Redoing the NBA Hall of Fame (1960 or earlier players)

[Doctor MJ]

My picks by birth year:


Bob Davies (1920, 6'1", Point Guard, Seton Hall, Rochester Royals) - leader of #2 team in the world late 40s to early 50s
Bobby Wanzer (1921, 6'0", Guard, Seton Hall, Rochester Royals) - remarkable career for someone starting so late
Joe Fulks (1921, 6'5", Power Forward, Murray State, Philadelphia Warriors) - top star from the pre-NBA BAA
Jim Pollard (1922, 6'4", Small Forward, Stanford, Minneapolis Lakers) - absolutely vital to the last dance
George Mikan (1924, 6'10", Center, DePaul, Minneapolis Lakers) - the obvious king of the cohort
Arnie Risen (1924, 6'9", Center, Ohio State, Rochester Royals) - the center that beat Mikan and won with Russell
Slater Martin (1925, 5'10", Point Guard, Texas, Minneapolis Lakers) - Continued stardom across champions
Ed Macauley (1928, 6'8", Center-PF, Saint Louis, Boston Celtics) - great player of the decade, traded for Russell, won with Hawks.
George Yardley (1928, 6'8", Small Forward, Stanford, Detroit Pistons) - clear case of someone who could have been a star even longer
Neil Johnston (1929, 6'8", Center, Ohio State, Philadelphia Warriors) - scoring machine

Honorable Mention:
Bobby McDermott (1914, 5'11", Guard, <no college>, Fort Wayne Pistons) - would be 1940s player of the decade (in NBL)

Things I thought about:

- I think it's important McDermott gets a spot despite the fact that he never played in the NBA. He was in the NBL while the BAA existed, and was the clear best player in the world until Davies & Mikan.
- I had some debate about Davies vs his protege Bobby Wanzer. In the end the fact that he was a dominant player leading Rochester to an NBL championship just makes him historically more important than Wanzer.
- I thought further about Wanzer and it was really hard leaving him out. It impresses me that he came in at an older age and thrived where some guys younger than him we're already done, but he's lacking in both peak and longevity compared to some. ftr, if I were going to add another Rochester Royal, it would be Wanzer over Risen and Stokes.
- I'm not entirely sure if Fulks is worthy, but I think it makes sense to add someone from the BAA era, and he's the obvious guy.
- I included 3 Lakers. The 3 I consider to be the most impressive players from the team. Had Martin not continued to perform well on the Hawks, a non-Laker would have gotten the spot.
- Gallatin was one of several guys I was considering with an eye toward having a representative from the New York Knicks (Zaslofsky, McGuire). He's someone I could see changing my mind on.
- Macauley feels like a guy we should leave out, but he really was the efficiency scoring force on the apex Celtic offense, and he was a regular all-star throughout the decade.
- Yardley is a guy who I was on the fence about, but he really is a guy who was a dominant player his entire career, retired before he needed to and went on to great business success. Seems worth highlighting.
- Johnston's number surely seem to overrate him, but he was still a star on a champion.

EDIT: I've made 3 changes since first posting.

1. Moved McDermott to HM based on OP criteria, added Risen to the list. This actually went against what I'd said before that Wanzer would be next on my list from the Rochester Royals, but I came to conclude that the historical significance and longevity of Risen was more HOF than Wanzer's middle age burst on the seen.

2. However I've now added Wanzer to my list and bumped Vern Mikkelson off. The more I look at Wanzer, the more impressive he looks. I think he really was the best guard eligible for consideration so far. Looking back through my other choices, I realize that Mikkelson wasn't really the clear cut #2 guy on his dynasty by any means, when Mikan goes Mikkelson's eclipsed again, this time on a team that isn't going anywhere. I thought perhaps I'd knock Slater Martin off my list (or Ed Macauley or some other guys), but I'm dropping MIkkelson.

3. Added Jim Pollard in place of Harry Gallatin. This is a bit of a continuation from dropping Mikkelson. I'm struck by the fact that in the Lakers' last champion season of the era, there were two guys playing huge minutes now that Mikan couldn't any more: Jim Pollard and Slater Martin. Pollard's accolades are good enough to warrant strong consideration, but on first brush I saw him as more of a role player, and now it's clear that he was absolutely central to what the Lakers were doing the entire time in a way that Martin eventually became, but they couldn't rely upon Mikkelson to anywhere near the same degree. As for Gallatin, he was always a guy who barely got on the list. To be honest, I found myself debating Gallatin vs Dick McGuire too. Gallatin was barely hanging on.

[eminence]

Alright, diving in. Remember that the AS game didn't start until '51 and NBA MVP in '56. Looking at BAA/NBL from '47 onwards.

First, the no-brainer.

George Mikan - 7 titles in 8 years as the man (missing out only when playing on a broken foot), led a defensive dynasty comparable to Russell while being one of the leagues top scorers on great efficiency. Best rebounder in the league and whenever I watch him play I come away impressed with his passing as well. Surprisingly strong shooter. The true MDE. 4x Allstar, 8x 1st Team, '48 NBL MVP

Others to discuss:

Bob Davies - The best guard of the era for my money. PG for a great Royals run. Had one of the best handles in the league, famous for popularizing behind the back dribbling. Looks very quick on tape with a wide array of finishing moves around the basket (can't find it right now, but I know I've seen a pretty complete highlight tape from one of the Lakers v Royals playoffs series). 4x Allstar, 5x 1st Team, 2x 2nd Team, '47 NBL MVP

Neil Johnston - Some things beyond his control greatly effected his team success, losing Arizin and Gola at points to military service. Put up great numbers for a 5-6 year run with the Warriors and was forced into a bit of an early retirement by knee injury. Strong scorer and passer, but not the defensive force Mikan was, more of a finesse game with a renowned hook shot. 6x Allstar, 4x 1st Team, 1x 2nd Team

Vern Mikkelsen - Part of the Laker's dynasty, joining halfway through and kept it rolling. Known for tough defense and looks feisty on tape. I believe he's still the career leader in foul outs. Not a liability on offense by any means, looks fully capable of being a #2 scorer in the era. 6x Allstar, 4x 2nd Team

Ed Macauley - The Amar'e to Cousy's Nash, WS type stats overrate him due to an over-reliance on scoring efficiency for the early days. Still a solid 6 year run as Cousy's #2 and then found some success as a 6th man scorer type for the Pettit/Hagan Hawks. 7x Allstar, 3x 1st Team, 1x 2nd team

Max Zaslofsky - One of the premier scoring guards of the era. Everywhere he went that team seemed to end up deep in the playoffs (0-5 in the Finals though). Knicks did lose him early in '53 and kept chugging along (@Dr Positivity, he only contributed to 2 of those Knicks runs). 1x Allstar, 4x 1st Team

Bobby Wanzer - Part of the leagues first great backcourt with Davies, those Royals were long 2nd best to Mikan's Lakers. Honestly a very tough team to divvy credit for, always very balanced. 5x Allstar, 3x 2nd Team

Andy Phillip - A guy I've only seen the shortest glimpses of, but my impression is that he was an elite passer, but didn't bring a ton else. Generally seen a half-step higher than McGuire I believe. 5x Allstar, 2x 2nd Team

Harry Gallatin - Got the Star status from those early Knicks teams but I'm not sure it was fully deserved. Very strong rebounder. Poor ball skills. Switched teams at the end of his career while still posting near prime #'s and the needle didn't move for either team. 7x Allstar, 1x 1st Team, 1x 2nd Team

Dick McGuire - Talented passer, but weaker handle relative to other elite guards of the era (dribbled extremely high). Oh so close to a pair of titles, but his own play let him down, really got spanked by the Royals backcourt in '51. Not getting my vote, but figured he deserved a mention. 7x Allstar, 1x 2nd Team

Arnie Risen - Lead big for the Royals, doesn't truly stand out in any particular way statistically, but an important part of the 2nd best team of the early days of the league and often a co-leading scorer. 4x Allstar, 2x 2nd Team

George Yardley - Elite efficiency/volume scoring combo for those days. Pistons didn't have strong RS records, but I don't think it's a case of big stats on a mediocre squad. Was a score 1st/2nd/last type of player. Pistons made 2 finals runs in his 4 years as lead dog. Went on to give Russell's Celtics one of their bigger scares when he teamed up with Schayes in '59. Started late due to military service. 6x Allstar, 1x 1st Team, 1x 2nd Team

Slater Martin - 3rd/4th guy on those great Lakers squads who went almost immediately into being a great #3 with the Hawks. Certainly has the awards. 7x Allstar, 5x 2nd Team

Jim Pollard - There for almost Mikan's entire run (missing out on only Mikan's Gears season). Good #2 scorer type, hit the glass. Looked to be a solid ballhandler for a wing in those days. Personally I think he has a pretty solid case as the #2 to Mikan on the Lakers over that period. 4x Allstar, 3x 1st Team, 2x 2nd Team

Al Cervi - Talented guard who paired early with Davies/Wanzer to make a 3 headed monster of a backcourt in the NBL. 3x 1st Team, 1x 2nd Team

Frankie Brian - A bit more of a score first guard, led the Packers to the final NBL title after the top tier talent left. 2x Allstar, 1x 1st Team, 3x 2nd Team

Paul Seymour - PG for Schayes' Nationals, hit the gamewinner in game 2 of the '54 Finals. Probably a bit short on longevity for his level of play, but another solid guard I wanted to mention. 3x Allstar, 2x 2nd Team

HM to Feerick/Fulks/Stokes who miss out for longevity reasons, ~3 seasons each of high level play just isn't quite enough even for the 40s/50s. I can see people voting for Fulks or Feerick, but it's my personal belief that the BAA was notably inferior to the NBL those seasons and that as soon as Mikan/Davies and crew arrived they were relegated to 2nd tier status.

Official Votes
George Mikan
Bob Davies
Neil Johnston
Jim Pollard
Vern Mikkelsen
Slater Martin
Ed Macauley
George Yardley
Bobby Wanzer
Harry Gallatin

Max Zaslofsky the last man out for me.

[Doctor MJ]

Martin and McGuire v. Wanzer for guards, care to make the case?

Risen and Gallatin v. Fulks?

And I'm throwing a vote for Stokes unless someone talks me out of it. In terms of peak impact, I have him right behind Mikan . . . rep of a great defender, great rebounder, supposedly excellent handles for a forward, his scoring efficiency sucks but so do many of his competitors (other than Johnston and Macauley and their teams didn't seem to miss them that much when they were gone). Only played 3 years but led the league in rebounding once despite not being a center, averaged about 5 assists from the PF slot, led league in defensive win shares two of those 3 years (yeah, I know, crappy stat but it's all we have since few of us were around to see him and there isn't much footage).

I included Martin barely over Wanzer, with McGuire also being an honorable mention. Compared with Wanzer, Martin was an all-star longer, later (better competition), and did so on two separate champion teams, one of which was an all-star.

I went with Fulks & Gallatin and left out Risen. Fulks was a lock for me, rightly or wrongly, because of his singular place in the BAA, whereas Risen was seen as Davies' #2. Between Risen and Gallain I see Gallatin as a guy being a star longer and later while also being the face of New York Knick basketball.

I did not include Stokes and would have chosen Wanzer and likely Risen ahead of him. Simply put, if you're only going to play for 3 seasons, I'm expecting you won a championship or at least led a champion-level team. Stokes was on losing teams his whole career. Not saying he made them worse, but I think he needed to do more to be in my list of 10.

[eminence]

And I'll say I was probably too strong in that 1st statement on Macauley. He certainly enjoyed playing with Cousy, but I don't think he was strongly dependent on him for his scoring efficiency. I voted for him, though I would put him a step below 'lock' (I'd say Mikan/Davies/Johnston were my sure fire locks).

[Doctor MJ]

Hey folks,

I realized that I believe I'm the only one mentioning Bobby McDermott. Do me a favor and at least check him out before you decide your final vote.

https://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers/bobby-mcdermott/
https://www.basketball-reference.com/nbl/players/m/mcderro01n.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_McDermott

In a nutshell:

The Zollner Pistons of Fort Wayne were the great team of the 1940s. Back-to-Back NBL titles in '44 &'45, and a 3-peat of World Professional Basketball Tournament titles from '44-46. McDermott would win NBL MVP 4 straight years from '43-46. And perhaps critically he would win a 3rd NBL championship in the BAA's first year on the Chicago American Gears with rookie George Mikan - can't say he's from too early of an era when he played during the BAA while the NBL was a superior league.

He was considered the best long-range shooter in history, which is a skill I always take note in older players as it would prove to be a more valuable skill than was realized at the time.

I also think he's important because of the fact that the Pistons would continue and thrive to this day in the NBA. I think when we look at any of these small town origins for modern teams, we're talking about success in that early period being likely a big help in allowing those particular franchises to get a slice of the pie when the NBA grew to bigger and better things. If another franchise had been the best NBL franchise instead of the Pistons, it's entirely possible that another franchise is the one that survives and eventually settles in the motor city.

[eminence]

Hey folks,

I realized that I believe I'm the only one mentioning Bobby McDermott. Do me a favor and at least check him out before you decide your final vote.

https://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers/bobby-mcdermott/
https://www.basketball-reference.com/nbl/players/m/mcderro01n.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_McDermott

In a nutshell:

The Zollner Pistons of Fort Wayne were the great team of the 1940s. Back-to-Back NBL titles in '44 &'45, and a 3-peat of World Professional Basketball Tournament titles from '44-46. McDermott would win NBL MVP 4 straight years from '43-46. And perhaps critically he would win a 3rd NBL championship in the BAA's first year on the Chicago American Gears with rookie George Mikan - can't say he's from too early of an era when he played during the BAA while the NBL was a superior league.

He was considered the best long-range shooter in history, which is a skill I always take note in older players as it would prove to be a more valuable skill than was realized at the time.

I also think he's important because of the fact that the Pistons would continue and thrive to this day in the NBA. I think when we look at any of these small town origins for modern teams, we're talking about success in that early period being likely a big help in allowing those particular franchises to get a slice of the pie when the NBA grew to bigger and better things. If another franchise had been the best NBL franchise instead of the Pistons, it's entirely possible that another franchise is the one that survives and eventually settles in the motor city.

I was under the impression that McDermott's earlier seasons weren't under consideration for this project, but if it's ruled that they are I would change my Wanzer vote to a McDermott vote.

What's the ruling @Penbeast?

[Doctor MJ]

My votes:
George Mikan
Neil Johnston
Vern Mikkelsen
Ed Macauley
^^^^Those are the easier picks [first three quite easy]. Starts getting a little harder shortly thereafter....
Harry Gallatin
George Yardley
Bob Davies
Bobby Wanzer
Arnie Risen
Joe Fulks


I'll tentatively go with those picks, though I could be swayed on some toward the bottom.
Joe Fulks I think gets historically overrated for being the big scorer on the very first BAA champion; and I could be easily convinced I'm overrating him here as a result (though that circumstance does carry some historic weight, so idk). Arnie Risen is the other guy who doesn't feel solid in the 10 players above.
The "honorable mentions" I could consider replacing one of them with are:

Max Zaslofsky
Slater Martin
Dick McGuire
Maurice Stokes
Jim Pollard
Andy Phillip

I don't think there's anyone else terribly relevant who I'm forgetting for this stage. Thoughts? Does Joe Fulks truly have the career to warrant his inclusion? He's definitely the one I feel the most shaky about.

One guys missing ...
(per last attempt at this)

My guess, if I was really getting into this would be that I would be boosting for Bob Feerick as a 40s representative, probably above Fulks. I thought I remembered reading a weird novelty stat about him in a Martin Taragano book about him being (maybe with Hagan) the only person to be top 10 in the league in a year in so many - I think "all" - categories ... much easier in the smaller number of teams, less stats leagues) but that seems to be the memory playing tricks (it was just Hagan). Regardless, whilst he didn't have the crazy volume of Fulks he was an outlier efficiency scorer and probably the best player on a good early BAA team. He does have a longevity problem but then so does Fulks for longevity of goodness (and Fulks has some years so bad they may actually detract from him, depending on how one feels about that sort of thing).

I might also, without thinking out a full voting list, be a bit frosty on Macauley based on the number of 50s centers posting strong boxscore composites, and his lackluster defensive reputation and Boston's play at that end.

Spoiler:

looking at it. I think Reference has Feerick as top ten for ppg, apg, fg%, ft% which is basically the entire positive boxscore but the apg is due to rounding, go to 2dp or beyond and Feerick drops to 11th for assists

Extra tidbit on Feerick. His '47 campaign ranks 27th all time in total win shares for one season (obviously with an incomplete box-score for that era), with only Jabbar, Chamberlain, Mikan, Jordan, Robertson, James, David Robinson, ABA Gilmore, Durant and Shaq having seasons above him. His 18.59 Win Shares were accumulated over 55 games (of a 60 game team schedule). Obviously WS likes efficiency and he was super efficient for that early era. Anyhow if you want someone for that early BAA era, I back him.

He was on the NBA's silver anniversary team [edit: longlist of 25, not the 12 man team] (he was also on the voting panel, as was ex-coach Auerbach).

I don't think he's a lock, but I do think he's in the conversation, at least an HM and a better player than Fulks though less important narratively (Fulks scoring leader, best player on a champ, one of the jump shot pioneers), even if you don't hold Fulks's post-prime years against him as a negative.

other possibilities (mostly fringe/mention types):

Cervi might be worth discussion based mainly on NBL days, though hard to get a really accurate sense of who drove what goodness, how good individuals really were (like Arnie Johnson, but more so, has a very high foul draw and in Cervi's case crazy WS/48 in the limited sample [though Johnson's good for a non-"big"], wonder how much this is the foul rules playing hell with the numbers).

Don Otten gets a mention as an NBL MVP (though in the year after the best teams went to BAA) and solid numbers but centers for this era might not need any more representation.

Frankie Brian gets a mention with some accolades, likely best player on a dominant champ (in the weakest NBL year). Hard to tell if he was best player in playoffs with v. limited data but others overtook him in scoring.

For his numbers as a non-big Ernie Vandeweghe gets a mention. On the flipside Pollard has the accolades but not the numbers.


I'd also say I lean a little cynical on Macauley as a lock. Many centers putting up big numbers at the time (Neil Johnston,
Ed Macauley, Clyde Lovellette, Larry Foust, Charlie (Chuck) Share, Bob Houbregs plus Mikan) whilst I'd like to parse it out more closely, Boston was bad defensively Ed lacked strength and it seems like he might have been a real problem on that end.

I considered Feerick. In the end I didn't feel I could justify him over Fulks and couldn't justify 2 guys based on the first two years of the BAA. I'd frankly be inclined to consider Arnie Risen over both guys, but felt like having 4 NBL guys and no true BAA guys just didn't make sense given the BAA is the league that essentially "won".

On Feerick vs Fulks. Fulks was the star of the first champion and the most star-like guy in the 2nd finals, then he went on to hang on better in the actual NBA. I'll acknowledge having my eye brows raise looking at Feerick's first year in the BAA and that if they'd won the title that year, he'd probably be my choice over Fulks despite what came afterward.

[trex_8063]

Hey folks,

I realized that I believe I'm the only one mentioning Bobby McDermott. Do me a favor and at least check him out before you decide your final vote.

https://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers/bobby-mcdermott/
https://www.basketball-reference.com/nbl/players/m/mcderro01n.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_McDermott

In a nutshell:

The Zollner Pistons of Fort Wayne were the great team of the 1940s. Back-to-Back NBL titles in '44 &'45, and a 3-peat of World Professional Basketball Tournament titles from '44-46. McDermott would win NBL MVP 4 straight years from '43-46. And perhaps critically he would win a 3rd NBL championship in the BAA's first year on the Chicago American Gears with rookie George Mikan - can't say he's from too early of an era when he played during the BAA while the NBL was a superior league.

He was considered the best long-range shooter in history, which is a skill I always take note in older players as it would prove to be a more valuable skill than was realized at the time.

I also think he's important because of the fact that the Pistons would continue and thrive to this day in the NBA. I think when we look at any of these small town origins for modern teams, we're talking about success in that early period being likely a big help in allowing those particular franchises to get a slice of the pie when the NBA grew to bigger and better things. If another franchise had been the best NBL franchise instead of the Pistons, it's entirely possible that another franchise is the one that survives and eventually settles in the motor city.

I thought of Bobby McDermott, but pen specifically said we're considering only '47 and after......the best parts of McDermott's career took place before that. He certainly deserves the mention, so I'm glad you posted this, but.....I just don't see how I can include him over the rest of the marginal guys with only that bit of his career that took place from '47 and later. If pen shifts on the protocol [starting year], I'll include him; but otherwise I just can't.

I remember reading a quote by one of his contemporaries (I think it was Al Cervi) who spoke of Bobby McDermott with such awe.....like he was the Michael Jordan of that era (which I guess he kinda was).

[trex_8063]

Another guy I just thought of [who I don't believe has been mentioned yet] who is worth at least a glance is Paul Seymour. 14-year career if we include his NBL career (which did take place '47 and after)---though his 14th season lasted precisely 7 minutes of playing time.
*3x NBA All-Star
**2x All-NBA 2nd Team
***was the starting PG on the 1955 Champion Nationals team (actually LED the team in playing time)
****had the 5th-most assists in the decade of the 50's (behind only Cousy, McGuire, Phillip, and Martin; and he's AHEAD of both McGuire and Phillip in pts scored in the 1950's).

Probably not a super-strong case to be among the 10 inductees against the field, but still worth a glance.

[Owly]

My votes:
George Mikan
Neil Johnston
Vern Mikkelsen
Ed Macauley
^^^^Those are the easier picks [first three quite easy]. Starts getting a little harder shortly thereafter....
Harry Gallatin
George Yardley
Bob Davies
Bobby Wanzer
Arnie Risen
Joe Fulks


I'll tentatively go with those picks, though I could be swayed on some toward the bottom.
Joe Fulks I think gets historically overrated for being the big scorer on the very first BAA champion; and I could be easily convinced I'm overrating him here as a result (though that circumstance does carry some historic weight, so idk). Arnie Risen is the other guy who doesn't feel solid in the 10 players above.
The "honorable mentions" I could consider replacing one of them with are:

Max Zaslofsky
Slater Martin
Dick McGuire
Maurice Stokes
Jim Pollard
Andy Phillip

I don't think there's anyone else terribly relevant who I'm forgetting for this stage. Thoughts? Does Joe Fulks truly have the career to warrant his inclusion? He's definitely the one I feel the most shaky about.

One guys missing ...
(per last attempt at this)

My guess, if I was really getting into this would be that I would be boosting for Bob Feerick as a 40s representative, probably above Fulks. I thought I remembered reading a weird novelty stat about him in a Martin Taragano book about him being (maybe with Hagan) the only person to be top 10 in the league in a year in so many - I think "all" - categories ... much easier in the smaller number of teams, less stats leagues) but that seems to be the memory playing tricks (it was just Hagan). Regardless, whilst he didn't have the crazy volume of Fulks he was an outlier efficiency scorer and probably the best player on a good early BAA team. He does have a longevity problem but then so does Fulks for longevity of goodness (and Fulks has some years so bad they may actually detract from him, depending on how one feels about that sort of thing).

I might also, without thinking out a full voting list, be a bit frosty on Macauley based on the number of 50s centers posting strong boxscore composites, and his lackluster defensive reputation and Boston's play at that end.

Spoiler:

looking at it. I think Reference has Feerick as top ten for ppg, apg, fg%, ft% which is basically the entire positive boxscore but the apg is due to rounding, go to 2dp or beyond and Feerick drops to 11th for assists

Extra tidbit on Feerick. His '47 campaign ranks 27th all time in total win shares for one season (obviously with an incomplete box-score for that era), with only Jabbar, Chamberlain, Mikan, Jordan, Robertson, James, David Robinson, ABA Gilmore, Durant and Shaq having seasons above him. His 18.59 Win Shares were accumulated over 55 games (of a 60 game team schedule). Obviously WS likes efficiency and he was super efficient for that early era. Anyhow if you want someone for that early BAA era, I back him.

He was on the NBA's silver anniversary team [edit: longlist of 25, not the 12 man team] (he was also on the voting panel, as was ex-coach Auerbach).

I don't think he's a lock, but I do think he's in the conversation, at least an HM and a better player than Fulks though less important narratively (Fulks scoring leader, best player on a champ, one of the jump shot pioneers), even if you don't hold Fulks's post-prime years against him as a negative.

other possibilities (mostly fringe/mention types):

Cervi might be worth discussion based mainly on NBL days, though hard to get a really accurate sense of who drove what goodness, how good individuals really were (like Arnie Johnson, but more so, has a very high foul draw and in Cervi's case crazy WS/48 in the limited sample [though Johnson's good for a non-"big"], wonder how much this is the foul rules playing hell with the numbers).

Don Otten gets a mention as an NBL MVP (though in the year after the best teams went to BAA) and solid numbers but centers for this era might not need any more representation.

Frankie Brian gets a mention with some accolades, likely best player on a dominant champ (in the weakest NBL year). Hard to tell if he was best player in playoffs with v. limited data but others overtook him in scoring.

For his numbers as a non-big Ernie Vandeweghe gets a mention. On the flipside Pollard has the accolades but not the numbers.


I'd also say I lean a little cynical on Macauley as a lock. Many centers putting up big numbers at the time (Neil Johnston,
Ed Macauley, Clyde Lovellette, Larry Foust, Charlie (Chuck) Share, Bob Houbregs plus Mikan) whilst I'd like to parse it out more closely, Boston was bad defensively Ed lacked strength and it seems like he might have been a real problem on that end.

I considered Feerick. In the end I didn't feel I could justify him over Fulks and couldn't justify 2 guys based on the first two years of the BAA. I'd frankly be inclined to consider Arnie Risen over both guys, but felt like having 4 NBL guys and no true BAA guys just didn't make sense given the BAA is the league that essentially "won".

On Feerick vs Fulks. Fulks was the star of the first champion and the most star-like guy in the 2nd finals, then he went on to hang on better in the actual NBA. I'll acknowledge having my eye brows raise looking at Feerick's first year in the BAA and that if they'd won the title that year, he'd probably be my choice over Fulks despite what came afterward.

Hang on better is an interesting choice of phrasing. Longer certainly.

Both are at their best in the split league era. In this time Feerick amasses 38 win shares, Fulks 30.
Thereafter Feerick plays 1 year for 3.6 WS.
Thereafter Fulks plays 5 years for -0.7 WS. That's negative point seven win shares.

[trex_8063]

b) for position ... are they?
Centers peak-wise iamong primarily 50s centers (not the pool here, but his peers) it's Mikan, then Johnston, then Foust/Macauley but Lovellete, Share and Houbregs also peak close statistically. Groza would do if we had his minutes for a year. Ray Felix, and to a lesser degree Jorgensen (WS/48) and Miller (PER) show that the center position could put up numbers (and I've left out Risen and Otten as more 40s guys, and at a lower level Connie Simmons).
As 50s PFs it's Schayes/Pettit, then Gallatin then Mikelssen (or Sears if PF, then Yardley if PF).

fwiw, I expect guys like Foust and Lovellette to get in with the next group (or at least, I'll not be surprised to see that I am voting for them).

Somewhat related, I'm not much for dividing things up by position and inducting along the "how good he was compared only to those of his own position" lines (where we get roughly the same number of bigs and perimeter guys). I don't want to over-inflate the value of certain players based only on how they compare to other guys at the same position (rather than how they compare to ALL other players). To me that'd be a little bit like----if we were voting on football players---voting the game's best punter in ahead of the game's 3rd-best quarterback.
Basketball has been a "big man's game", especially in the early days. Personally, I'm not going to "correct" for that and give the little guys much by way of extra credit. I'm OK with there being a disproportionate number of bigs inducted on these early ballots.

c) WS leans quite heavily on team performance and whilst star power isn' the whole teeam, Macauley did get to play with Cousy and Sharman, then Pettit and Hagan (and Lovellete and Share and Martin) [also WS skews heavily pro efficiency which is to his advantage,......

The same is true of Bob Feerick.

[Owly]

but felt like having 4 NBL guys and no true BAA guys just didn't make sense given the BAA is the league that essentially "won".

BAA "won" because it had the richer owners and better arenas in the bigger markets. It "won" after it took Rochester and the Lakers.

And still it's franchises aren't the ones that survived ...
BAA
Celtics
Warriors
Knicks

NBL
Lakers
Royals
Nationals
Hawks (Blackhawks)
Pistons

That BAA was more of a major-league business shouldn't matter to which players you choose as the best.

[penbeast0]

In terms of McDermott, we are starting in 46-47. He was the best in the world in the period just before that but was he still a force in 48-50 . . . more than, say, Stokes was in his 3 years in the league?

To the extent we need a ruling, it's "follow the OP."

[penbeast0]

George Mikan, Neil Johnston, Ed Macauley, Vern Mikkelson, Slater Martin, . . . Bob Davies, Dick McGuire, George Yardley, Joe Fulks
I only have 9 that come to mind. Open to suggestions (or to getting some shot down). Adding Maurice Stokes to make 10.

Guys like Cousy, Sharman, Arizin, Pettit, and Schayes played into the 60s.

Ok, I'm convinced to drop off McGuire for Wanzer, Fulks v. Feerik I'm still on the fence about so not switching my vote yet, going to stay on the Stokes wagon. Still listening and hopefully learning.

[trex_8063]

.

Sorry Owly, I did a stupid thing. I meant to reply to your post (#18 itt), but instead of clicking the quote tab I clicked the edit tab [as a moderator I can edit the posts of others], stupidly went about editing/deleting out the portions I wasn't replying to, wrote my replies, and clicked submit. Didn't realize what I'd done until it was too late. I've put in a query to Howard to see if my brain-dead act is reversible.

So presently MY comments are being listed there with you as the author. I'm leaving it like that until I hear back from Howard; if there's no way to change it back, I'll edit in something that says those are NOT your statements.

Or if you happen to have that reply saved on a google doc or something, that would be an easy fix. Again, I'm sorry..

[trex_8063]

/

After some thought, I'm going with these as my OFFICIAL votes (slightly different from my prior post):

George Mikan
Neil Johnston
Vern Mikkelsen
Ed Macauley
Harry Gallatin
George Yardley
Bob Davies
Bobby Wanzer
Arnie Risen
Slater Martin


I ultimately decided Fulks feels a bit overrated based on that one great season (which happened in the absolute infancy of the time period we're considering).
Slater Martin has a great defensive reputation (want to say I've anecdotally heard some positive locker-room leader type stuff, too), was good for longer [and into a more competitive era], and his reputation certainly seems to exceed his box stats (given the lack of eye-test on a lot of these guys, I have to concede there may be some relevance to that). So I've bumped Fulks, and replaced him with Martin. The other nine guys are the same as my prior post.
My list is perhaps marginally "big-man leaning", but I think that's suitable given how much of a big-man dominated game it was at that time.

[Doctor MJ]

I considered Feerick. In the end I didn't feel I could justify him over Fulks and couldn't justify 2 guys based on the first two years of the BAA. I'd frankly be inclined to consider Arnie Risen over both guys, but felt like having 4 NBL guys and no true BAA guys just didn't make sense given the BAA is the league that essentially "won".

On Feerick vs Fulks. Fulks was the star of the first champion and the most star-like guy in the 2nd finals, then he went on to hang on better in the actual NBA. I'll acknowledge having my eye brows raise looking at Feerick's first year in the BAA and that if they'd won the title that year, he'd probably be my choice over Fulks despite what came afterward.

Hang on better is an interesting choice of phrasing. Longer certainly.

Both are at their best in the split league era. In this time Feerick amasses 38 win shares, Fulks 30.
Thereafter Feerick plays 1 year for 3.6 WS.
Thereafter Fulks plays 5 years for -0.7 WS. That's negative point seven win shares.[/quote]

Your points about the BAA winning Basketball without winning basketball are good. They were starting to sway me even before beast ruled that my McDermott interpretation was off.

I have no dislike of Win Shares in general, but can't agree with the use here.

By Feerick's 4th and final year in the BAA in '50, he was 30 years old and down to 8 PPG.
Fulks when he was 30 was in his 6th season, it was '52 a slightly more mature league, and he was named an all-star scoring 15 PPG.

I understand that the efficiency data that we have gives Feerick the edge, but there is no doubt that Fulks was seen as a stronger player.

I don't think I'll be switching from Fulks to Feerick, but will have to consider whether to have either in.

[Doctor MJ]

In terms of McDermott, we are starting in 46-47. He was the best in the world in the period just before that but was he still a force in 48-50 . . . more than, say, Stokes was in his 3 years in the league?

To the extent we need a ruling, it's "follow the OP."

Okay, McDermott will be taken off my list.

Just because this seems like a good place for it, my thoughts on who gets the final spot on my list now (along with the possibility of switches):

I had been leaning toward Wanzer over Risen, but a few things have stuck with me about Risen:

* Definitely the Rochester Royals rose to success across the leagues with a 2-star team of Davies & Risen. While Davies seems to be the clear #1 of that duo, statistically it's pretty debatable.

* Risen was the lead scorer and opposing center on the team that beat Mikan's Lakers. That's significant.

* Risen was an all-star level player in the best league from '46-47 to '54-55 - a long time in those days.

* He then gets traded to the Celtics, takes a smaller role, and wins a championship with them.

* He started playing well before Wanzer, and he kept being a valuable piece after Wanzer retired.

So, yeah, I think Risen's getting McDermott's spot.

The question is whether I should strike someone else off the list for Wanzer. The two guys on my mind are Fulks and Macauley.

I think what I'd say about Fulks is that I don't think he has to be a better player to be more Hall worthy than a guy who played later and had a less prominent role relative to the league. Fulks may be seen as simply having been at the right place at the right time, but he's a part of the NBA story.

By that same token though, while Macauley has a strong statistical argument over Wanzer, Macauley feels less significantly to me. I'll acknowledge that I can't help but think about Macauley as first and foremost the guy Boston traded away to get Bill Russell, and that doesn't help him. My sense that I have a bias against Macauley is part of the reason why I have him on my list at present. I don't want to take him off the list unless I'm really convinced I'm right to do so.

[Owly]

b) for position ... are they?
Centers peak-wise iamong primarily 50s centers (not the pool here, but his peers) it's Mikan, then Johnston, then Foust/Macauley but Lovellete, Share and Houbregs also peak close statistically. Groza would do if we had his minutes for a year. Ray Felix, and to a lesser degree Jorgensen (WS/48) and Miller (PER) show that the center position could put up numbers (and I've left out Risen and Otten as more 40s guys, and at a lower level Connie Simmons).
As 50s PFs it's Schayes/Pettit, then Gallatin then Mikelssen (or Sears if PF, then Yardley if PF).

fwiw, I expect guys like Foust and Lovellette to get in with the next group (or at least, I'll not be surprised to see that I am voting for them).

Somewhat related, I'm not much for dividing things up by position and inducting along the "how good he was compared only to those of his own position" lines (where we get roughly the same number of bigs and perimeter guys). I don't want to over-inflate the value of certain players based only on how they compare to other guys at the same position (rather than how they compare to ALL other players). To me that'd be a little bit like----if we were voting on football players---voting the game's best punter in ahead of the game's 3rd-best quarterback.
Basketball has been a "big man's game", especially in the early days. Personally, I'm not going to "correct" for that and give the little guys much by way of extra credit. I'm OK with there being a disproportionate number of bigs inducted on these early ballots.

c) WS leans quite heavily on team performance and whilst star power isn' the whole teeam, Macauley did get to play with Cousy and Sharman, then Pettit and Hagan (and Lovellete and Share and Martin) [also WS skews heavily pro efficiency which is to his advantage,......

The same is true of Bob Feerick.

Feerick
It is, but my case isn't that Feerick was a lock, but that when you suggested "I don't think there's anyone else terribly relevant who I'm forgetting for this stage" that Feerick off the longlist was an oversight. I think Feerick has the best case as a BAA only guy versus Fulks. Efficiency and thus WS overrating Macauley is merely one strand of an argument for EM as non-lock.

Macauley
I think the NFL comp is not an apt one. If you want me to go into why I can but I suspect you know.

I wouldn't correct for position in the sense of if that position has the greatest impact. But statistically you've got Boban (circa 30 PER) and Hickson (19.7 PER peak) and Drummond (20.9 PER career low) and Faried (21.9 PER peak, .212 WS/48 peak) and Blatche (21.9 PER peak) ... Whiteside, Vucevic, Harrell, Capela, Valancuinas, Shawn Long, Wright, .... (http://bkref.com/tiny/u0BXS) am I going to start taking big's box production with a pinch of salt for the last decade and especially the past five years ... yes I am.

So ....
with 40s and 50s centers the question is were teams dumb not to be playing more centers, were they more valuable. Or was this simply that they did the things the boxscore counted. My suspicion, given the productivity of Share and Houbregs and Felix and Otten and Connie Simmons and Red Rocha and Nobel Jorgensen and Eddie Miller ... is that in the 40s and 50s got the biggest production without necessarily impacting wins proportionally. Maybe they were all great in absolute terms, had great impact, sometimes negated one another with their greatness and teams should have used more centers, and I am wrong. I know we can't be certain, moreso the further back we go.

Footnote on the degree to which centers/bigs dominate production

Spoiler:

16 non centers posted peak PERs above 17.9 among players I consider primarily 40s or 50s
12 centers do so.

2-4 non-bigs posted a peak PER above 20 (Cousy and Arizin for sure Yardley and Sears if you want to call them SFs)
10 centers posted peaks above 20

4-6 non bigs post a WS/48 above .200 Arizin, Wanzer, Sharman and Ramsey (Yardley and Sears again depend on positional distinction)
7 centers did so. Groza will have done so but we don't have the minutes. I imagine Risen and Otten likely would too (though harder to be sure for Otten, less data for NBL)

[eminence]

I strongly considered voting for far fewer than the 10 allowed here (possibly even as low as 3 - Mikan/Davies/Johnston, guys I see as kind of perennial high All-NBA guys or higher), but decided to go with honoring the history of the game even if a few of the individual players thus honored don't measure up to later players, and am interested to see if anyone goes with fewer than 10 honorees.