber plus Iverson and Kidd. 03 Duncan and KG plus Kobe and Tmac. 04 Duncan and KG. 05 Duncan and Dirk plus Iverson and nash. 05 Duncan and Dirk plus Iverson and Nash. 07 Dirk and Duncan. 09 Kobe and Wade.

Lebron was listed for 13 and 14 as a 4 as take that as you will.
10 KD and Lebron. 12 KD and Lebron. 13 KD and Lebron (duncan now correctly listed as a center). 14 KD and Lebron.

16 Kawhi and Lebron. Curry and Westbrook. 17 Lebron and Kawhi and I'll let you decide if Harden was a point guard last year but whatever he was, Westbrook and him played the same role.

Over the history of the all nba team I would argue one could argue half or more covered all 5 positions, but it is by no means overwhelming and it requires one being willing to be loose with a lot of players who were tweeners. There is however a very clear bias against centers who weren't Tim Duncan in making the first team. This creates an anti scoring result for centers and makes an argument based on "dominating a position" really hard to argue. The best examples being guys like Malone and Chuck, Duncan and KG (or Duncan and Shaq if you want to go there), Dr J and Bird (if you go there), and there are some good point guard discussions as well.

[dhsilv2]

46) Allen Iverson
47) Russell Westbrook

Below is a list of the most productive full career level players in NBA history.



Others Taken Too Low PER:
64) Paul Pierce 19.7 -- taken #43
78) Walt Frazier 19.1 -- taken #38
88) Gary Payton 18.9 -- taken #35
89) Bill Russell 18.9 -- taken #4
101) Scottie Pippen 18.6 -- taken #30
109) Reggie Miller 18.4 -- taken #42
118) Isiah Thomas 18.1 -- taken #39
124) Jason Kidd 17.9 -- taken #37
143) John Havlicek 17.5 -- taken #31

Others Taken Too Few Minutes:
George Mikan 27.0 -- taken #25
Stephen Curry 23.4 -- taken #29


With just a little discretion from those lists you can sniff out who many of the snubs have been, and who the questionable people elevated over the snubs have been.

Looks like 2 of the most dominate short careers ever, a bunch of defensive stars, Isiah Thomas, Reggie Miller, and Paul Pierce. Two long very good careers and....I can't help with IT.

Though PER is a pretty poor way to judge this based on how the voting is being done.

[pandrade83]

A couple things:

1) I'm glad your'e safe.

2) After seeing that you had Cousy over Russell, I just kind of sat there & did this for like 2 straight minutes

Some of the problems . . .

-I've touched on this before but you assume a constantly even distribution of talent by position which is just not true.
-I realized looking at this list, that it completely ignores what happens in the PS, which is kind of a problem.
-I don't really think any one metric can encapsulate everything - and this assumes it can.
-It inherently overstates the ABA/NBA over-lap years because there's 2 ways to make it
-When league quality goes backwards (like '99-'01), it doesn't have a way of controlling for it.

btw, I had left off the my POSITIONAL GOAT RANKINGS, so I've added them in in the above post.

About Russell only being my GOAT #16. My position on this is that you can't be in my GOAT Top 15 if you were dominated at your own position in your own era. And that's what was done to Russell by Wilt: In the NINE years in which they were both selected ALL-NBA, Wilt had SEVEN 1st-Teams (with Russell getting those 7 2nd-Teams) while Russell had ONLY TWO 1st-Teams (with Wilt getting those 2 2nd-Teams). That's just domination.

Of course, that puts me subject to ridicule by just about everybody. BUT
, Russell's standard GOAT Top 5-10 ranking is based mostly on those 11 Chips. But if that is THE #1 criteria, then Russell should be forever the GOAT #1.

Maybe, just maybe, sometime in the future, Russell would move steadily downwards in the GOAT lists?

to your other objections:

pandrade83: -I've touched on this before but you assume a constantly even distribution of talent by position which is just not true.
PABLO: I KNOW there has never been an even distribution of talent by position. BUT, EVERY SINGLE evaluation I've seen is FAULTY in some way. My response: treat them all as more equal than un-equal.

pandrade83-I realized looking at this list, that it completely ignores what happens in the PS, which is kind of a problem.
PABLO: STEP #1 in my evaluation process only focuses on the Regular Season (because the Reg. Seas. is some 15 times bigger a sample size; and because a number of key factors can "warp" PS results: match-ups, INJURIES, previous series, LUCK.

STEP #2 brings in every other consideration (including: PS, stats, exceptional qualities and weaknesses, TEAM-work ...). Then my

STEP #3 "allows" for adjustments: either one positional spot upwards or downwards. (I "allow" for one exception to this; where ONE player can be moved more than one spot up or down. My own particular application of this "rule" is that I moved Bill Russell UP more than one spot amongst the Centers - due to his phenomenal TEAM success in the Play-Offs.

If one were to review my INITIAL GOAT list (based just on STEP #1) there are a number of differences, for example:
Kobe has decidedly more "Points" than does MJ; Shaq out-points Wilt.

pandrade83-I don't really think any one metric can encapsulate everything - and this assumes it can.
PABLO: Yes, this is how almost everybody finds fault with my system. My response is simply that the ALL-League selectors were in the best position to judge (all aspects considered) PLUS the sheer number of them squeezes out the "homerist" type votes. It's a remarkably high-quality system. In other words, THEY DO take into account all the factors; my review of their collective judgement over the FIFTY-EIGHT years I've been a "rabid" NBA-ABA-NBL fan (and have paid attention to the ALL-League selections) ... my review of THEIR work is that it has been EXCELLENT.

I'd trust their judgement over any of our judgement (with endless numbers of different ways to judge the stats and performances; including my own).

pandrade83-It inherently overstates the ABA/NBA over-lap years because there's 2 ways to make it
PABLO: No, this is not the case. For the DUAL-LEAGUE years: 1947-1949 and for the DUAL-LEAGUE years (68-76), I went year-by-year, merging the two sets of ALL-League teams so that, the same number of spots and "Points" were allotted.

My evaluation of the DUAL-LEAGUE years was a bit complicated.
For the 3 NBL-BAA years I did this:
1947 & 1948: NBL 1st Team selections became COMBINED-Leagues 1st-Team selections; BAA 1st-Team selections became COMBINED-Leagues 2nd-Team selections (with the NBL and BAA 2nd-Team selections being removed from the combined list).
1949: BAA 1st Team selections became COMBINED-Leagues 1st-Team selections; NBL 1st-Team selections became COMBINED-Leagues 2nd-Team selections (with the NBL and BAA 2nd-Team selections being removed from the combined list).

In the NBL-BAA Dual-League 3 years, this makes complete sense to me. During the first two years of those three, the NBL's teams and players were clearly superior; during the last of the 3 years it was the reverse (mostly because the top NBL teams had switched over).

For the 9 NBA-ABA Dual-League years, it cost me TONS of hours to sort thru. Eventually, I divided those 9 years up into 3 sets of 3 years. During the first 3 years, the NBA got the great bulk of the combined "Points"; during the 2nd set of 3 years, the gap narrowed; during the last 3 years, the gap was tiny. My "Points" awarded reflects that. I admit I had to make a whole series of judgement calls about which player from which League was better than the others each year.

pandrade83-When league quality goes backwards (like '99-'01), it doesn't have a way of controlling for i
PABLO: Quite similarly to the question of uneveness PER POSITION PER DECADE, the question of when League quality went up or down (and by how much) is super-problematic - there is the opposite of universal agreement.

In the particular case you've chosen to point to "99-01"; I don't even get your point. Quality can be assumed to have gone down SIMULATENOUSLY with EXPANSION (by more than one team in a given year). So, by this line of thinking, the WORST period for quality of play would have been 68-76 (the ABA years) followed by the expansion by 6 teams in only 8 years: 89-96 (as well as 1950, at the moment of the NBL-BAA merger).

The "proof" of this is that it was exactly in such years that MOST of the greatest single-season team W-L records were achieved!

Still, HOW MUCH of a "demerit" should be given to such expansion era players is one of those questions where there is the opposite of universal agreement. In response to that, I've simply rated each succeeding decade as having a generally improved level of play - which very well could be the case (even despite expansion). That improvement is reflected in the number of "Points" awarded per decade - that increase in "Points" awarded lessens each decade - to, hopefully, reflect the fact that the improvement vs previous decades gets smaller.

This is a long post. Even though I disagree with almost everything you wrote, I can tell you put some thought into it. I'll give it the response it deserves over the next day or two. Tomorrow is going to be a long day at the office - but your posts remind me that I'm fortunate to be facing a long day at the office vs. what others are going through. Cheers for now!

[trex_8063]

Just curious, what would be the difference between Mt. Mutombo and Ben Wallace? And why should he get in before Big Ben? Both can be argued as 4+ DPOY winners, both were mediocre (I'm being generous here but Deke has a tiny advantage) offensively

Saying Deke has a "tiny" offensive advantage on Ben Wallace is just a small step from saying something like Mike Gminski had a "tiny" offensive advantage over Manute Bol.
Dikembe was [as you said] mediocre offensively. Ben Wallace was kind of outlier bad offensively.

Dikembe also has a small longevity advantage.

[THKNKG]

Vote: Deke
Alt: Pau Gasol

Same reasons for deke - goat level defender, great longevity, possible goat rim protector

Spoiler:

Okay, now for me to go back to the nitty gritty - at the beginning, I defined certain axioms that are central to my analysis of basketball greatness. I want to post these again for the sake of reference, and they will help explain my thinking.


Defense - The value of a defensive big man (4/5) is higher than the value of a defensive perimeter player (1/2/3).

Offense - The value of an offensive perimeter player is higher than the value of an offensive big man. Again, this can be demonstrated a couple of ways.

Offense vs defense – Offensive players have a higher capacity to affect the game (or at least do so more frequently), but the scarcity of defenders who can produce at that level makes those defenders at least equally valuable (aka scarcity theory).

Playstyle – Except for situations where a team is so weak it needs a player to “carry them,” a team-friendly playstyle is most preferred.

Longevity/peak – Unless there is a clear advantage in peak, assuming levels similar to one another, the player with more effective longevity is more highly valued.

Intangibles – Intangibles clearly affect a player/team, so they must be considered when analyzing the greatness of a player, for better or worse.

Era – The player must be considered in the context of the era in which they played, and any “era translation” must be done consistently in all directions in context as well.


Some thoughts on some of these to add on, before I continue:

1. Axioms 1/2/3 are why I value ATG defensive anchors so much, and axiom 4 is why I view inefficiency as less valuable by default. In my first post on the project, I made the following distinctions (assuming equal levels of talent - obviously the hierarchy is not used in the instance of a GOAT level player) -

off-ball > ball-dominant playmakers > ball-dominant scorers

2. The scarcity of an ELITE defensive 4 / 5, combined with the intrinsically additive nature of defense to a team, means that for me to overlook a high impact, GOAT tier defender, that other player better have some rock solid reasoning.

Alright, next, I also mentioned the concepts of gravity/creation, and anti-gravity/disruption. Gravity meaning the amount of distortion put on the defense by a player, and anti-gravity meaning the amount of distortion put on the offense. Creation meaning a combination of scoring/playmaking, and disruption being actually disrupting a play - jumping passing lanes, steals, blocks, rim protection, etc. Those are fundamental concepts to our understanding of basketball, and they’re important for our discussions here.

I wrote in a separate thread a few weeks ago (that I can’t search for right now for some reason), that on a PPP basis, unless a player is at Steph level 3 pt. % and beyond, shots in the lane are more valuable. Midrange shots would require a LOT of increase to be as valuable - they’re just bad shots to take by willing choice, which is why the league has evolved as it has.

So, shots in the lane are the most effective. Studies have also shown that 3 point defense and midrange defense (ITO percentage at least) tend to be close to random. Meanwhile, rim protectors tend to be consistent from year to year.
sources: https://fansided.com/2017/01/12/nylon-calculus-shot-defense-metrics-actions/
https://fansided.com/2015/02/09/defending-the-three-pointer-mean-avoiding-three-pointer/

Therefore IF shots in the lane are most effective, and IF they are the shots that demonstrably CAN be altered, it follows that players who can alter shots the most effectively are HIGHLY valuable.

The best rim protectors of the past 4 years or so have altered the oppFG% <5 ft. by between 10-15% (sometimes more). The average fg% for teams in that range was roughly 60%. 60% gives a rate of 1.2ppp, which is the same efficacy as a 40% 3 pt. shooter. This means that the best rim protectors of the last few years have shifted the ppp of shots at the rim from 1.2ppp to anywhere from 0.9-1.0ppp.

This means the most elite rim protectors make shots at the rim nearly as inefficient as midrange shots.

Now, imagine the players who were even better rim protectors than Gobert - Russell, Robinson, Hakeem, Mutombo - and then all of a sudden, the massive RAPM scores of Deke start to make a lot of sense. Could Deke have altered oppFG% by near 20%, and thus made shots at the rim LESS efficient than midrange shots? Quite possibly, as there have been some players over the last few years who have been in the high teens. Deke exhibited massive anti-gravity, and accompanied it with arguably GOAT level rim protection.

For all of the reasons above, my vote is:
1. Dikembe Mutombo

I'm stuck for my alternate between Parish, Pau, Mourning, and Thurmond. I may edit my 2nd choice later.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Putting Deke in before Mourning would be a bit of an obscenity.

Again, they were contemporaries, college teammates even, and there was NO debate. None. And then along comes this board again to rewrite some more history. Of course the real truth is that neither guy belongs here yet in the Top 50. There are still full career superstars and MVPs floating about

Deke was a great defender, iconic even. But never a dominant force in the league. One of those colorful "others" like Rodman, Ben or Draymond that you talk about adding flavor to the league after the superstars, not before.

[Dr Positivity]

Just curious, what would be the difference between Mt. Mutombo and Ben Wallace? And why should he get in before Big Ben? Both can be argued as 4+ DPOY winners, both were mediocre (I'm being generous here but Deke has a tiny advantage) offensively and were GREAT defensive anchors. It can also be argued that Ben was better because he defensively anchored his team to a championship. Can be argued also that Ben was the Finals MVP that time.

Other than offensive advantage for Mutombo to me the longevity difference is significant to me, he comes in productive (all-star as a rookie) and is All-NBA in his 11th season. Wallace's prime is about the 6 Detroit years and the first Bulls one.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Just curious, what would be the difference between Mt. Mutombo and Ben Wallace? And why should he get in before Big Ben? Both can be argued as 4+ DPOY winners, both were mediocre (I'm being generous here but Deke has a tiny advantage) offensively and were GREAT defensive anchors. It can also be argued that Ben was better because he defensively anchored his team to a championship. Can be argued also that Ben was the Finals MVP that time.

Other than offensive advantage for Mutombo to me the longevity difference is significant to me, he comes in productive (all-star as a rookie) and is All-NBA in his 11th season. Wallace's prime is about the 6 Detroit years and the first Bulls one.

Longevity as what though? (only tangentially related to your post about Deke v. Ben)

Of all the many remaining all time centers

MVP Shares
McAdoo 1.494
Cowens 1.369
Reed 1.049
Mourning .967
Unseld .655
Lanier .527
Thurmond .437
.
.
.
Wallace .067
Sampson .033
Daugherty .031
Mutombo .013
Bellamy .007
Issel .004 (+ .572 ABA)
Ming .002


Deke is clearly one of the ones who was never truly considered dominant as an overall player. Comparing him vis a vis Ben is fine as it was the same thing with him -- guys who needed to be surrounded by teams full of near equals so they could just fill their roles without being asked to carry everything -- but talking about Deke's longevity vs. other guys who peaked as much more important players is highly dubious. Where is the greatness in being able to sustain as a lesser player? "Well, I was never as good as you, but I damn well stayed not as good for a long time!" Doesn't make for much of a greatness poster. People are badly misconstruing who Deke was to have him up here this high against this competition. He was never in the class of the true elite centers, nor in A.I.'s class or Nique's class or Westbrook's class etc. etc. either. For purposes of this project, he was never "great" at this level. He's a guy who should be talked about in the 60s not the 40s.

[dhsilv2]

Putting Deke in before Mourning would be a bit of an obscenity.

Again, they were contemporaries, college teammates even, and there was NO debate. None. And then along comes this board again to rewrite some more history. Of course the real truth is that neither guy belongs here yet in the Top 50. There are still full career superstars and MVPs floating about

Deke was a great defender, iconic even. But never a dominant force in the league. One of those colorful "others" like Rodman, Ben or Draymond that you talk about adding flavor to the league after the superstars, not before.

I'm not sure I buy that all. The NBA and fans in general have criminally under valued defense, unless you just so happened to be on a team that won a title, and then suddenly you get credit for it. Things only got worse when PER came out and everyone got judged by a "one stat" that was heavily offensively biased.

Mutombo's peak WS and VORP numbers are very reasonable when placed against Zo. Zo had two somewhat stand out years in 96 and 00 oh and 99 so make it 3 years. Those years don't really stand out over Mutombo's. They both peaks around 4.5 BPM and WS/48 of just over .2

Their playoff stats similarly don't really paint a picture that Zo was better.

As for the view of them at the time. I though of them as the same tier back in the 90's myself. I think Zo peaked nicely in 99 and 00, but not enough to consider it an obscenity to take Mutombo.

Now it's too early imo for these guys given we still have some MVP's who won titles on the board, but taking these guys over score first type players like a Wilkins isn't that crazy.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Willis Reed

Vote 2 - Ray Allen

Reasoning: viewtopic.php?p=58629578#p58629578

[trex_8063]

Thru post #51 (14 votes, would require 8 for true majority):

Willis Reed - 2 (Clyde Frazier, dhsilv2)
Bob Cousy - 2 (euroleague, Pablo Novi)
Pau Gasol - 2 (Doctor MJ, trex_8063)
Dikembe Mutombo - 2 (LABird, micahclay)
Russell Westbrook - 1 (Dr Positivity)
Dominique Wilkins - 1 (*JordansBull) *walkin' the line on minimal allowable content for a counted vote, btw
Elvin Hayes - 1 (scabbarista)
Wes Unsled - 1 (pandrade83)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Allen Iverson - 1 (Winsome Gerbil)

The six individuals with 1 vote each are eliminated, all become ghost votes, leaving us a with a 4-way tie for first (Reed/Cousy/Gasol/Mutombo).
As per stipulations edited into protocol back on 9/10, we will use the total number of 2nd-place votes received by each of these four to narrow it further for runoff. Bob Cousy received one alternate vote, and Pau Gasol received one alternate vote. Deke and Reed did not receive any:

Bob Cousy - 3 (euroleague, Pablo Novi, scabbarista)
Pau Gasol - 3 (trex_8063, Doctor MJ, micahclay)

We are now in runoff between Pau and Cousy. If your handle is not among those listed, please indicate your choice between those two with brief reasons why.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[trex_8063]

Putting Deke in before Mourning would be a bit of an obscenity.

Again, they were contemporaries, college teammates even, and there was NO debate. None. And then along comes this board again to rewrite some more history.

Actually, along came impact data to revolutionize and reshape how certain players are viewed (among them: "one-sided" defensive giants).

Except, iirc, for one exec with the Sixers who started tracking some raw on/off for the Sixers-only beginning decades ago, it wasn't until both of Deke's/Zo's careers were essentially over that someone thought, "hey, we don't have a good stat that actually attempts to measure on-court impact and nothing else" .......and then set out to create such a stat.

After a few evolutions, that's provided us with the various incantations of RAPM. It's not a perfect stat, and there can be debate about which version is most useful in certain situations, but it [collectively] is unquestionably the most reliable indicator of actual on-court impact on the scoring margin (and thus winning).

It is incorporation of this relatively new information (which has not been pulled out of someone's posterior, but rather is based on the actual play-by-play data) which has led to any "revision" of the hierarchy. That is reasonably sound justification for making revisions, too. And I frankly grow a little tired of you verbally defecating on the forum at large in this manner.


If adjustments jive with the status quo, it's only because the status quo was established before impact data became available, and impact data still hasn't really hit the mainstream (and frankly, its complexity might prevent it from ever doing so).
And I certainly wouldn't take the results at face-value (especially spurious single-year results), and I definitely do NOT suggest to anyone that they make it the sole platform of their rankings (have argued this more than once). But that said, I would suggest that if the results run counter to your pre-conceived notions, I'd argue that's not a reason to cast it aside as unreliable and not useful......more likely it's reason to re-examine your pre-conceived notions.

[Dr Positivity]

I'm not crazy about these being the two choices but vote Bob Cousy. I think Cousy was the Westbrook of his era not the Iverson of his era and he has great prime longevity. While you have to downgrade for 50s justifying the drop, like Schayes I am fine voting for a 50s superstar over modern day 2nd tier players.

[Winsome Gerbil]

And as I make that note about Deke, here comes the board with another cult favorite guy in Pau. Who BTW was really talented, and WHO WAS A SECOND BANANA.

You know how many MVP shares Pau got over his career? 0.0. You know how many playoff games Pau led teams won in his entire career? 0. As in 0-12. If that's kosher for the Top 50 in an all time NBAers project, maybe I shoudl start advocating for Boogie earlier than I thought.

We're back to the Reggie Miller fallacy again. Pau was an excellent player, and there were some years there where he might have been Top 10. He would not be top 10 today, and if there was ever a season he was Top 5 it would be a bad sign for the strength of the league. MVP voters certainly were never confused that he was the straw that stirred the drink. Like Miller, this is a guy who wasn't even consistently an All Star -- indeed, only made 1 All Star team on his own, then 3 as a direct result of being Kobe's support, then 2 more for being in the modern East in a time when they couldn't field a single 20ppg big man. Unlike Miller, this is a guy who spent the bulk of his career not even being his own team's #1. From one great wing to another, Kobe --> Butler --> Kawhi, Pau has never even been his team's best player. If he had played with Iverson or Wilkins or Westbrook he would have been the #2 as well (although apparently somehow "better" than guys better than him #RGMLogic). And we are not, in any way, down to second bananas in the Top 100.

Pau is my sort of player. Skilled offensive big. I have much more affinity for him than many/most remaining players on the board.
But he lacked any sort of force behind it. Barely crossed the 20ppg barrier twice in his whole career. And when you are an 17-19ppg type player you are not dominating. You are good, but it's not enough to carry a team. You're a contributor, not a dominator. If Pau had been a great defender you can say, well, maybe it was enough. But of course he was not. And whether somebody is "my sort of player" should not matter in a project like this, unless I misunderstood and this is just a "my favorite players " sort of list.

And you know something else Pau never was? The face of a cigarette ad. And that's because he was not a face of the league. Bob Cousy was. If we pan Bob Cousy for oh, never winning a title without Bill Russell, then how do we justify Pau never even winning a playoff game without Kobe. If we run around in circles trying to minimize Cousy's early career in which, oh, all he did was win an MVP and be a perennial First Team All NBAer, then how do we justify Pau's early career when other than a rookie of the year his grand total of achievements was 1 All Star appearance and an 0-12 playoff record.

RUNOFF: Bob Cousy, easily, here.

[dhsilv2]

Was their a Pau Gasol in the 40's or 50's I just don't know about? We're talking about a 6 time allstar, never made a first team all nba? We're talking about that guy for a top 50 spot?

The guy is behind Ray Allen and Vince Carter in career VORP (no traction for either) and just ahead of Shawn Marion (who hopefully gets traction in the 70's).

I get that Gasol has some great stats and was far under valued as a defender, but ahead of Iverson, Reed, Cowens, Westbrook, Harden, Allen, and even the 90's defensive bigs we've been talking about?

Vote Cousy and it isn't even close here. Cousy was a product of being on the best team in the 50's and into the 60's and got grossly overrated, but he was a stand out in this early years. He won an MVP and remained a key part of the Celtics dynasty. Cousy steals the ball remains a part of basketball history and likely will for decades to come. I was hoping for a few more MVP's go come in ahead of him, but with this run off, Cousy is easily the better choice.

Maybe I should start championing Manu, in the next round? I mean I think he's near this level, but his accomplishments have kept me from considering putting him up here, but it seems like this is as good a time as any. I think Manu was a much better peak player and more impactful playoff performer.

[pandrade83]

I think it's too early for both Pau & Cousy. For Pau, his inability to win so much as a game while in Memphis & some pretty rough records make me hesitant to take him quite this early. He was a fantastic 2nd banana while in LA - but we've seen other 2nd bananas be able to do things on their own. In 2011, I do believe he was the best player on the Lakers and give him credit for that - but if I'm giving you credit for being the best player, what happened vs. Dallas in the playoffs isn't OK and he really sucked that series and that takes some of the shine off "Being the best player on a contender". The lack of times being one of those top tier echelon & what happened when he was the best player puts him in the 50's for me - I love him but not for my TOP 50.

The way I've conceptualized Cousy for nutritional benefits, etc. is to place him in a hypothetical basketball league comprised exclusively of white American born players with 16 teams. There's only enough such players in the current NBA to fill half the starting positions in the league. I can't go back in the '51-'56 era & point to a year where Cousy was the best player - so in his prime - at his apex - he would be like the 4th/5th best player in this hypothetical league - he wouldn't lead his teams to any real success; always winning a playoff series at most; he'd be the best player on the equivalent of this league's Toronto Raptors and the league would be of very low quality. I don't see much value in a player of that caliber in the big picture.

We've seen Pau thrive in the FIFA environment as THE guy and that caliber of competition is superior to the hypothetical league I created for Cousy. There's no doubt in my mind that Pau would dominate the hypothetical league I created & would be it's best player in many years. I know FIFA isn't the NBA, but his NBA impact serves to reinforce it - over his career, if we compare him to the best white American born players, there's been a couple years where you'd take Love, you'd maybe take Hayward these last couple & that's about it - Gasol would be the very best player in that league in over 1/2 the seasons.

Now, obviously this is a gigantic hypothetical - but let's bring it back to reality. Cousy couldn't get to the finals in a segregated league of low quality. There are years where he wasn't even the best player on that team - Gasol didn't do any better & and in fact worse, but he was facing real competition. Russell arrived and carried the team while Cousy's play fell off relative to where the league was - it simply passed him by & he didn't/couldn't adapt. Boston won despite their offense - in no way because of it, & so I don't give Cousy much credit in general for all those Celtic rings.

There's a case to be made that Gasol was the best player on the 2010 squad in the playoffs. He was the one who kept them afloat in the '10 Game 7 while Kobe went 6/24. Pau, not Kobe led the team in WS, WS/48, BPM & VORP; their PER scores are virtually identical (24.7 vs. 24.0) for the playoffs. Even on the '09 squad, Pau was the clear #2 and hugely impactful and I believe he was the absolute best player on a true contender in '11 - for the reg season, anyway.

I think Gasol achieved marginally more in a MUCH stronger league; he was more impactful when in a contending situation and a bigger contributor to title teams than Cousy; and while I know Gasol had limited success as THE guy, so did Cousy - & Cousy wasn't even THE guy all the time anyway. Ultimately for me, Cousy's inability to get to the Finals in a segregated league pre-Russell - where he had top talent removed because of gambling - really weakens his case for me. Cousy belongs in the Top 100 - but he will be one of the very last guys I have in.

Runoff Vote: Pau Gasol

[Dr Positivity]

The way I've conceptualized Cousy for nutritional benefits, etc. is to place him in a hypothetical basketball league comprised exclusively of white American born players with 16 teams. There's only enough such players in the current NBA to fill half the starting positions in the league. I can't go back in the '51-'56 era & point to a year where Cousy was the best player - so in his prime - at his apex - he would be like the 4th/5th best player in this hypothetical league - he wouldn't lead his teams to any real success; always winning a playoff series at most; he'd be the best player on the equivalent of this league's Toronto Raptors and the league would be of very low quality. I don't see much value in a player of that caliber in the big picture.

I think the argument for Cousy using this exercise would be if you called him #2 of his pre shot clock era behind Mikan which is what he had the accolades of. While his WS and efficiency doesn't look that great Cousy's combination of best in the league at both slashing and passing for a guard by miles, could have led to higher offensive impact creating than just the boxscore said. Depending on the time period the 2nd best white North American in the league can be a top 50 caliber player, such as McHale

[Doctor MJ]

And as I make that note about Deke, here comes the board with another cult favorite guy in Pau. Who BTW was really talented, and WHO WAS A SECOND BANANA.

You know how many MVP shares Pau got over his career? 0.0. You know how many playoff games Pau led teams won in his entire career? 0. As in 0-12. If that's kosher for the Top 50 in an all time NBAers project, maybe I shoudl start advocating for Boogie earlier than I thought.

Oh don't worry you're instincts were right about Boogie this time.

I note also you knock Gasol for being a 2nd banana while in a comparison with Cousy who also only ever won championships as a secondary force.

[Winsome Gerbil]

And as I make that note about Deke, here comes the board with another cult favorite guy in Pau. Who BTW was really talented, and WHO WAS A SECOND BANANA.

You know how many MVP shares Pau got over his career? 0.0. You know how many playoff games Pau led teams won in his entire career? 0. As in 0-12. If that's kosher for the Top 50 in an all time NBAers project, maybe I shoudl start advocating for Boogie earlier than I thought.

Oh don't worry you're instincts were right about Boogie this time.

I note also you knock Gasol for being a 2nd banana while in a comparison with Cousy who also only ever won championships as a secondary force.

And I specifically mentioned the inconsistency in panning Cousy for "only" being an MVP and annual First Team All NBA guy in his solo career, and then turning around and shrugging at Pau's single All Star game and 0-12 playoff work.