REDOING THE NBA HALL OF FAME (retired in 1970 or earlier)

Owly · Post #21 » by **Owly** » Sat May 30, 2020 12:57 pm

70sFan wrote:I find it interesting that people are so clearly on Twyman > Guerin.

Twyman was phenomenal shooter with decent rebounding but he wasn't much of a factor other than that. He was excellent off-ball player who could score a lot through his shooting ability. I don't view him as a strong defender.

Guerin was an on-ball creator who was excellent passer and his handles and driving ability made him very solid playmaker. He was also a nice shooter but he used oldschool setshot instead of quick jumpshot like Twyman. In games I've seen he looked very solid defensively too.

I view Guerin as a better playmaker and comparable scorer, with additional edge on defense. Why do you think that Twyman was better? I'm quite high on both of them, but I don't see reasonable case for Jack here.

Twyman vs Sears would be interesting. Wipe out Twyman's last 3 years which bring down his averages and aren't difference makers (unless severely underrated on D, these seasons look below league average).

Twyman clear minutes advantage: 20972 to 14923.
Twyman more accolades, narrative.
Metrics ... I say favor Sears
PER
KS: 18.4, JT: 18.6
WS/48
KS: .179, JT: .149
WS
KS: 55.8, JT: 64.9
WS above average
KS: 24.71041667, JT: 21.20833333
Certainly not clear cut.

Guerin vs Sears could be an interesting comp.

kipper34 · Post #22 » by **kipper34** » Sat May 30, 2020 1:22 pm

70sFan wrote:I find it interesting that people are so clearly on Twyman > Guerin.

Twyman was phenomenal shooter with decent rebounding but he wasn't much of a factor other than that. He was excellent off-ball player who could score a lot through his shooting ability. I don't view him as a strong defender.

Guerin was an on-ball creator who was excellent passer and his handles and driving ability made him very solid playmaker. He was also a nice shooter but he used oldschool setshot instead of quick jumpshot like Twyman. In games I've seen he looked very solid defensively too.

I view Guerin as a better playmaker and comparable scorer, with additional edge on defense. Why do you think that Twyman was better? I'm quite high on both of them, but I don't see reasonable case for Jack here.

I think to me the scoring of Twyman slightly outweighs the playmaking of Guerin. Twyman had the slight edge in volume and the edge in efficiency. Him being such a great shooter made it very easy for him to play next to a ball dominant player like Oscar. That portability I think is why I'm so high on him. He wasn't an outstanding passer but he was a willing one who made quick easy reads and didn't turn the ball over much. He had some gravity because he had such a quick release and he was good at moving without the ball.

Thinking about it more I think Guerin should've been with the locks, from what I've seen he was a really terrific playmaker and made pretty advanced passes. Although I don't know what to make of those Knicks teams being a little all over the map offensively year to year. I'd have to look into those teams more to really say anything definitive but it's enough to cast some doubt because Guerin was the offensive engine. However Twyman was also on some god awful offensive teams before Oscar. Guerin also wasn't as successful once he got traded to St Louis and had to reduce his role.

From what I've seen neither of them ever stood out defensively but footage is so limited it's tough to make big judgements off of a couple games and highlights. I've never heard stellar things about either of them but I could be wrong. Twyman's rebounding at least provides value for him there.

I'd give Twyman the edge but I don't think there's a huge gap. I'm going to look into it a bit more and see if I change on that. Either way both are definitely getting in.

eminence · Post #23 » by **eminence** » Sat May 30, 2020 4:42 pm

Russell dominates this list in the way Mikan did the first. Cousy/Jones are also both locks to me. Hagan's playoff performances make him a very strong pick. Overall this is a pretty weak group imo, think the next group will make up for it though. I think this might be the ballot I put some of the older guys in instead of the 3rd tier stars of the 60's.

Will say I'm quite a bit higher on Cousy than most here it sounds, he captained plenty of strong offenses prior to Russell's arrival and the extreme pace tactics Red started employing. Posted huge numbers throughout his career and successfully bridged the 50's to 60's.

Not so high on the non-Oscar Royals/Bucks (Twyman/Embry/Stokes). Those squads really sucked before Oscar dragged them to relevancy.

So yep, I'm going to go with some older guys with the 1st group of 4. First the guy I just left off our first ballot - Max Zaslofsky - Tier 1.5 in the BAA days, but really the only one with real longevity in the NBA to follow. Secondly is Joe Fulks, star status/scoring gave him more rep in the early NBA days than he probably earned, but he really was the first BAA star. Finally, Al Cervi, to get the last great NBL guy in (from our era). Feerick missing the playoffs in 48 and 49 leaves him off this list.

Official Ballot
Bill Russell
Bob Cousy
Sam Jones
Cliff Hagan
Max Zaslofsky
Joe Fulks
Al Cervi

Post #24 » by **penbeast0** » Sat May 30, 2020 6:38 pm

Voting so far:

Bill Russell (Dutchball97, Narigo, 70sFan, penbeast0, Kipper34, eminence)
Bob Cousy (Dutchball97, Narigo, 70sFan, penbeast0, Kipper34, eminence)
Cliff Hagan (Dutchball97, Narigo, 70sFan, penbeast0, Kipper34, eminence)
Sam Jones (Dutchball97, Narigo, 70sFan, penbeast0, Kipper34, eminence)

Jack Twyman (Dutchball97, Narigo, 70sFan, penbeast0, Kipper34)
Richie Guerin (Dutchball97, 70sFan, penbeast0, Kipper34)
Rudy LaRusso (70sFan, penbeast0, Kipper34)

Willie Naulls (70sFan, penbeast0)
Larry Costello (70sFan, Kipper34)

Tom Gola (penbeast0)
Red Kerr (Kipper34)
KC Jones (Kipper34)
Max Zaslofsky (eminence)
Joe Fulks (eminence)
Al Cervi (eminence)

Dr. Positivity, I didn’t take that as your official list

I will say that I think people are underrating rebounding, or maybe I’m overrating it (Stokes, Gola, etc.). In an era where TS% is this bad and the rebounds are closer to the hoop (no 3 pt means less long rebounds), I think outstanding rebounding ability has a stronger value than it does in today’s league, particularly offensive rebounding.

Owly · Post #25 » by **Owly** » Sat May 30, 2020 7:25 pm

eminence wrote:Russell dominates this list in the way Mikan did the first. Cousy/Jones are also both locks to me. Hagan's playoff performances make him a very strong pick. Overall this is a pretty weak group imo, think the next group will make up for it though. I think this might be the ballot I put some of the older guys in instead of the 3rd tier stars of the 60's.

Will say I'm quite a bit higher on Cousy than most here it sounds, he captained plenty of strong offenses prior to Russell's arrival and the extreme pace tactics Red started employing. Posted huge numbers throughout his career and successfully bridged the 50's to 60's.

Not so high on the non-Oscar Royals/Bucks (Twyman/Embry/Stokes). Those squads really sucked before Oscar dragged them to relevancy.

So yep, I'm going to go with some older guys with the 1st group of 4. First the guy I just left off our first ballot - Max Zaslofsky - Tier 1.5 in the BAA days, but really the only one with real longevity in the NBA to follow. Secondly is Joe Fulks, star status/scoring gave him more rep in the early NBA days than he probably earned, but he really was the first BAA star. Finally, Al Cervi, to get the last great NBL guy in (from our era). Feerick missing the playoffs in 48 and 49 leaves him off this list.

Official Ballot
Bill Russell
Bob Cousy
Sam Jones
Cliff Hagan
Max Zaslofsky
Joe Fulks
Al Cervi

Feerick "missing the playoffs" in '48 isn't quite the full picture.

'48 West (yes, Washington played in the West) housed all 4 of the top 4 records going
29-19
28-20
28-20
28-20

For reasons that are unclear (and despite a system allowing 3 teams from each conference in, thus allowing in a weak Celtics) other than not wanting another tie - and checking 3 NBA histories here, none offer any logic - the Capitols are eliminated in the "playoff" for the playoffs in a single game 70-74 versus Chicago (at Chicago) whilst Baltimore who seemingly got a bye in the mini-tournament and beat Chicago to take 2nd seed (Chicago get 3rd).

Not sure if you're dinging him for not being available for the playoffs (as best as I can tell he was - unlike '49 where he suffers an unfortunately timed knee injury - seemingly mere minutes into the playoffs) or for the team missing them (which is half true depending on your reading as what counts as the playoffs, but certainly undersells the team's performance, and Feerick's [again all-league - again WS leader from guard]). Either seems harsh.

eminence · Post #26 » by **eminence** » Sat May 30, 2020 7:42 pm

Owly wrote:
eminence wrote:Russell dominates this list in the way Mikan did the first. Cousy/Jones are also both locks to me. Hagan's playoff performances make him a very strong pick. Overall this is a pretty weak group imo, think the next group will make up for it though. I think this might be the ballot I put some of the older guys in instead of the 3rd tier stars of the 60's.

Will say I'm quite a bit higher on Cousy than most here it sounds, he captained plenty of strong offenses prior to Russell's arrival and the extreme pace tactics Red started employing. Posted huge numbers throughout his career and successfully bridged the 50's to 60's.

Not so high on the non-Oscar Royals/Bucks (Twyman/Embry/Stokes). Those squads really sucked before Oscar dragged them to relevancy.

So yep, I'm going to go with some older guys with the 1st group of 4. First the guy I just left off our first ballot - Max Zaslofsky - Tier 1.5 in the BAA days, but really the only one with real longevity in the NBA to follow. Secondly is Joe Fulks, star status/scoring gave him more rep in the early NBA days than he probably earned, but he really was the first BAA star. Finally, Al Cervi, to get the last great NBL guy in (from our era). Feerick missing the playoffs in 48 and 49 leaves him off this list.

Official Ballot
Bill Russell
Bob Cousy
Sam Jones
Cliff Hagan
Max Zaslofsky
Joe Fulks
Al Cervi

Feerick "missing the playoffs" in '48 isn't quite the full picture.

'48 West (yes, Washington played in the West) housed all 4 of the top 4 records going
29-19
28-20
28-20
28-20

For reasons that are unclear (and despite a system allowing 3 teams from each conference in, thus allowing in a weak Celtics) other than not wanting another tie - and checking 3 NBA histories here, none offer any logic - the Capitols are eliminated in the "playoff" for the playoffs in a single game 70-74 versus Chicago (at Chicago) whilst Baltimore who seemingly got a bye in the mini-tournament and beat Chicago to take 2nd seed (Chicago get 3rd).

Not sure if you're dinging him for not being available for the playoffs (as best as I can tell he was - unlike '49 where he suffers an unfortunately timed knee injury - seemingly mere minutes into the playoffs) or for the team missing them (which is half true depending on your reading as what counts as the playoffs, but certainly undersells the team's performance, and Feerick's [again all-league - again WS leader from guard]). Either seems harsh.

I just lumped multiple situations into one line to briefly explain excluding him, perhaps better said - I didn't see Feerick be successful enough in the playoffs to give him a vote here considering his short career. I appreciate you expanding/giving more background.

Dr Positivity · Post #27 » by **Dr Positivity** » Sat May 30, 2020 7:42 pm

Official vote:

Bill Russell
Sam Jones
Bob Cousy
Cliff Hagan
Jack Twyman
Richie Guerin
Larry Costello
Rudy LaRusso
Joe Fulks
Max Zaslofsky

Post #28 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat May 30, 2020 8:07 pm

I'm not ready to give an official vote yet, but I'll give you my updated thoughts.

My 4 locks remain locks, and quite frankly these are the guys who really feel like HOFers to me. I was disappointed when we got to 1970 to still have to spend so much time with guys that don't really feel worthy of the honors. With the longevity of the best players starting to move more toward what modern stars can do, we have guys who seem like they should be in this group who are still playing. (Hell, I'm not entirely sure the Lakers wouldn't have been better off if Baylor were in the previous group rather than letting him continue to take primacy over West.)

So the locky locks:

Bob Cousy
Cliff Hagan
Sam Jones
Bill Russell

As I look more into the other new guys to consider, what I found is that there's a major Win Shares gap between the Top 10 and the rest. The other 6 guys in the 10:

Jack Twyman
Richie Guerin
Larry Costello
Red Kerr
Rudy LaRusso
Tom Gola

And then the other 4:
KC Jones
Willie Naulls
Guy Rodgers
Don Ohl

I'm not committing to these guys, but if these are the guys I'm choosing from, right now I'm leaning toward those 6 over those 4. (And yes I know I've pointed out that Win Shares are far from the end-all, be-all of stats, please give me actual basketball arguments rather than knocking the stat if you want to riposte.)

The other thing lingering for me are the also-rans from before. Realistically, if Fulks is continuing to be a strong contender I'll probably vote for him because it feels silly for me to be inconsistent, but I feel like the group has spoken on the subject.

Post #29 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat May 30, 2020 8:48 pm

I wanted to chime in on beast's point about rebounding.

First thing I'll say is that I agree with the logic that apples-to-apples, big rebounders were more important in an era with worse shooting and more rebounds closer to the basket. That's a fact and nothing else I say eliminates that as a factor.

2 other things though - the first of which is intended to be a statement about my experience in the first two of these threads:

1. Something I'm looking out for are guys whose game was to dominate on the interior without a strong defensive reputation who seemed to take on a lesser role against tough competition. This is something that's been reinforced by modern trends, where we're now seeing a league where big white stiffs just aren't invited, but it first really came to my attention when we realize that even letting your offense be built around Wilt doing this isn't really a great approach. I think the reality is that the model they teams were using where the perimeter guys were told to pass the ball to the guy closer to the goal - a la soccer - was 180 degrees wrong, and thus I think you can look in pretty much any generation before 2015 and see signs of guys who weren't as good as people thought they were. This absolutely includes George Mikan on offense, but his defense was so dominant it doesn't really effect him.

This ties into why I'm so much lower on guys like Mikkelsen & Lovellette than other people are. Not looking to rehash the old arguments, but just saying, this is why I'm harsher on guys like that than I am on "gunners". Heinsohn was certainly overrated at the time, but I don't really think the issue was that he was bad at shooting. He was taking the shots Auerbach was happy for him to take because people didn't know better. Whether or not Heinsohn could scale to the point of being a star gunner with efficient shooting today, the issue isn't with the fact that he was a gunner so much as the fact that we know that gunners should be approaching the game differently. That's different to me then actually being in a role that existed in the past because of a completely backwards paradigm.

And just to come full circle: I defend the perimeter guys who played under this paradigm because I think we really didn't get to see what they'd be able to do if they'd been given the greenlight like modern guards get. I'm not "inflating" their numbers, just recognizing that they were largely doing what they were asked to be doing, and if it worked within the league context they were in, then I don't see too much need to knock them. I don't think the Lakers would have done a lot better with other perimeter guys from the ear if they were still insisting on scoring from the interior, and meanwhile, I don't think the Lakers win titles with 5 big men out there. The guards they had still played a vital role, just not one that let them shine statistically.

2. I think it's important to remember that there were only 8 teams in the league, and in general teams had guys whose job it was to get the rebounds. If I tell you today that someone is an epic rebounder, the expectation is that among the guys who are their teams main rebounders, he's elite. 30 teams, and we're talking about maybe 5 guys. Kevin Love, for example, when he was getting big praise as a rebounder, was a Top 3 guy by RPG stats.

When I look at Willie Naulls, I see a guy who was never a Top 5 rebounder and in an 8 team league, was a Top 8 rebounder only twice, and each time on teams that were the lowest rebounding team in the league and generally getting their ass kicked every night.

That's not me absolutely refusing to consider Naulls - I'm going to think about him more - but for me it's important not to act like the guy getting the rebounds was "doing something" while other guys "were doing nothing". Not everyone's tasks translated to early NBA box scores as well, and so if you play a role that it does translate well, I'm going to first consider how you were compared to others in the same role before I start comparing you to other types of players.

Post #30 » by **trex_8063** » Sun May 31, 2020 1:10 am

My non-official "brain-storming" tentative picks......

Bill Russell (duh)
Bob Cousy (duh)
Sam Jones (duh)
Cliff Hagan (probably a duh, imo)

Then there's.....
Jack Twyman - perhaps not a "duh" (though idk, maybe he is). 6-Time All-Star, twice All-NBA 2nd team [as late as '62], three times in top 10 MVP vote. 11-year career [9-10 of those player starter-level minutes] wherein he was super durable. And he's got the whole Stokes story to sort of add to his "legacy", where HOF entry is concerned (teammate of the year award is named after he and Stokes). REALLY strong candidate, at least. Almost a guarantee he'll be one of my picks.

Richie Guerin - same tier as Twyman for me. 13-year career (played slightly more minutes than Twyman), spanning into the 70s. 6-Time All-Star, 3x All-NBA 2nd Team, was as high as 7th once in MVP vote (in '62). Never on a great team, but was a key cog in several decent ones, including multiple good offenses. Limited amount of video I've seen I really liked what I saw; I think Guerin could seriously ball. Very very likely one of my picks.

Red Kerr - very strong candidate imo. 12-year EXTREMELY durable career, averaged >24 mpg in all but his rookie year. Was a legit VERY good player well into the more competitive mid-60s. 3-Time All-Star, member of the '55 champions. His team was in the playoffs all 12 years of his career. No All-NBA honors, but the competition at C was pretty steep (especially when there was no 3rd Team). Has a reputation as a passer that's in excess of his apg numbers.

Max Zaslofsky I voted for last round. As he's still on the table, there's a pretty good chance he'll be among my 10 picks this round, since after the above 7 I'm really searching.

Joe Fulks I've continuously put off in the first two rounds. But he's certainly in the running after the above.

Guy Rodgers I'll consider, though I do think he's grossly overrated all-time. Big assist numbers, but horrid scorer, basically NEVER see him associated with good offenses in his career. He may have his place based purely on rep and statistical footprint, though I'm FAR from certain I'll lend him MY support.

Rudy LaRusso - actually a pretty good candidate, had a nice career, good defensive rep. fwiw, he looks like he'd fit right into the modern game: big guy with nice touch from the outside and defensive toughness. He's not a guarantee for me, but perhaps a strong candidate.

Tom Gola - I'm always unsure of what to make of him. His reputation certainly seems to out-strip his numbers. I've got virtually no eye-test on him. Supposedly a really good perimeter defender, though, and sort of do-everything utility guy; like the diet Scottie Pippen of his day. 10-year career, mostly a starter throughout. 5-time All-Star, once All-NBA 2nd, twice finished in the top 10 in MVP vote (as late as '60), starter of the '56 Champs. Actually he looks like a fair/decent candidate too. I'll have to do some digging and think on him a bit.

Willie Naulls - good scoring forward, don't think he was all that good defensively. 10-year career, not always a starter; 4-time All-Star, bench role player for three title Celtics teams. Meh.....certainly not going to disregard him, but I have a hard time seeing picking him above most of the others listed above.

Wayne Embry - somewhat similar tier as Naulls, for me.

Then there are guys like Gene Shue, Dick McGuire, Kenny Sears, and Larry Costello. I think perhaps McGuire (for era relevance), Sears (the statistical best of the four, at least in his prime), and Costello (being the most recent and a pretty consistent 6-Time All-Star) come out ahead of Shue for me. However, they're all roughly in the same tier as Naulls and Embry.....definitely no guarantee.

EDIT: Also Don Ohl and KC Jones. Ohl, tbh, I'm not super-impressed with. Jones I think is a long-shot for me at this stage. Key piece of several champs, and an outstanding defensive guard; but also a pretty poor offensive one, only got a 9-year career to his credit, no All-Stars, no All-NBA, no MVP shares. idk, I just feel like the competition is pretty steep for him.

Post #31 » by **penbeast0** » Sun May 31, 2020 1:39 am

Naulls apparently wasn't a defender in his prime. This is from "King of the Court: Bill Russell and the Basketball Revolution."

"The Celtics also added Willie Naulls in 1963. After 7 losing seasons in New York and San Francisco, Naulls was overweight and unhappy. He reenrolled at UCLA to prepare for dental school. Then Russell recruited him to the Celtics "as a personal favor." It rejuvenated Naulls. "Willie the Whale" dropped 20 pounds during training camp. He collapsed during his first practice but embraced Boston's team-first approach." For years, he had ignored defense. Now he said,"I'm loaded with hustle scars."

Dutchball97 · Post #32 » by **Dutchball97** » Sun May 31, 2020 8:26 am

I'm a bit surprised at the Zaslofsky votes here. He didn't make it the first two times either and for good reasons imo.

He was a name that catches your eye in terms of accolades but in reality I found there is very little there to support his case. He didn't peak very high, he didn't have a ton of longevity and he doesn't have a narrative case either.

Owly · Post #33 » by **Owly** » Sun May 31, 2020 9:28 am

Dutchball97 wrote:I'm a bit surprised at the Zaslofsky votes here. He didn't make it the first two times either and for good reasons imo.

He was a name that catches your eye in terms of accolades but in reality I found there is very little there to support his case. He didn't peak very high, he didn't have a ton of longevity and he doesn't have a narrative case either.

Scoring champ and the Stags dissolution draft (Cousy the booby prize) plus four times all league (1st team) plus a finals appearance (going through an all time dominant team to get there) in '47 plus another run too the finals with good play in '51 ; he has some narrative. Not stuff I personally care about unless it's a least worst player performance gauge, but there's stuff there.

Martin got in unanimously whilst, never first team, never in MVP contention (award arriving around the time Martin gets the higher accolades of his career), peaking at 8.2 WS in 70 games (otherwise best is around 6, Zaslofsky has 10.2 in 58 games). He demolishes Fulks for career WS if you want a longevity adjacent (i.e. combining longevity of quality with degree of quality, and with WS's low baseline it skews more to longevity) metric (and edges Martin, because of the strength of his prime) and he (Fulks) keeps getting consideration.

Can't see Zaslofsky consideration as surprising.

Dutchball97 · Post #34 » by **Dutchball97** » Sun May 31, 2020 10:21 am

Owly wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:I'm a bit surprised at the Zaslofsky votes here. He didn't make it the first two times either and for good reasons imo.

He was a name that catches your eye in terms of accolades but in reality I found there is very little there to support his case. He didn't peak very high, he didn't have a ton of longevity and he doesn't have a narrative case either.

Scoring champ and the Stags dissolution draft (Cousy the booby prize) plus four times all league (1st team) plus a finals appearance (going through an all time dominant team to get there) in '47 plus another run too the finals with good play in '51 ; he has some narrative. Not stuff I personally care about unless it's a least worst player performance gauge, but there's stuff there.

Martin got in unanimously whilst, never first team, never in MVP contention (award arriving around the time Martin gets the higher accolades of his career), peaking at 8.2 WS in 70 games (otherwise best is around 6, Zaslofsky has 10.2 in 58 games). He demolishes Fulks for career WS if you want a longevity adjacent (i.e. combining longevity of quality with degree of quality, and with WS's low baseline it skews more to longevity) metric (and edges Martin, because of the strength of his prime) and he (Fulks) keeps getting consideration.

Can't see Zaslofsky consideration as surprising.

Martin was a major part in both the Lakers dynasty and the Hawks championship later that decade, Fulks was the fist star/first champion of the BAA. On level of play alone I'd say none of Martin, Fulks and Zaslofsky should be in but in terms of narrative Max falls behind the other two quite clearly imo.

Post #35 » by **penbeast0** » Sun May 31, 2020 11:19 am

Doctor MJ wrote:I wanted to chime in on beast's point about rebounding.

First thing I'll say is that I agree with the logic that apples-to-apples, big rebounders were more important in an era with worse shooting and more rebounds closer to the basket. That's a fact and nothing else I say eliminates that as a factor.

2 other things though - the first of which is intended to be a statement about my experience in the first two of these threads:

1. Something I'm looking out for are guys whose game was to dominate on the interior without a strong defensive reputation who seemed to take on a lesser role against tough competition. This is something that's been reinforced by modern trends, where we're now seeing a league where big white stiffs just aren't invited, but it first really came to my attention when we realize that even letting your offense be built around Wilt doing this isn't really a great approach. I think the reality is that the model they teams were using where the perimeter guys were told to pass the ball to the guy closer to the goal - a la soccer - was 180 degrees wrong, and thus I think you can look in pretty much any generation before 2015 and see signs of guys who weren't as good as people thought they were. This absolutely includes George Mikan on offense, but his defense was so dominant it doesn't really effect him.

This ties into why I'm so much lower on guys like Mikkelsen & Lovellette than other people are. Not looking to rehash the old arguments, but just saying, this is why I'm harsher on guys like that than I am on "gunners". Heinsohn was certainly overrated at the time, but I don't really think the issue was that he was bad at shooting. He was taking the shots Auerbach was happy for him to take because people didn't know better. Whether or not Heinsohn could scale to the point of being a star gunner with efficient shooting today, the issue isn't with the fact that he was a gunner so much as the fact that we know that gunners should be approaching the game differently. That's different to me then actually being in a role that existed in the past because of a completely backwards paradigm.

And just to come full circle: I defend the perimeter guys who played under this paradigm because I think we really didn't get to see what they'd be able to do if they'd been given the greenlight like modern guards get. I'm not "inflating" their numbers, just recognizing that they were largely doing what they were asked to be doing, and if it worked within the league context they were in, then I don't see too much need to knock them. I don't think the Lakers would have done a lot better with other perimeter guys from the ear if they were still insisting on scoring from the interior, and meanwhile, I don't think the Lakers win titles with 5 big men out there. The guards they had still played a vital role, just not one that let them shine statistically.

2. I think it's important to remember that there were only 8 teams in the league, and in general teams had guys whose job it was to get the rebounds. If I tell you today that someone is an epic rebounder, the expectation is that among the guys who are their teams main rebounders, he's elite. 30 teams, and we're talking about maybe 5 guys. Kevin Love, for example, when he was getting big praise as a rebounder, was a Top 3 guy by RPG stats.

When I look at Willie Naulls, I see a guy who was never a Top 5 rebounder and in an 8 team league, was a Top 8 rebounder only twice, and each time on teams that were the lowest rebounding team in the league and generally getting their ass kicked every night.

That's not me absolutely refusing to consider Naulls - I'm going to think about him more - but for me it's important not to act like the guy getting the rebounds was "doing something" while other guys "were doing nothing". Not everyone's tasks translated to early NBA box scores as well, and so if you play a role that it does translate well, I'm going to first consider how you were compared to others in the same role before I start comparing you to other types of players.

I wasn't implying Naulls gets in for his rebounding, he's a scorer, like Guerin. Just that he also had some rebounding skills, like Guerin also had some playmaking skills. He's my #9/10 guy, hanging on the bottom of my list and finding the passage on his defense drops him a bit lower. He does have the distinction of being part of the first all-black lineup to play on the floor together at one time, fwiw. I should probably vote Maurice Stokes again since I think he's more qualified but he's not getting a lot of support from other voters and didn't come that close in two complete votes already. I may change my vote to him again for the #10 spot if I think Naulls (or LaRusso) just isn't quite qualified.

I do think Gola is an extraordinary rebounder, possibly Jason Kidd level for his era (Kidd lite is probably the best comp for him, though he was a 2 guard rather than a pure point). He was still leading the league's guards in rebounds playing next to Wilt until Oscar entered the NBA.

Owly · Post #36 » by **Owly** » Sun May 31, 2020 11:37 am

Dutchball97 wrote:
Owly wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:I'm a bit surprised at the Zaslofsky votes here. He didn't make it the first two times either and for good reasons imo.

He was a name that catches your eye in terms of accolades but in reality I found there is very little there to support his case. He didn't peak very high, he didn't have a ton of longevity and he doesn't have a narrative case either.

Scoring champ and the Stags dissolution draft (Cousy the booby prize) plus four times all league (1st team) plus a finals appearance (going through an all time dominant team to get there) in '47 plus another run too the finals with good play in '51 ; he has some narrative. Not stuff I personally care about unless it's a least worst player performance gauge, but there's stuff there.

Martin got in unanimously whilst, never first team, never in MVP contention (award arriving around the time Martin gets the higher accolades of his career), peaking at 8.2 WS in 70 games (otherwise best is around 6, Zaslofsky has 10.2 in 58 games). He demolishes Fulks for career WS if you want a longevity adjacent (i.e. combining longevity of quality with degree of quality, and with WS's low baseline it skews more to longevity) metric (and edges Martin, because of the strength of his prime) and he (Fulks) keeps getting consideration.

Can't see Zaslofsky consideration as surprising.

Martin was a major part in both the Lakers dynasty and the Hawks championship later that decade, Fulks was the fist star/first champion of the BAA. On level of play alone I'd say none of Martin, Fulks and Zaslofsky should be in but in terms of narrative Max falls behind the other two quite clearly imo.

I'd posit "major part" is a stretch. The Lakers are Mikan's story, Hawk's Pettit and perhaps Hagan's (certainly should be). Production wise he's at .104 WS/48, 10.9 PER for the last three Laker title, 1 WS over 12 games in '50 (no minute totals) and 7.7 PER, -0.003 WS/48 in the Hawk's playoff triumph. In mitigation he's a guard, a good defender and production in title runs ... that's not my criteria. Still, unless you feel he was a Rodman/DPoY type defender, "major" seems optimistic.

Per the above post I'd characterize various non-direct playing stuff as narrative and there to be a significant amount of it.

Even if the narrative is less than those two, in aggregate with on court play my inclination is he's ahead. Certainly, I can't see being surprised at him getting some consideration given how the other two have fared.

Dutchball97 · Post #37 » by **Dutchball97** » Sun May 31, 2020 1:36 pm

Owly wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:
Owly wrote:Scoring champ and the Stags dissolution draft (Cousy the booby prize) plus four times all league (1st team) plus a finals appearance (going through an all time dominant team to get there) in '47 plus another run too the finals with good play in '51 ; he has some narrative. Not stuff I personally care about unless it's a least worst player performance gauge, but there's stuff there.

Martin got in unanimously whilst, never first team, never in MVP contention (award arriving around the time Martin gets the higher accolades of his career), peaking at 8.2 WS in 70 games (otherwise best is around 6, Zaslofsky has 10.2 in 58 games). He demolishes Fulks for career WS if you want a longevity adjacent (i.e. combining longevity of quality with degree of quality, and with WS's low baseline it skews more to longevity) metric (and edges Martin, because of the strength of his prime) and he (Fulks) keeps getting consideration.

Can't see Zaslofsky consideration as surprising.

Martin was a major part in both the Lakers dynasty and the Hawks championship later that decade, Fulks was the fist star/first champion of the BAA. On level of play alone I'd say none of Martin, Fulks and Zaslofsky should be in but in terms of narrative Max falls behind the other two quite clearly imo.

I'd posit "major part" is a stretch. The Lakers are Mikan's story, Hawk's Pettit and perhaps Hagan's (certainly should be). Production wise he's at .104 WS/48, 10.9 PER for the last three Laker title, 1 WS over 12 games in '50 (no minute totals) and 7.7 PER, -0.003 WS/48 in the Hawk's playoff triumph. In mitigation he's a guard, a good defender and production in title runs ... that's not my criteria. Still, unless you feel he was a Rodman/DPoY type defender, "major" seems optimistic.

Per the above post I'd characterize various non-direct playing stuff as narrative and there to be a significant amount of it.

Even if the narrative is less than those two, in aggregate with on court play my inclination is he's ahead. Certainly, I can't see being surprised at him getting some consideration given how the other two have fared.

I'm not surprised Zaslofsky got considered. I'm surprised there are people still voting for him 2 ballots later.

Post #38 » by **trex_8063** » Sun May 31, 2020 2:06 pm

MY OFFICIAL VOTES:

Bill Russell
Bob Cousy
Sam Jones
Cliff Hagan
Jack Twyman
Richie Guerin
Johnny "Red" Kerr
Tom Gola
Max Zaslofsky
Rudy LaRusso

Tough call; I've seriously considered bumping one of Max or Rudy for Larry Costello or Joe Fulks in particular.
I don't think it should be shocking that Zaslofsky is getting votes 2 rounds after the fact, btw. That's pretty common in actual HOF voting (basketball, Rock n' Roll HOF, etc). Sometimes there just aren't enough great NEW candidates to sufficiently fill the bill, so you fall back on old candidates who are still on the table, and is why some players [bands, whatever] have to wait an awfully long time to get in (as opposed to your "first ballot HOF'ers"). Al Cervi, for example, wasn't voted in until 32 years after his retirement. Even Bill Sharman had to wait 15 years.

eminence · Post #39 » by **eminence** » Sun May 31, 2020 2:42 pm

For me the vote for Zaslofsky was certainly more a comment on what I think of this class (not much) than on Zaslofsky, he was my first HM on the first ballot and I probably should've had him on my second ballot, but with this 3rd ballot only having 4 guys on it I really like I decided now was the time to add him on. If he doesn't get in this time he'll probably drop off the next ballot as that seems to be a very strong class, we'll see from there.

Post #40 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun May 31, 2020 2:48 pm

Dutchball97 wrote:I'm not surprised Zaslofsky got considered. I'm surprised there are people still voting for him 2 ballots later.

In particular because I don't believe he got any votes the first time around.

In general with HOF's, a guy gets in on the Nth ballot because the class that year is particularly weak. On a year to year basis there's nothing strange about that, but in a league where the guys in the '60s were way better than the guys in the '50s, it's strange to see a guy who peaked in the '40s start to get traction only when going up against guys 2 classes onward.

I'm not saying that that means anybody is doing something "wrong", it's just not what I expected. I thought this would be a project where at least for the first few rounds, if you missed out the first time you, you missed your chance entirely. Turns out, not the case.