RealGM 2017 Top 100 #99 (Connie Hawkins)

[trex_8063]

Yes, I just went and edited the sign-up thread to reflect: "can consider the NBL as far back as '47". I stated Mikan, as tbh I figured he was the only individual for whom this consideration would bear relevant. Speaking for myself, noting Bob Davies' two additional NBL seasons still just barely even puts him on my radar for the top 100.

Seems an odd choice to state it as isolated to Mikan if it wasn't only applicapble to him ... still, don't think it mattered anyhow, as 50s (especially earlier 50s) aren't so highly valued (and as I said even if you do so as an idea, it's hard to meaningfully compare).

Yeah, it wasn't an intentionally misleading statement. As per the bolded above, I'd orginally stated it in reference to Mikan-only as he was (to my mind) the ONLY player with a significant portion of his career pre-1950 who I could foresee becoming relevant within a Top 100 project.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #21:

Connie Hawkins - 2 (euroleague, Doctor MJ)
Mel Daniels - 1 (penbeast0)
Walt Bellamy - 1 (trex_8063)
Tiny Archibald - 1 (Clyde Frazier)
Anthony Davis - 1 (pandrade83)

Last call; ~12 hours until runoff.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[HeartBreakKid]

Anthony Davis super efficient scoring makes me think he is a Karl Malone level talent on offense - perhaps a more reliable scorer if but much worse playmaker. Davis has 3 top ten seasons, and 1 season where he was top 3-5 in 2015. By 2017 a lot of his defensive woes were fixed up to the point where he wasn't a liability.

I value peak play highly, so 3 top ten seasons is quite important to me. He wasn't half bad his first 2 seasons either. I'm not sure if there is someone who can give the high volume scoring, double digit rebounding, stretch shooting and shot blocking that Davis can give you.

My vote goes to Anthony Davis.
My alternate vote goes to Walt Bellamy

[eminence]

Hmm, well I'll put together my (short) case and and give a 1st Vote: Bob Davies

Not sure who I'll give my second vote yet, have to catch up on some posts from others tomorrow.

First, some basic info/stats/accolades for Bob Davies ('47 and '48 in NBL and '49-'55 in the BAA/NBA).
-Went pro at age 26 in 1946 after serving in WWII, prior to that played at Seton Hall in the early 40's (2x All American)
-1947 NBL MVP (a unique note that he also coached Seton Hall to a 24-3 record this year)
-1951 NBA Champion (team never got rings because owner was a cheapskate, lol)
-5x 1st Team (47/49/50/51/52)
-2x 2nd Team (48/53) (Sharman is the only other player with 7+ All League Teams not in the top 100, Greer next lowest at #78)
-Top 10 in assists in his 7 NBA years (led league in '49), not tracked in NBL years
-Top 10 in FTA and PTS 3 seasons during NBA years
-14/3/5 career NBA stats (at a time when teams averaged ~80 pts)
-Number 11 Retired by the Royals/Kings
-Named to the 10 man NBA 25th Anniversary team in 1971
-Elected to the Basketball HOF

Limited footage(1st minute):

Watch on YouTube

A (extremely) basic scouting report:
-Known as a speed merchant and athletic finisher around the rim (you can see flashes of it in the highlights)
-First player to really bring the behind the back dribble/pass regularly to professional leagues (The Harrisburg Houdini)
-Known to have one of the quickest set shots in the business
-Good all around passing/vision
-I admittedly couldn't say the first thing about his defense

Team Accomplishment:
Led high level teams with his offensive skill (think a pre-alpha Nash).
1946 - Royals 2/8 in wins and 4/8 in PPG (for reference, his rookie season doesn't count here, though they won the title - also the franchises first year)
1947 - Royals 1/12 in wins and 1/12 in PPG
1948 - Royals 1/12 in wins and 2/11 in PPG
1949 - Royals 1/12 in wins and 1/12 in PPG (set the Assist record this season, broken by McGuire the next season)
1950 - Royals 2/17 in SRS and 6/17 in PPG
1951 - Royals 3/11 in SRS and 1/11 Orating (5th in PPG to demonstrate that it likely wasn't just a pace thing in earlier seasons)
1952 - Royals 4/10 in SRS and 1/10 Orating (4th in PPG)
1953 - Royals 4/10 in SRS and 5/10 Orating (2nd in PPG)
1954 - Royals 3/9 in SRS and 7/9 Orating (4th in PPG)
1955 - Royals 7/8 SRS and 3/8 Orating (7th in PPG)
1956(for reference - retired) - Royals 8/8 SRS and 8/8 Orating (7th in PPG)

In closing, I truly believe Davies was the first great offensive force in the post-WWII era, not being surpassed until the arrival of Oscar/West.

[dhsilv2]

Vote Tiny

Sometimes great players are on bad teams. I keep hearing about how watered down the leagues were due to ABA and NBA competing and nobody thinks that possibly that also means we had stars on teams with guys unworthy of professional ball? Lets take a bit more of a look at the 73 KCO team.

Sam Lacey 2930 minutes 13.8 PER .044 WS/48
Matt Guokas 2846 MP 11.2 PER .044 WS/48
Nate Williams 1979 MP 12.9 PER .087 WS/48
Ron Riley 1634 MP 11.7 PER .000 WS/48
Tom Van Arsdale 1282 MP 13.0 PER 0.57 WS/48
Johnny Green 1245 MP 14.6 PER .141 WS/48
Don Kojis 1240 MP 14.8 PER 0.84 WS/48

Look at that group again and tell me how that group was the number 1 offense in the NBA? Now Arsdale who was traded had been an allstar prior. Lacey would have a long and ok career. But no matter how you slice it, this was a complete carry job.

1973 back when we had a prime Kareem, we had the tail end of Wilt, and here was a point guard leading the NBA in scoring and assists. Meanwhile AD is getting votes when he had no more success in the playoffs than Tiny did during his peak, and unlike AD, Tiny has quality years on a title contender post prime. Same for Walton.

Alt Joe Dumars

This is hard. AD as others have voted is interesting and I could go with him if we count this year. We aren't and I can't see a 49 WS with really 2015 as the only great season. I still saw too many defensive blunders that year. Then 16 he had to go and start shooting 3's, he got hurt a lot. 17 wasn't much better though e missed less games. Walton I've reviewed and I'm just not sold on that being a top 10 peak so the rest of his career really doesn't move the needle for me. Daniels dominated a bad ABA. Hawkins is based on at least the 1 article posted here mildly (Please Use More Appropriate Word) (65 IQ would fall into that range) which I have to question, but if true I can't even begin to question how simple and awful the offensive and defensive systems must have been in the ABA. Sure basketball isn't an IQ test but wow. Anyway 30 of his career 75 WS all came in 2 seasons in the ABA.

Honestly then we get into some guys like DeBusschere and Bellamy who I think are worthy of a place here, but I'm not sold on either being good defenders. If I just want longevity and a nice WS i'd rather go with Eddie Jones to a degree, less peak but a better defender.

So i'm just going with Dumars here, a throw away vote but maybe we can get some traction on the next round. I've said before I'm a peak guy, but at this point the peaks aren't that impressive or the player only had a peak. I'm willing to believe Dumar's defense isn't captured in the box score metrics as guard defense is harder to capture. I think Dumars was as big a factor in leadership and reliability as Isiah was on those Detroit title years (one of the reasons I think we have Thomas too high is likely that I give more credit to Dumars than some).

My next alt would be DJ for whatever that's worth.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #25:

Connie Hawkins - 2 (euroleague, Doctor MJ)
Tiny Archibald - 2 (Clyde Frazier, dhsilv2)
Anthony Davis - 2 (HeartBreakKid, pandrade83)
Mel Daniels - 1 (penbeast0)
Walt Bellamy - 1 (trex_8063)
Bob Davies - 1 (eminence)

eminence---Please provide a clear (bolded) alternate vote next time.

As is, none of the guys with two votes have any secondary votes by which to whittle this down, so we'll have to initially enter a 3-way runoff between Tiny/AD/Hawk.

Connie Hawkins - 2 (euroleague, Doctor MJ)
Tiny Archibald - 2 (Clyde Frazier, dhsilv2)
Anthony Davis - 2 (HeartBreakKid, pandrade83)


If your name isn't shown here, please state your ONE pick among these three with reasons why. We'll at least narrow this down within 24 hours.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[eminence]

I'll make sure to get my alternate in next time. Brief thoughts on the 3 in the run-off.

Tiny - Had the one season ('73) with the huge stats where he led a very good offense and later years as a starter on some great Celtics teams, but otherwise a lot is lacking. Individual stats not on the same level in most other seasons and the team/offensive success certainly wasn't there.

Connie - Blazed into the ABA in '68 after being (likely unfairly) blackballed from the NBA in his early 20's. ABA MVP in '68 and led the Pipers to the title. Couldn't quite re-capture the magic the next season before transitioning to the NBA where he had a couple of All-Star seasons for a young Phoenix franchise before fading out in the mid 70's.

AD - Still writing his story, but came in as one of the most hyped prospects in recent times and has largely lived up to that hype. Hasn't yet featured on particularly strong teams and has had minor injury issues throughout his early career, but neither feel like big negatives. Hopefully gets another chance to show out in the playoffs this year in a more balanced match-up.

Summary - I'm not sold on Tiny being much of an offensive force, he won't be getting my vote. AD and the Hawk both have fair cases imo, but I'm going to go with Hawkins - very solid peak and playoff run, decent prime following that, with a nod towards unique circumstances taking prime years away from him. AD will surely wind up quite high on this list in the relatively near future.

Runoff Vote: Connie Hawkins

[trex_8063]

I can't decide if I'm going to vote in the runoff or not; sort of waffling between Hawkins and Tiny.

For me, Anthony Davis isn't in contention. Same reason as I didn't support Walton (lacking longevity):
*Prior to this season----which if that's wasn't explicitly clear, you should NOT be directly including anything that has occurred this season in your ranking of Anthony Davis----Davis had played just 335 rs for just 11,531 total minutes (+4 playoff games). Even Bill Walton played >130 more rs games and 1,719 more rs minutes; although Davis' minutes are more condensed, which likely makes them more relevant/valuable for reasons I elaborated on in post #58 of the last thread. But on the flip-side, I don't think Davis has yet peaked as high as Walton did; and by all [somewhat course] measures we have, it seems Walton's impact went well beyond his box-based metrics (whereas Anthony Davis's impact seems to lag marginally behind his box-based numbers).

So he very simply doesn't have enough career to get any serious consideration by my criteria.

[Clyde Frazier]

I can't decide if I'm going to vote in the runoff or not; sort of waffling between Hawkins and Tiny.

For me, Anthony Davis isn't in contention. Same reason as I didn't support Walton (lacking longevity):
*Prior to this season----which if that's wasn't explicitly clear, you should NOT be directly including anything that has occurred this season in your ranking of Anthony Davis----Davis had played just 335 rs for just 11,531 total minutes (+4 playoff games). Even Bill Walton played >130 more rs games and 1,719 more rs minutes; although Davis' minutes are more condensed, which likely makes them more relevant/valuable for reasons I elaborated on in post #58 of the last thread. But on the flip-side, I don't think Davis has yet peaked as high as Walton did; and by all [somewhat course] measures we have, it seems Walton's impact went well beyond his box-based metrics (whereas Anthony Davis's impact seems to lag marginally behind his box-based numbers).

So he very simply doesn't have enough career to get any serious consideration by my criteria.

Yeah, I really don’t see the appeal of Anthony Davis over someone like Chris Mullin who had an excellent 5 year stretch in his own right along with a full career with solid longevity. He’s on the shortlist of players who i’ll be disappointed about if they don’t make the cut.

[penbeast0]

Heck, I'm on the fence too. 68 and 69 were the weak years for the ABA; by the 1970 season, they had settled into teams with incumbent players and identified the league's talent and continued to improve every year through 1975 (before regressing in 76). So, I discount those years to a greater degree. Hawk was awesome in 68 but it was a real pickup league.

None of 3 has a real 5 year prime as a dominant player. Hawkins has 2.5 years plus 2 years as a good player and a stretch as a role player. Archibald has 2 years plus 2.5 as an all-star level player, his defensive shortcomings hold him back from being as valuable as his stats. Anthony Davis has always seemed a good stats on bad teams guy ready to break out . . . but he hasn't really done it. His defense has never really matched up to his rep/potential and his 4 year stretch since his rookie season has never really seemed to lift his team.

So, I have a tough time here. Hawk is clearly the most dominant but in easily the worst league. Tiny is the numbers guy but I don't think he provides a lot of lift to a good team (though Isaiah proved me wrong a bit in his great Boston season) plus his peak seasons are the weakest NBA years since full integration. Davis should be my choice but I just haven't seen him dominate.

So, I guess I go with CONNIE HAWKINS

[dhsilv2]

WS

Hawkins 76.7 (29.2 ABA)
Tiny 83.4
Davis 48.8

If you're sold the ABA is comparable to the NBA and go with peaks, I can get Hawkins here. I just can't see how Davis is a choice here. 4 good playoff games isn't really helping him either.

[Owly]

I can't decide if I'm going to vote in the runoff or not; sort of waffling between Hawkins and Tiny.

For me, Anthony Davis isn't in contention. Same reason as I didn't support Walton (lacking longevity):
*Prior to this season----which if that's wasn't explicitly clear, you should NOT be directly including anything that has occurred this season in your ranking of Anthony Davis----Davis had played just 335 rs for just 11,531 total minutes (+4 playoff games). Even Bill Walton played >130 more rs games and 1,719 more rs minutes; although Davis' minutes are more condensed, which likely makes them more relevant/valuable for reasons I elaborated on in post #58 of the last thread. But on the flip-side, I don't think Davis has yet peaked as high as Walton did; and by all [somewhat course] measures we have, it seems Walton's impact went well beyond his box-based metrics (whereas Anthony Davis's impact seems to lag marginally behind his box-based numbers).

So he very simply doesn't have enough career to get any serious consideration by my criteria.

The disconnect here between career value (or, perhaps especially, value above good) is that it isn't just peak and number of years. It's whether you sustain peak-ish form into a prime. Now Davis may have disappointed versus what was hoped for after 2015. But it's still the case that he's got 4 years with a PER at or north of 25. And minutes on the low side, but I don't know that he would ever have been unavailable for the playoffs (not saying I know for sure he would be available) and he's always hitting 3/4 of games - enough that any half competent team would make the playoffs.

Walton, even assuming huge beyond the boxscore impact (which, to be fair, WoWY supports) for a stronger peak ... that's 1 1/2 seasons. You have to be bullish on these fragments of seasons to have his 3rd best year (or combination of 3rd and 4th if needed to get the minutes there) match Davis'. The same for fourth and even fifth.

But more pertintently ... for Hawkins ... is anything beyond '72 moving the needle? Because if not you're looking at 5 seasons vs 5 seasons with minutes basically even (Hawkins with his injury concentrated into one season, Davis' more spread). And Hawkins spectacular circa 30 PER peak (better other metrics than Davis fwiw) coming in a ... I don't want to be rude ... it's a second tier league.

Nate might be the same ... it's really '72 to '76 (though he gets maybe a thousand extra minutes) that are needle movers. Maybe people can see more value in his Bird's Celtics years (i.e. not that first year) but take away the name and it looks like it's pedestrian production with likely poor D and then a little worse in the playoffs.


I can see not feeling Davis ... moreso versus the open field (Kemp, Johnson, Sharman, Bellamy, Gus Williams, Hornacek ... just for instance) than versus the competition here ... still just looking at the raw minutes ... Did the '77 Nets gain from 1277 minutes of Archibald? Would any team meaningfully do so?

I think it's at least worth looking at the argument that Davis's meaningful span could add more to a team's chances of winning (given an equal quality of league) than do the equivalent periods for Hawkins and Archibald and - without going so far as to really look at contract costs and negative value - if you buy that, then say there's not really a lot a value in the rest (particularly where the older guys aren't beyond the boxscore defenders).

[Owly]

I can't decide if I'm going to vote in the runoff or not; sort of waffling between Hawkins and Tiny.

For me, Anthony Davis isn't in contention. Same reason as I didn't support Walton (lacking longevity):
*Prior to this season----which if that's wasn't explicitly clear, you should NOT be directly including anything that has occurred this season in your ranking of Anthony Davis----Davis had played just 335 rs for just 11,531 total minutes (+4 playoff games). Even Bill Walton played >130 more rs games and 1,719 more rs minutes; although Davis' minutes are more condensed, which likely makes them more relevant/valuable for reasons I elaborated on in post #58 of the last thread. But on the flip-side, I don't think Davis has yet peaked as high as Walton did; and by all [somewhat course] measures we have, it seems Walton's impact went well beyond his box-based metrics (whereas Anthony Davis's impact seems to lag marginally behind his box-based numbers).

So he very simply doesn't have enough career to get any serious consideration by my criteria.

Yeah, I really don’t see the appeal of Anthony Davis over someone like Chris Mullin who had an excellent 5 year stretch in his own right along with a full career with solid longevity. He’s on the shortlist of players who i’ll be disappointed about if they don’t make the cut.

Which is fair enough, except Mullin isn't on the ballot here. The relevent argument here is his five year stretch versus the other 2 guys stretches and then whether there's any value in what else Hawkins or Archibald did.

WS

Hawkins 76.7 (29.2 ABA)
Tiny 83.4
Davis 48.8

If you're sold the ABA is comparable to the NBA and go with peaks, I can get Hawkins here. I just can't see how Davis is a choice here. 4 good playoff games isn't really helping him either.

The problem here is Win Shares values the difference between, say (and the labels here are arbitrary) dreadful and average (0.000-0.100 WS/48) as much that between average and very good (0.100-0.200). And whilst having dreadful players playing certainly can cost a team, and this is often underestimated, it is rare that you would think of an average player as causing a team to be good. They could be valuable in the right situation (above average for a backup, for instance). But hard to see them as driving even goodness, never mind the level typically needed to strive for a title. Win Shares, which tilt quite a bit towards team performance, on a very good team, see Archibald as very slightly above league average player as a Celtic (.105 WS/48), but the cumulative version tacks on 26.9 wins for this span. And at the top end of evaluating historical players, it's hard to see that and feel like that really makes a difference (otoh, I wouldn't say they missed anything with Henderson taking his minutes). If we were valuing wins above 0, and thus valuing longevity so, Buck Williams and Otis Thorpe should have been in a while ago. And that's not to say they're bad, but there's a lot of minutes that don't really move the needle a lot if you aspire to titles.

[Clyde Frazier]

I can't decide if I'm going to vote in the runoff or not; sort of waffling between Hawkins and Tiny.

For me, Anthony Davis isn't in contention. Same reason as I didn't support Walton (lacking longevity):
*Prior to this season----which if that's wasn't explicitly clear, you should NOT be directly including anything that has occurred this season in your ranking of Anthony Davis----Davis had played just 335 rs for just 11,531 total minutes (+4 playoff games). Even Bill Walton played >130 more rs games and 1,719 more rs minutes; although Davis' minutes are more condensed, which likely makes them more relevant/valuable for reasons I elaborated on in post #58 of the last thread. But on the flip-side, I don't think Davis has yet peaked as high as Walton did; and by all [somewhat course] measures we have, it seems Walton's impact went well beyond his box-based metrics (whereas Anthony Davis's impact seems to lag marginally behind his box-based numbers).

So he very simply doesn't have enough career to get any serious consideration by my criteria.

Yeah, I really don’t see the appeal of Anthony Davis over someone like Chris Mullin who had an excellent 5 year stretch in his own right along with a full career with solid longevity. He’s on the shortlist of players who i’ll be disappointed about if they don’t make the cut.

Which is fair enough, except Mullin isn't on the ballot here. The relevent argument here is his five year stretch versus the other 2 guys stretches and then whether there's any value in what else Hawkins or Archibald did.

I know (Tiny was my vote). I was more just voicing my opinion on Davis in general having made the runoff and giving a mention to Mullin.

[Owly]

Yeah, I really don’t see the appeal of Anthony Davis over someone like Chris Mullin who had an excellent 5 year stretch in his own right along with a full career with solid longevity. He’s on the shortlist of players who i’ll be disappointed about if they don’t make the cut.

Which is fair enough, except Mullin isn't on the ballot here. The relevent argument here is his five year stretch versus the other 2 guys stretches and then whether there's any value in what else Hawkins or Archibald did.

I know (Tiny was my vote). I was more just voicing my opinion on Davis in general having made the runoff and giving a mention to Mullin.

One thing is (besides the relevence of Mullin) I can see that from someone voting Kemp, Johnson, Sharman (or Buck Williams or Otis Thorpe) ... first ballot. It seems weird taking shots at the appeal of Davis from an Archibald voter. It's the same as the appeal of Archibald, just, per my above arguments, without some additional years which are far from clear they help you be more than average (and that can be put forward without counting a negative cost of injuries on a high salary).

[dhsilv2]

I can't decide if I'm going to vote in the runoff or not; sort of waffling between Hawkins and Tiny.

For me, Anthony Davis isn't in contention. Same reason as I didn't support Walton (lacking longevity):
*Prior to this season----which if that's wasn't explicitly clear, you should NOT be directly including anything that has occurred this season in your ranking of Anthony Davis----Davis had played just 335 rs for just 11,531 total minutes (+4 playoff games). Even Bill Walton played >130 more rs games and 1,719 more rs minutes; although Davis' minutes are more condensed, which likely makes them more relevant/valuable for reasons I elaborated on in post #58 of the last thread. But on the flip-side, I don't think Davis has yet peaked as high as Walton did; and by all [somewhat course] measures we have, it seems Walton's impact went well beyond his box-based metrics (whereas Anthony Davis's impact seems to lag marginally behind his box-based numbers).

So he very simply doesn't have enough career to get any serious consideration by my criteria.

Yeah, I really don’t see the appeal of Anthony Davis over someone like Chris Mullin who had an excellent 5 year stretch in his own right along with a full career with solid longevity. He’s on the shortlist of players who i’ll be disappointed about if they don’t make the cut.

Which is fair enough, except Mullin isn't on the ballot here. The relevent argument here is his five year stretch versus the other 2 guys stretches and then whether there's any value in what else Hawkins or Archibald did.

WS

Hawkins 76.7 (29.2 ABA)
Tiny 83.4
Davis 48.8

If you're sold the ABA is comparable to the NBA and go with peaks, I can get Hawkins here. I just can't see how Davis is a choice here. 4 good playoff games isn't really helping him either.

The problem here is Win Shares values the difference between, say (and the labels here are arbitrary) dreadful and average (0.000-0.100 WS/48) as much that between average and very good (0.100-0.200). And whilst having dreadful players playing certainly can cost a team, and this is often underestimated, it is rare that you would think of an average player as causing a team to be good. They could be valuable in the right situation (above average for a backup, for instance). But hard to see them as driving even goodness, never mind the level typically needed to strive for a title. Win Shares, which tilt quite a bit towards team performance, on a very good team, see Archibald as very slightly above league average player as a Celtic (.105 WS/48), but the cumulative version tacks on 26.9 wins for this span. And at the top end of evaluating historical players, it's hard to see that and feel like that really makes a difference (otoh, I wouldn't say they missed anything with Henderson taking his minutes). If we were valuing wins above 0, and thus valuing longevity so, Buck Williams and Otis Thorpe should have been in a while ago. And that's not to say they're bad, but there's a lot of minutes that don't really move the needle a lot if you aspire to titles.

I'd want to look at the numbers, but I have a feeling the point guard position is lower on that scale and the I know people have found that in general the deviation is wider today. So I'm not so willing to buy into that Tiny was purely a replacement level player for Boston. A quick look at other starter point guards makes him look somewhat middling among starters which I'd assume would be above your more average player metrics.

Still yes, that is a good point.

[Clyde Frazier]

Which is fair enough, except Mullin isn't on the ballot here. The relevent argument here is his five year stretch versus the other 2 guys stretches and then whether there's any value in what else Hawkins or Archibald did.

I know (Tiny was my vote). I was more just voicing my opinion on Davis in general having made the runoff and giving a mention to Mullin.

One thing is (besides the relevence of Mullin) I can see that from someone voting Kemp, Johnson, Sharman (or Buck Williams or Otis Thorpe) ... first ballot. It seems weird taking shots at the appeal of Davis from an Archibald voter. It's the same as the appeal of Archibald, just, per my above arguments, without some additional years which are far from clear they help you be more than average (and that can be put forward without counting a negative cost of injuries on a high salary).

Hmm... to clarify, i've stressed longevity with the majority of my votes in the project. Towards the end i've weighed higher peaks/primes with shorter careers vs. longer ones with less of a curve. With mullin specifically, I just as well could have been voting for him the last few threads. There simply aren't enough spots left to give support to all of these deserving players.

With Davis, I think his career is just too short (especially with the lack of playoff success, as much as I was impressed with him in that series against the warriors) to be in the top 100 at all.

[Owly]

Yeah, I really don’t see the appeal of Anthony Davis over someone like Chris Mullin who had an excellent 5 year stretch in his own right along with a full career with solid longevity. He’s on the shortlist of players who i’ll be disappointed about if they don’t make the cut.

Which is fair enough, except Mullin isn't on the ballot here. The relevent argument here is his five year stretch versus the other 2 guys stretches and then whether there's any value in what else Hawkins or Archibald did.

WS

Hawkins 76.7 (29.2 ABA)
Tiny 83.4
Davis 48.8

If you're sold the ABA is comparable to the NBA and go with peaks, I can get Hawkins here. I just can't see how Davis is a choice here. 4 good playoff games isn't really helping him either.

The problem here is Win Shares values the difference between, say (and the labels here are arbitrary) dreadful and average (0.000-0.100 WS/48) as much that between average and very good (0.100-0.200). And whilst having dreadful players playing certainly can cost a team, and this is often underestimated, it is rare that you would think of an average player as causing a team to be good. They could be valuable in the right situation (above average for a backup, for instance). But hard to see them as driving even goodness, never mind the level typically needed to strive for a title. Win Shares, which tilt quite a bit towards team performance, on a very good team, see Archibald as very slightly above league average player as a Celtic (.105 WS/48), but the cumulative version tacks on 26.9 wins for this span. And at the top end of evaluating historical players, it's hard to see that and feel like that really makes a difference (otoh, I wouldn't say they missed anything with Henderson taking his minutes). If we were valuing wins above 0, and thus valuing longevity so, Buck Williams and Otis Thorpe should have been in a while ago. And that's not to say they're bad, but there's a lot of minutes that don't really move the needle a lot if you aspire to titles.

I'd want to look at the numbers, but I have a feeling the point guard position is lower on that scale and the I know people have found that in general the deviation is wider today. So I'm not so willing to buy into that Tiny was purely a replacement level player for Boston. A quick look at other starter point guards makes him look somewhat middling among starters which I'd assume would be above your more average player metrics.

Still yes, that is a good point.

To be clear, the case isn't that Archibald is literally at replacement level whereby you could pickup someone out the minor leagues to replace them (whilst Henderson an unsigned Spurs 3rd round pick played a season in the WBL, he transpired to be better than you could typically expect from such a pickup - curiously, Brad Davis was on the scrapheap around this time too) from the waiver wire; rather it is that as a fairly average player they could plausibly have given that money (or traded him, or the pieces used to get him if we want to be pedantic about there not being proper free agency back then) for another perhaps somewhat run-of-the-mill, league average player who will deservedly get no consideration here, and done the same. Then from this arguing that 0 wins (and indeed replacement level) probably shouldn't be our baseline for top 100 players (would a 25 year consistently .100 WS/48, 15 PER, 0 RAPM etc career warrant a place on this list, it'd be a curiosity but my take is no), and if there's no needle moving above average ... a longevity advantage means little.

On greater variation now (less then) there's two arguments there, one is whether there evidence that "scaling" is better/more representitive/more accurate (or better retrodictive) and secondly would doing so help Archibald much ... he's mainly just around average, not much to stretch there, and then below average in the playoffs.

Then finally I'd ask whether you are talking point guards in general or within era for "lower on that scale". Without a deep dive ... it's probably more the case within era, but then that could just as well be turned into argument that this simply means Archibald was competing (and failing to really distinguish himself from) a mediocre crop of players.

[Owly]

I know (Tiny was my vote). I was more just voicing my opinion on Davis in general having made the runoff and giving a mention to Mullin.

One thing is (besides the relevence of Mullin) I can see that from someone voting Kemp, Johnson, Sharman (or Buck Williams or Otis Thorpe) ... first ballot. It seems weird taking shots at the appeal of Davis from an Archibald voter. It's the same as the appeal of Archibald, just, per my above arguments, without some additional years which are far from clear they help you be more than average (and that can be put forward without counting a negative cost of injuries on a high salary).

Hmm... to clarify, i've stressed longevity with the majority of my votes in the project. Towards the end i've weighed higher peaks/primes with shorter careers vs. longer ones with less of a curve. With mullin specifically, I just as well could have been voting for him the last few threads. There simply aren't enough spots left to give support to all of these deserving players.

With Davis, I think his career is just too short (especially with the lack of playoff success, as much as I was impressed with him in that series against the warriors) to be in the top 100 at all.

Again, somewhat hard to understand given the [acknowledged] calibre of his playoff play, versus Tiny (tiny samples etc, doesn't mean much to me etc). Even on the arbitrary criteria of playoff rounds ... Tiny, too, has one in his prime. Are we crediting Archibald with driving the 80s Celtics deep playoff runs? If not it's hard to see how one could "not see the appeal" of Davis in this regard or see this as an area of separation, whilst voting Tiny first ballot.

This isn't intended as hostile, or to say it's wrong to have Tiny here, just trying to make sure people are clear in their positions and reasoning for themselves and in their expression of it.

[Clyde Frazier]

One thing is (besides the relevence of Mullin) I can see that from someone voting Kemp, Johnson, Sharman (or Buck Williams or Otis Thorpe) ... first ballot. It seems weird taking shots at the appeal of Davis from an Archibald voter. It's the same as the appeal of Archibald, just, per my above arguments, without some additional years which are far from clear they help you be more than average (and that can be put forward without counting a negative cost of injuries on a high salary).

Hmm... to clarify, i've stressed longevity with the majority of my votes in the project. Towards the end i've weighed higher peaks/primes with shorter careers vs. longer ones with less of a curve. With mullin specifically, I just as well could have been voting for him the last few threads. There simply aren't enough spots left to give support to all of these deserving players.

With Davis, I think his career is just too short (especially with the lack of playoff success, as much as I was impressed with him in that series against the warriors) to be in the top 100 at all.

Again, somewhat hard to understand given the [acknowledged] calibre of his playoff play, versus Tiny (tiny samples etc, doesn't mean much to me etc). Even on the arbitrary criteria of playoff rounds ... Tiny, too, has one in his prime. Are we crediting Archibald with driving the 80s Celtics deep playoff runs? If not it's hard to see how one could "not see the appeal" of Davis in this regard or see this as an area of separation, whilst voting Tiny first ballot.

This isn't intended as hostile, or to say it's wrong to have Tiny here, just trying to make sure people are clear in their positions and reasoning for themselves and in their expression of it.

No, I get it. If tiny's career ended before boston, I wouldn't be voting for him here. I do think his contribution to those celtics teams, especially as it included a championship were meaningful enough to warrant a spot here when combined with his prime.

I've also tried my best to stick to my primary votes unless truly persuaded to change them as opposed to jumping on players with more traction. This has at times proved frustrating, but I wanted to keep things as consistent as I could.