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

[Owly]

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.

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.

Wow. ppg. Didn't expect that. Even for the 50s.

All-Stars were rationed iirc back then. I think it was something like a cap of 3 per team and thus every team got at least 2 by the 8 team days, though we're not quite there yet. Honestly I suspect very few people would have been able to rate the top players at the time accurately, that those picking weren't best placed to do so and that those picking weren't trying to. Fulks was a name.

I'm struggling too with your problem with the usage, unless you're drawing conclusions that aren't implied (i.e. "Fulks is much worse because of those negative WS seasons which is a perfect capture of their value." I can see a case for a version of the former given how bad .000 WS/48 is, the probability of negative impact even accounting for the limited data and positional skew I've discussed elsewhere in this thread, and what they're probably paying him). I would argue that negative WS FS seasons aren't better than nothing.

Fulks has the title and maybe slightly better playoff play in '47 on v limited info against worse average opposition (Capitols 1 seed versus Stags 1 seed for Feerick) 1.1 WS in 6 games for Feerick, 2.3 in 10 for Fulks (rounding and absence of minutes combined with the small sample and limited data and absence of footage make absolute conclusions tough). Per prior posts he has scoring title and "jumpshot pioneer" status. Can't see evidence of better at basketball

[Doctor MJ]

btw folks, I've edited my 10 again.

I added Wanzer, I dropped Mickelson, reasons given in the post.

[Owly]

Post 18 rebuild attempt - Thanks for the heads-up trex, all good

Internal reasoning doesn't seem clear here. e.g. Gallatin has "stats are WAY better than some of the players" included (and yes he's a big and the weaker numbers guys are smalls but ditto for Macauley). Not to say EM can't be in, just that some rationalizations run somewhat counter to others, making the process murky, though aggregating the different and limited information can of course be tricky to do systematically.

Macauley's numbers are easily better than Gallatin's though. I just think it's a reach to leave out a guy who was like a top 3 statistical player of the pool, 3x 1st team All-NBA against competitive group of big men, and it's not like his team sucked. We don't have enough close to enough information to say Macauley is as overrated as he'd have to be to be out of the top 10 in this pool.

Well
1) They're better in raw terms but
a) because of bigger minutes (Gallatin 21.5 PER (where available), 4 (known) seasons at or above 22 PER, 4 of .190 WS/48 or better) - Macauley is similar (less known but '51 a lock as productive '51 pretty good too probably slightly higher box peak. Now more minutes isn't nothing but see also point c.
b) for position ... are they?
Centers peak-wise among 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 Mikkelsen (or Sears if PF, then Yardley if PF).
c) WS leans quite heavily on team performance and whilst star power isn't the whole team, 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, something like EWA -cumulative version of PER- would hurt Macauley as would a stat that that uses a replacement level rather than "0 wins" production as the baseline].

And again this isn't necessarily for him out but for him as a non-lock.

[Owly]

.

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..

All good. Tried to duplicate as best I could above.

[eminence]

Here's some play of the very early Lakers starting at about 7 minutes:

Watch on YouTube

[Owly]

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.

I'd say three-star and include Cervi for the the rise/beginnings, including the '46 title out of our remit, and prior to Risen who arrived after the '48 season from the Kautsky's). Indeed Risen might not be considered part of the "rise" (arriving on a 6.433333333 point dif team).

I'd say matchup versus broken leg Mikan shouldn't be too big a factor (and might not have been great, hard to tell with fga missing for g3, if it's like his other game totals that plummets his shooting).

Versus Wanzer '51 (and playoffs generally) is a curious case. Wanzer, on the admittedly significantly limited info available might be the greatest playoff overperformer ever.

Random sidenote: Wanzer has a somewhat mysterious MVP, fwiw.

[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.

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.

Wow. ppg. Didn't expect that. Even for the 50s.

All-Stars were rationed iirc back then. I think it was something like a cap of 3 per team and thus every team got at least 2 by the 8 team days, though we're not quite there yet. Honestly I suspect very few people would have been able to rate the top players at the time accurately, that those picking weren't best placed to do so and that those picking weren't trying to. Fulks was a name.

I'm struggling too with your problem with the usage, unless you're drawing conclusions that aren't implied (i.e. "Fulks is much worse because of those negative WS seasons which is a perfect capture of their value." I can see a case for a version of the former given how bad .000 WS/48 is, the probability of negative impact even accounting for the limited data and positional skew I've discussed elsewhere in this thread, and what they're probably paying him). I would argue that negative WS FS seasons aren't better than nothing.

Fulks has the title and maybe slightly better playoff play in '47 on v limited info against worse average opposition (Capitols 1 seed versus Stags 1 seed for Feerick) 1.1 WS in 6 games for Feerick, 2.3 in 10 for Fulks (rounding and absence of minutes combined with the small sample and limited data and absence of footage make absolute conclusions tough). Per prior posts he has scoring title and "jumpshot pioneer" status. Can't see evidence of better at basketball

Okay I think we need to agree to disagree.

I am using the historical significance I see in Fults, and I don't think any of the finer details are going to end up swaying me.

[Dr Positivity]

We don't have enough close to enough information to say Macauley is as overrated as he'd have to be to be out of the top 10 in this pool.

How much information would persuade you? Of what type?
Where would you say Macauley ranks in this pool? Is he the lowest big in the 10?

As ever not to say he isn't there or that I would have such info, but I do see some reasons for skepticism in terms of his D, his overall impact.

I am guessing Macauley is a mediocre defender, but I'm not especially bothered by the Celtics low ranks as...

- You can't really blame him for their bad D without also taking into account the possibility he's the reason their offense was good

- I'm the most anti separating team offense and defense like it's football (and then especially using that to judge individual players) of anyone on this forum. In addition to how it's a team stat and one player can only impact defense so much, when it comes to teams like 50s Celtics and 60s Royals, I think it's very possible the reason their offense/defense was so polarized is they just had more of an offensive style of play and team culture. For the same reason the 2020 Mavericks clearly aren't the best offense of all time, it's more believable to me they're playing in a way that leads to better offense and worse defense for about the right result overall. I do care about how the Celtics played under Macauley on the whole, but while you could criticize a team with him and Cousy for not being more of a contender, Cousy is not a spotless player either considering his efficiency.

- When it comes to how the Celtics played after Macauley left, anyone who gets traded for Bill Russell is going to look bad, especially considering Russell fit their team needs more than Macauley. Plus they added Heinsohn and got Ramsey back? Plus it's not as if the Hawks collapsed with Macauley in the lineup. I can't see how this says anything.

[Doctor MJ]

I'd say three-star and include Cervi for the the rise/beginnings, including the '46 title out of our remit, and prior to Risen who arrived after the '48 season from the Kautsky's). Indeed Risen might not be considered part of the "rise" (arriving on a 6.433333333 point dif team).

I'd say matchup versus broken leg Mikan shouldn't be too big a factor (and might not have been great, hard to tell with fga missing for g3, if it's like his other game totals that plummets his shooting).

Versus Wanzer '51 (and playoffs generally) is a curious case. Wanzer, on the admittedly significantly limited info available might be the greatest playoff overperformer ever.

Random sidenote: Wanzer has a somewhat mysterious MVP, fwiw.

Re: Risen. Now you've got me reconsidering again.

Re: Wanzer. The more I look at him, the more he seems like a guy whose a generation ahead of his time even in his mid-30s, and this leads to him not generally playing with the level of primacy we associate with an alpha today. Seems like a case of there still being a TON of undiscovered basketball talent and so you could get a guy in basketball middle age to come in and it would turn out he could do things no one in the NBA was doing.

Don't know what to say about the MVP on the Hall of Fame page. I wonder if it's just a sign they hand-coded these values and made a typo.

[eminence]

I've tried tracking down who gave Wanzer that '53 'MVP' and have never found much. There was something like an MVP award given to him, but I have no idea who gave it to him or why he got it. I would not treat it seriously as an MVP award.

[trex_8063]

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.

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.

Two things about many of the names listed: 1) with many [most?] of them the minutes matter (as these are rate metrics). 2) they may only look superb via ONE of the box composite rate metrics, and I'd never rate a player based upon just ONE chosen metric.....

Boban peaked as a 29.6 PER......while averaging 8.4 mpg.....in just 35 games.
Shawn Long averaged 13 mpg in just an 18-game sample.
Brandan Wright avg like 16 mpg in his peak PER season.

Am I suspicious these guys couldn't do the same while playing starter level minutes?.....yes I am. Am I suspicious there may be factors (relating to durability, stamina, foul-trouble issues [Long], or ability to perform against a variety of line-ups that preclude/prevent them from ever getting starter-level minutes?....yes I am.

Valanciunas has peaked at decidedly sub-star minutes [28.2 mpg], and actually has THREE seasons avg <24 mpg.

Kenneth Faried avg just 19.7 mpg in 37 games when he achieved that peak PER, and had only a -0.2 BPM that very same year. He avg just 22.5 mpg [in only 46 games] when he achieved the peak WS/48. He's a career +0.5 BPM (peaked at +2.2 [same year as peak WS/48]). If memory serves, RAPM usually pegs him a bit below his box-based metrics, too; he's struck me as lacking defensively, fwiw.

JJ Hickson had a 19.7 PER peak, though was a somewhat less impressive .142 WS/48 and +0.2 BPM. This was a pretty stark outlier year for him too, fwiw. And RAPM consistently pegs him well below his box-based output (he's actually a -2.4 PI RAPM in this same peak PER season).

Drummond.....well I actually think he is a little underrated. Though without a doubt PER rates him better than the other metrics (e.g. while his career LOW PER is 20.9, his career HIGH WS/48 is still notably shy of .200 [.189 to be precise], and his career avg BPM is just +1.5 [ranging from -0.1 to +3.2]); career avg mpg perhaps marginally less than "star-level" too, even by today's "star-conservation" playing time rates (31.5 mpg).

Hassan Whiteside has peaked at a PER of 26.2, though that was in 23.8 mpg (though he does have other high PER's in the neighborhood of 30 mpg. His peak mpg (32.6) perhaps non-coincidentally corresponds to the lowest PER he's had in the last six years. And sort of like Hickson, his impact indicators tend to lag well behind his box-based stuff. (yeah, I know it's entirely possible the same may be true of Macauley)

etc etc

I guess what I'm driving at is that while most of the above names either only look really good by one metric or they look good by the box-based metrics while playing bench level minutes, Macauley looks good by both of the metrics we have for that time period AND did so while playing mostly star-level minutes too.

You may be right that the invented stats/metrics just happen to record things and weight things that favour bigs; otoh it could be that bigs just happen to accrue more of the things that matter because it's a big-man's game (at least until more recent trends and rule-changes).
And it's not just in the box; note that in '04 (last year before changes to hand-check rules) ALL of the top 4 [and 9 of the top 10] RAPM's were PF/C's.
In '97 (the first year for which we have [NPI] RAPM), 3 of the top 5 and 10 of the top 15 RAPM's were PF/C's.

EDIT: Hey! I quoted without issue!

[Doctor MJ]

Added Jim Pollard to my list. Dropped Harry Gallatin.

I'm really struck by the fact that by Mikan's final year there were two guys playing every big minute and running the team at all times, and they were Pollard and Slater Martin. Pollard was there with the Lakers for the entire dynasty, and was vital to the end. That's a big deal.

I'm finding myself also pondering Gallatin vs Dick McGuire. Doesn't look like either will make my list at present, but I might favor McGuire the more I ponder.

[Owly]

I'd say three-star and include Cervi for the the rise/beginnings, including the '46 title out of our remit, and prior to Risen who arrived after the '48 season from the Kautsky's). Indeed Risen might not be considered part of the "rise" (arriving on a 6.433333333 point dif team).

I'd say matchup versus broken leg Mikan shouldn't be too big a factor (and might not have been great, hard to tell with fga missing for g3, if it's like his other game totals that plummets his shooting).

Versus Wanzer '51 (and playoffs generally) is a curious case. Wanzer, on the admittedly significantly limited info available might be the greatest playoff overperformer ever.

Random sidenote: Wanzer has a somewhat mysterious MVP, fwiw.

Re: Risen. Now you've got me reconsidering again.

Re: Wanzer. The more I look at him, the more he seems like a guy whose a generation ahead of his time even in his mid-30s, and this leads to him not generally playing with the level of primacy we associate with an alpha today. Seems like a case of there still being a TON of undiscovered basketball talent and so you could get a guy in basketball middle age to come in and it would turn out he could do things no one in the NBA was doing.

Don't know what to say about the MVP on the Hall of Fame page. I wonder if it's just a sign they hand-coded these values and made a typo.

It's not a typo there are multiple sources (books) with it though not universal recognition. Also it would be weird if NBA started giving out rookie of the year before MVP (though weird to start ... then cancel?)

[Owly]

I've tried tracking down who gave Wanzer that '53 'MVP' and have never found much. There was something like an MVP award given to him, but I have no idea who gave it to him or why he got it. I would not treat it seriously as an MVP award.

...
I would treat about as seriously as every other MVP award (which is to say very little).

[penbeast0]

Here is how it stands at the moment. I am very happy that we had a lot of good discussion, this was the hardest as there is the least evidence for it.

Voters: penbeast0, kipper34, Dr Positivity, Doctor MJ, eminence, trex_8063, adding Dutchball97

Mikan 7
Johnston 7
Macauley 7
Martin 7
Yardley 7
Davies 6
Wanzer 6

Mikkelson 5

Fulks 3
Gallatin 3
Pollard 3

Risen 2
Stokes 2

[Owly]

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.

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.

Two things about many of the names listed: 1) with many [most?] of them the minutes matter (as these are rate metrics). 2) they may only look superb via ONE of the box composite rate metrics, and I'd never rate a player based upon just ONE chosen metric.....


Boban peaked as a 29.6 PER......while averaging 8.4 mpg.....in just 35 games.
Shawn Long averaged 13 mpg in just an 18-game sample.
Brandan Wright avg like 16 mpg in his peak PER season.

Am I suspicious these guys couldn't do the same while playing starter level minutes?.....yes I am. Am I suspicious there may be factors (relating to durability, stamina, foul-trouble issues [Long], or ability to perform against a variety of line-ups that preclude/prevent them from ever getting starter-level minutes?....yes I am.

Valanciunas has peaked at decidedly sub-star minutes [28.2 mpg], and actually has THREE seasons avg <24 mpg.

Kenneth Faried avg just 19.7 mpg in 37 games when he achieved that peak PER, and had only a -0.2 BPM that very same year. He avg just 22.5 mpg [in only 46 games] when he achieved the peak WS/48. He's a career +0.5 BPM (peaked at +2.2 [same year as peak WS/48]). If memory serves, RAPM usually pegs him a bit below his box-based metrics, too; he's struck me as lacking defensively, fwiw.

JJ Hickson had a 19.7 PER peak, though was a somewhat less impressive .142 WS/48 and +0.2 BPM. This was a pretty stark outlier year for him too, fwiw. And RAPM consistently pegs him well below his box-based output (he's actually a -2.4 PI RAPM in this same peak PER season).

Drummond.....well I actually think he is a little underrated. Though without a doubt PER rates him better than the other metrics (e.g. while his career LOW PER is 20.9, his career HIGH WS/48 is still notably shy of .200 [.189 to be precise], and his career avg BPM is just +1.5 [ranging from -0.1 to +3.2]); career avg mpg perhaps marginally less than "star-level" too, even by today's "star-conservation" playing time rates (31.5 mpg).

Hassan Whiteside has peaked at a PER of 26.2, though that was in 23.8 mpg (though he does have other high PER's in the neighborhood of 30 mpg. His peak mpg (32.6) perhaps non-coincidentally corresponds to the lowest PER he's had in the last six years. And sort of like Hickson, his impact indicators tend to lag well behind his box-based stuff. (yeah, I know it's entirely possible the same may be true of Macauley)

etc etc

I guess what I'm driving at is that while most of the above names either only look really good by one metric or they look good by the box-based metrics while playing bench level minutes, Macauley looks good by both of the metrics we have for that time period AND did so while playing mostly star-level minutes too.

You may be right that the invented stats/metrics just happen to record things and weight things that favour bigs; otoh it could be that bigs just happen to accrue more of the things that matter because it's a big-man's game (at least until more recent trends and rule-changes).
And it's not just in the box; note that in '04 (last year before changes to hand-check rules) ALL of the top 4 [and 9 of the top 10] RAPM's were PF/C's.
In '97 (the first year for which we have [NPI] RAPM), 3 of the top 5 and 10 of the top 15 RAPM's were PF/C's.

EDIT: Hey! I quoted without issue!

1) Sure minutes matter. Not sure how this relates to the principle of box-composites overrating bigs at certain points. It's not a fluke many of these guys have multiple seasons.
2) "One metric" I'm not buying. BPM (not available for Macauley, not a metric I love, probably does a better job at picking off limited bigs, the focus here will be on WS/48 and PER)
Boban: both
Hickson: 1 1/2 (WS overrates, just by less)
Drummond 1 3/4. Detroit badness takes the edge off WS but still career .157 with little evidence of impact.
Blatche: as above WS by less, but still way overrates
Faried: both

The rest are all in the link they are all north of 22 PER often multiple times, all have one at or above 23.5. Apart from Drummond's worst season (one of 4) and Kanter's worst (one of 5) every cited player's season(s) is north of .180. [note the part primarily discussing "the rest, touches on Drummond because he comes often on the list]. For comparison see this list (of smalls) down to 22 PER, safe to say way fewer skeletons in this closet http://bkref.com/tiny/GGhHd.


It has mostly been a big mans game (to the extent that is true) because of defense and the boxscore isn't even trying to capture that in Macauley's day (and the evidence leans to suggest he was bad at it). (Also not entirely sure whether this will be so much the case in the 50s when players notionally aren't leaving their feet to contest shots).

I also think most of the time when bigs have had influence because of the short supply of tall people creating a big range of quality in bigs. Depth will vary, but Robinson and Olajuwon are adding huge value because you're not putting Eric Montross out there.

2004 fits with these. Shaq good impactful in part because Oliver Miller, Olowokandi not (or negatively so). Most bigs are driving value with D (exceptions Shaq: unique player, Dirk: not a conventional big).

[Dutchball97]

This seems like a great project. I'll definitely make a list in a bit but I suspect I won't be getting all that close to 10 nominees. If we're redoing the HoF the point should be to have deserving people in there and being the 10th best player in a very weak era isn't enough to be deserving imo.

[Dutchball97]

Official Picks:
George Mikan
Neil Johnston
George Yardley
Ed Macauley
Slater Martin

The only one of these guys that didn't play at a high level in the second half of the decade is Mikan but his dominance over the pre-shot clock era is so great I absolutely have to include him. I see the main claim to fame for the Royals trio (Davies, Risen, Wanzer) being their one win over Mikan's Lakers all the way back in 1951 as insufficient to be a HoF player, I wouldn't say Rasheed Wallace deserves to be in the HoF either just because he played a big role in taking down the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. As for Mikan's teammates I felt like Mikkelsen and Pollard didn't do too much impressive stuff after Mikan retired, while Martin was a key contributor to champtionship level teams all decade. Tempted to put Stokes in there but while I think he was on a trajectory to be a star, he wasn't quite there yet at the time imo.

[Owly]

We don't have enough close to enough information to say Macauley is as overrated as he'd have to be to be out of the top 10 in this pool.

How much information would persuade you? Of what type?
Where would you say Macauley ranks in this pool? Is he the lowest big in the 10?

As ever not to say he isn't there or that I would have such info, but I do see some reasons for skepticism in terms of his D, his overall impact.

I am guessing Macauley is a mediocre defender, but I'm not especially bothered by the Celtics low ranks as...

- You can't really blame him for their bad D without also taking into account the possibility he's the reason their offense was good

- I'm the most anti separating team offense and defense like it's football (and then especially using that to judge individual players) of anyone on this forum. In addition to how it's a team stat and one player can only impact defense so much, when it comes to teams like 50s Celtics and 60s Royals, I think it's very possible the reason their offense/defense was so polarized is they just had more of an offensive style of play and team culture. For the same reason the 2020 Mavericks clearly aren't the best offense of all time, it's more believable to me they're playing in a way that leads to better offense and worse defense for about the right result overall. I do care about how the Celtics played under Macauley on the whole, but while you could criticize a team with him and Cousy for not being more of a contender, Cousy is not a spotless player either considering his efficiency.

- When it comes to how the Celtics played after Macauley left, anyone who gets traded for Bill Russell is going to look bad, especially considering Russell fit their team needs more than Macauley. Plus they added Heinsohn and got Ramsey back? Plus it's not as if the Hawks collapsed with Macauley in the lineup. I can't see how this says anything.

The problem is it isn't just one side of the ball it's net.

He was a useful part of a good offense (with Cousy and Sharman and pedestrian/bad forwards). On arrival in the league and then in Boston (latter simultaneous with Cousy and Auerbach) teams improve a little from a low baseline but nothing like his production suggests it should (especially in Boston). I lean somewhat cynical on Cousy too, fwiw, especially to the extent his legacy is tied up in playoff wins he rarely helped in.

The problem with the Russell comment is ... Russell didn't arrive straight away (nor did Ramsey return from the armed forces). They lost Ed, got Tommy Heinsohn and got significantly better (with small sample caveat). Hawks get better on his (and Martin and Hagan, the latter playing guard was ineffective that year) arrival but less so, from a low baseline despite arrival of another player getting consideration and, crucially, giving up nothing they had the previous year. Fwiw, the Hawks get better as he gets sidelined, though this isn't necessarily like for like (Hagan improves, then Lovellette arrives).

Limited information of course, noisy, but I think reasonably consistent evidence of impact being far lower than the box numbers, which isn't to say bad or necessarily not top 10.

[Owly]

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.


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.

Wow. ppg. Didn't expect that. Even for the 50s.

All-Stars were rationed iirc back then. I think it was something like a cap of 3 per team and thus every team got at least 2 by the 8 team days, though we're not quite there yet. Honestly I suspect very few people would have been able to rate the top players at the time accurately, that those picking weren't best placed to do so and that those picking weren't trying to. Fulks was a name.

I'm struggling too with your problem with the usage, unless you're drawing conclusions that aren't implied (i.e. "Fulks is much worse because of those negative WS seasons which is a perfect capture of their value." I can see a case for a version of the former given how bad .000 WS/48 is, the probability of negative impact even accounting for the limited data and positional skew I've discussed elsewhere in this thread, and what they're probably paying him). I would argue that negative WS FS seasons aren't better than nothing.

Fulks has the title and maybe slightly better playoff play in '47 on v limited info against worse average opposition (Capitols 1 seed versus Stags 1 seed for Feerick) 1.1 WS in 6 games for Feerick, 2.3 in 10 for Fulks (rounding and absence of minutes combined with the small sample and limited data and absence of footage make absolute conclusions tough). Per prior posts he has scoring title and "jumpshot pioneer" status. Can't see evidence of better at basketball

Okay I think we need to agree to disagree.

I am using the historical significance I see in Fults, and I don't think any of the finer details are going to end up swaying me.

Okay. On this last post we don't have to disagree, if you're clear, as you have been, that you aren't building a pure best players Hall.