RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #49 (Pau Gasol)

[Cavsfansince84]

All I'm saying is he deserves credit for being a #2 on roughly 5 title teams. Without any sort of ands, ifs or buts added to it.

Why not Tony Parker then?
He was #2 in 2003 and 2007 titles, he was #3 in 2005 title. From 2012 to 2014, he was 1a/1b with Duncan and he was the #1 scoring option on a team that made conference finals, NBA Finals and eventually won the NBA Title.

I'd be ok with someone making a case for Tony Parker here. With regard to him and Jones, I think Jones overall resume is more impressive. He wasn't just #2 on 5 teams, but also a 3 or 4 on a bunch of other ones. I mean Jones was the leading scorer on all of those teams for quite a while. It seems as though that Jones was a better defender as well. Parker I'd say is seen as a semi weak defender while Jones seems to be regarded as above average to quite good.

[penbeast0]

Never heard contemporaries describe Sam Jones as being a good defender. Havlicek, KC, Sanders, Sharman, but not Jones.

[Odinn21]

He wasn't just #2 on 5 teams, but also a 3 or 4 on a bunch of other ones.

But this is related to overall team success again. Best results of the Spurs when Parker was in SA;
NBA Titles in '03, '05, '07, '14
NBA Finals in '13
Western Conference Finals in '08, '12

The number of times the Spurs had WCF exit result or better; 7
The number of NBA titles Sam Jones won with the Celtics; 10

We never saw Sam Jones in a situation like Parker was in 2009. The Spurs weren't a contender, Parker went all out, he was unstoppable and the Spurs didn't get a proper team success to highlight Parker's performance in that regard.

Is 1969 Sam Jones season more valuable than 2009 or 2012/2013 Tony Parker season cause of the title?

Sole ppg numbers has Jones as the better scorer but Parker would probably come out on top if we consider pace difference. Jones was more efficient but he was like +2.0 rts scorer and Parker was like -0.5 rts scorer. So, scoring on overall looks like a wash. Parker was definitely the better playmaker.
And even if Jones was the better defender (I'm not sure), Parker wasn't a defensive liability after 2005, and considering these are not rim protectors, I can't say defensive gap (if there's one) is more important than playmaking gap.
Jones wasn't a particularly good defender BTW. Greer was better for example.

[DQuinn1575]

I rate them as
Howard
Pau
Allen

[Cavsfansince84]

Never heard contemporaries describe Sam Jones as being a good defender. Havlicek, KC, Sanders, Sharman, but not Jones.

I know they had other defensive specialists on those teams. Maybe I am overrating Jones defensively. Here is Bill Russell though calling Jones the most skillful player he ever played with which is pretty high praise. He also mentions the Celtic's season being on the line 6 times and all 6 times they wanted Jones to take the shot and he made it every time.

Watch on YouTube

[Cavsfansince84]

He wasn't just #2 on 5 teams, but also a 3 or 4 on a bunch of other ones.

But this is related to overall team success again. Best results of the Spurs when Parker was in SA;
NBA Titles in '03, '05, '07, '14
NBA Finals in '13
Western Conference Finals in '08, '12

It relates to team success because that's what you brought up in your reply to me. You mentioned Parker's role on 4 title teams and other wcf appearances after I had mentioned Jones being the #2 on 5 title teams. I've also mentioned things like his consistency as a playoff scorer and having really big games in most of those game 7's the Celtics had to win most every year.

[Odinn21]

He wasn't just #2 on 5 teams, but also a 3 or 4 on a bunch of other ones.

But this is related to overall team success again. Best results of the Spurs when Parker was in SA;
NBA Titles in '03, '05, '07, '14
NBA Finals in '13
Western Conference Finals in '08, '12

It relates to team success because that's what you brought up in your reply to me. You mentioned Parker's role on 4 title teams and other wcf appearances after I had mentioned Jones being the #2 on 5 title teams. I've also mentioned things like his consistency as a playoff scorer and having really big games in most of those game 7's the Celtics had to win most every year.

I've brought team success up because the way team success argument plays like "Kobe Bryant or Magic Johnson is greater than Wilt Chamberlain by default". The winning bias in Jones favouring arguments are almost on that level, I don't think I'm exaggerating here.

There are players who weren't as lucky as Sam Jones in terms of environment because they didn't have Bill Russell as teammate and they faced tougher competitions for them* and ended up with less team success such as Kevin McHale, Ray Allen, Robert Parish, Elvin Hayes and Tony Parker.
There are players who weren't straight up lucky, let alone compare luck to Sam Jones, and they didn't even come close to the successes Jones had but probably were better players, such as Hal Greer, Adrian Dantley, Bob Lanier, Dikembe Mutombo, Dwight Howard.

Dikembe Mutombo vs. Sam Jones, there's a comparison that no one has asked yet. I'd pick Mutombo rather comfortably for example.

I'm not saying let's take away contributions Jones made to the Celtics success in the '60s. When there's such a stiff competition and barely half of them are mentioned, I just can't see Sam Jones as a frontrunner of that lot due to the team success he had.

*:

Opponents of the Celtics from '63 playoffs to '67 playoffs*; 2.55 SRS, 2.4 NRtg, 3.5 (of 9) average SRS/NRtg rank
The Celtics were 6.47 SRS, 6.0 NRtg, 1.2 average rank team in that time frame. That's 3.9 SRS and 3.6 NRtg superiority over their opponents.

Bill Russell era Celtics has to be one of the most dominant teams ever if not the most in this regard. And Russell was the reason for such dominance, not Jones. Jones was part of it, but not the reason. McHale, Allen, Parish, Hayes, Parker, Ginobili, or some other names I'm forgetting right now, they didn't experience such luxury to show off their big moments because there wasn't enough possibilities.

[Hal14]

All I'm saying is he deserves credit for being a #2 on roughly 5 title teams. Without any sort of ands, ifs or buts added to it.

Why not Tony Parker then?
He was #2 in 2003 and 2007 titles, he was #3 in 2005 title. From 2012 to 2014, he was 1a/1b with Duncan and he was the #1 scoring option on a team that made conference finals, NBA Finals and eventually won the NBA Title.

If Billups got voted in, then Parker should be in the conversation - IMO those 2 are debatable, maybe a slight edge for Billups but Parker's ability to create off the dribble, to penetrate, to get into the lane and constantly keep pressure on the defense (both in the half court and in transition whereas Billups was just a half court player). with his dribble drive ability not to mention his ability to stop on the drop of a dime and nail a mid range jumper or floater in the lane, his insane spin moves, he's faster, better handle more dynamic than Billups. Billuos on the other hand would walk the ball up the court, make the safe play, not much of a thread off the dribble to penetrate, instead would just sit outside the 3 point line and spot up for shots or occasionally post up smaller guards.

[DQuinn1575]

Jones was lucky he played on the Celtics.
And the Celtics were real lucky to have the 6th best scorer in Game 7 history (minimum 5 games played).
And despite playing in one of lowest fg% shooting eras of the players involved, he shot well from the field, and very well from the line.
The Celtics margins 1,2,2,2,3,4,5,11, and 19 - so 7 wins by 5 points or less.
1969 - last game of his career on the road -10-16 from the field, all 4 free throws made - 24 points in a 2 point win.
He shot 49.3% from the field in an era where 45% is around the league average.

(If I make it 4 games then Durant and Curry outscore him, Jordan only played 3 Game 7's, and would barely beat out Durant)
Stats taken from B-Reference

So they won 9 game sevens, 7 by 5 points or less, and he scored 18 points or more, every game, shooting above league average,



Player PTS G Average FG% FT%

LeBron James 279 8 34.9 0.487 0.779
Jerry West 278 9 30.9 0.479 0.769
Elgin Baylor 263 9 29.2 0.415 0.859
Bob Pettit 175 6 29.2 0.400 0.743
Hakeem 136 5 27.2 0.496 0.632
Sam Jones 244 9 27.1 0.493 0.898
Larry Bird 216 8 27.0 0.497 0.951
Dirk Nowitzki 134 5 26.8 0.500 0.872
Charles Barkley 124 5 24.8 0.532 0.867
Tim Duncan 148 6 24.7 0.482 0.792
Wilt 220 9 24.4 0.626 0.451
Julius Erving 145 6 24.2 0.458 0.833
Patrick Ewing 167 7 23.9 0.485 0.694
Kobe Bryant 133 6 22.2 0.389 0.673
Elvin Hayes 133 6 22.2 0.451 0.622
Earl Monroe 110 5 22.0 0.457 0.703
Walt Frazier 108 5 21.6 0.519 0.897
Tom Heinsohn 145 7 20.7 0.448 0.610
Chris Paul 144 7 20.6 0.460 0.871
Jabbar 123 6 20.5 0.505 0.697
Billups 102 5 20.4 0.426 0.919
Kawhi Leonard 102 5 20.4 0.400 0.733
Dwyane Wade 158 8 19.8 0.415 0.878
Manu Ginóbili 118 6 19.7 0.493 0.927

[Hal14]

Ray Allen
Pau Gasol

[Cavsfansince84]

But this is related to overall team success again. Best results of the Spurs when Parker was in SA;
NBA Titles in '03, '05, '07, '14
NBA Finals in '13
Western Conference Finals in '08, '12

I've brought team success up because the way team success argument plays like "Kobe Bryant or Magic Johnson is greater than Wilt Chamberlain by default". The winning bias in Jones favouring arguments are almost on that level, I don't think I'm exaggerating here.

There are players who weren't as lucky as Sam Jones in terms of environment because they didn't have Bill Russell as teammate and they faced tougher competitions for them* and ended up with less team success such as Kevin McHale, Ray Allen, Robert Parish, Elvin Hayes and Tony Parker.

I think everyone values being part of title teams differently. I don't think its as easy as saying winning bias though when a guy is not only a big part of title teams but also consistently raised his game in the playoffs and especially in big games. There's something to be said for that. As I also mentioned, I think there's something to be said intangibles wise for a guy like Jones who seems to be very well liked and easy to get along with. Not all players are like that. So ya I know people throw around the phrase winning bias and sometimes it seems valid but other times not so much.

[trex_8063]

OK, so one of the unknowns opted toward Pau, which makes it impossible for him to lose the Condorcet to Allen. Default victory is upheld with no need for runoff. Will get the next up in a moment.....

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Odinn21]

I think everyone values being part of title teams differently. I don't think its as easy as saying winning bias though when a guy is not only a big part of title teams but also consistently raised his game in the playoffs and especially in big games. There's something to be said for that. As I also mentioned, I think there's something to be said intangibles wise for a guy like Jones who seems to be very well liked and easy to get along with. Not all players are like that. So ya I know people throw around the phrase winning bias and sometimes it seems valid but other times not so much.

I was editing my message, but I'll post it as another message.

This is the thing of the less known eras. It's hard to remember certain things from the '60s... So, I decided to check game logs from '62-'68 time frame.

Sam Jones in close-out games; 20 games 24.8 ppg 4.6 rpg 2.1 apg on .508 ts
Sam Jones in elimination games; 12 games 30.0 ppg 4.4 rpg 2.1 apg on .536 ts
(I counted game 5 of bo5s and game 7 of bo7s for both categories.)

As you pointed out and one can easily see Jones came big in elimination games without a doubt.

There's also some interesting notes;
- He was the reason why the Celtics almost blew a 3-1 lead in '66 Finals. He scored 15 points on .447 ts in game 5 (lost by 4) and scored 13 on .549 ts in game 6 (lost by 8). I don't know why but his ts for game 6 looks decent because he shot too less. 7 fga and 11 fta in 38 minutes.
- There were 5 playoff games that Jones played 25 or less minutes. The Celtics went 4-1 in them. 2 of them were blow-out games. The Celtics lost to the Warriors by 24 in game 3 of '64 Finals and the Celtics won game 2 of '66 Finals against the Lakers. Surely Jones' numbers were awful in the lost game and were great in the won game. In the other 3 games, Jones was 7.3/3.7/1.7 on .386 in 22 minutes. The Celtics won those 3 games (game 4 of '62 Finals by 12, game 5 of '63 EDF by 5, game 6 of '63 Finals by 3).

- Jones also had some considerably weak performances in '69 playoffs but I don't know why.
Only 4 minutes playtime against the Sixers in game 2. (2 points, 1 rebound, the Celtics won by 31)
Game 4 and 5 against the Knicks. (9/3/2 on .244 ts in game 4 which was won by only 1 point. 3/1/2 on .169 ts in game 5 which was lost by 8) [I remember seeing him struggle against the Frazier/Barnett backcourt but never knew the reason.]
Game 6 against the Lakers in the Finals, won by 9, Jones 9/2/0 on .533 ts in 14 minutes. I don't know why he played so little. According to game log he had 4 pfs but I don't think 4 pfs would limit him to less than one third of 48 minutes total playtime.

Even though sample size is quite small, it's always small in postseasons though, the Celtics were able to win more often than not when Jones had some issues.

A note about all these, I'm not saying Jones didn't come up big when his team needed and I'm not saying Jones sucks because of weak performances. I just went in there because the '60s is a time that we usually build on reputation due to lack of concrete memory. It's not as easy to point out the good along with the bad or the bad along with the good compared to the '00s or the '10s.

These are just notes. I made my main point far before.
I doubt if Sam Jones' peak or prime would crack into the top 70 if we labelled as such, and since his longevity isn't particularly good, I don't see why would he make the top 50 in the top 100 ever project. If the sheer quality can not justify the rank on the list, then it's probably down to winning bias.
It's clear that you don't like me saying winning bias but you didn't say anything to invalidate the bias. What you said was he was great when he was winning. And considering he wasn't in a situation that he couldn't win, so, the bias is still there.

[penbeast0]

Sam Jones is one of those guys like Cliff Hagan, Frank Ramsey, Walt Frazier, Hakeem Olujawon, Robert Horry etc. that seemed to step up their games in the playoffs and even more at key moments. How much you rate that over more consistent and outstanding regular season play is up to you. I don't have Sam Jones in yet but I don't think it's a silly argument.

[Cavsfansince84]

These are just notes. I made my main point far before.
I doubt if Sam Jones' peak or prime would crack into the top 70 or 80 if we labelled as such, and since his longevity isn't particularly good, I don't see why would he make the top 50 in the top 100 ever project. If the sheer quality can not justify the rank on the list, then it's probably down to winning bias.
It's clear that you don't like me saying winning bias but you didn't say anything to invalidate the bias. What you said was he was great when he was winning. And considering he wasn't in a situation that he couldn't win, so, the bias is still there.

You're free to use that phrase all you wish to, it really makes no difference to me at all. Its not like I take it personally or something. I don't worry that much about anyone else's opinions tbh. We all state our picks, give our rationales and see where the pieces fall. What I'm saying is we all value winning differently. Your view seems to be that using it as a primary criteria = winning bias. Which is your call to make here. I value it because I think the qualities which work towards playing winning bb are the most valuable. So it is what it is. Its far from the only criteria I value though. imo Jones proved himself as a high level scorer and has good size and also finished top 10 in mvp voting multiple times. I think his longevity is respectable, so given all of that I think 50 is about right for him.

[Odinn21]

These are just notes. I made my main point far before.
I doubt if Sam Jones' peak or prime would crack into the top 70 or 80 if we labelled as such, and since his longevity isn't particularly good, I don't see why would he make the top 50 in the top 100 ever project. If the sheer quality can not justify the rank on the list, then it's probably down to winning bias.
It's clear that you don't like me saying winning bias but you didn't say anything to invalidate the bias. What you said was he was great when he was winning. And considering he wasn't in a situation that he couldn't win, so, the bias is still there.

You're free to use that phrase all you wish to, it really makes no difference to me at all. Its not like I take it personally or something. I don't worry that much about anyone else's opinions tbh. We all state our picks, give our rationales and see where the pieces fall. What I'm saying is we all value winning differently. Your view seems to be that using it as a primary criteria = winning bias. Which is your call to make here. I value it because I think the qualities which work towards playing winning bb are the most valuable. So it is what it is. Its far from the only criteria I value though. imo Jones proved himself as a high level scorer and has good size and also finished top 10 in mvp voting multiple times. I think his longevity is respectable, so given all of that I think 50 is about right for him.

Sometimes I might get too involved in talking these things because I'm an overthinker over the things I have utmost interest. I might also forget that not everyone is invested and critical of their train of thought at the same time as much as me. And there are instances those two mights would overlap.
If I came across too strong or too long or both, my apologies. Cheers for reminding the light tone.