RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #54 (Dave Cowens)

[Cavsfansince84]

Curious what you mean here. Impact metrics are a beyond the boxscore measure and Lanier shows at least solidly in a variety of approaches (WoWY, Trex's or my own attempts - see previous projects) whilst Cowens' WoWY is disappointing pedestrian. A very, very noisy measure to be sure but one pointing entirely in the wrong direction for a Cowens over Lanier because "non-boxscore".

I think a full boxscore would have captured a lot Russell's value if you also price in intimidation/deterrence with with high volume, high IQ shot-blockers.

I was using metrics in a broad sense here. Obviously not all metrics are created in the same fashion just as no one metric is going to tell the full story about a player either. Just as no metric/stat I think can fully capture certain intangibles that players possess.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #21:

Adrian Dantley - 2 (Joao Saraiva, Odinn21)
Paul Arizin - 1 (Dutchball97)
Bob Lanier - 1 (sansterre)
Dave Cowens - 1 (Cavsfansince84)
Robert Parish - 1 (trex_8063)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)


About 28 hours left for this thread.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Hal14]

1. Bob Cousy
2. Nate Thurmond
3. Dave Cowens

Bob Cousy - Very underrated on this board. When you look at the players from his era, Mikan and Pettit were better than Cousy. But Cousy has a strong argument for being better than any other player from his era. You could argue that Cousy was better than Schayes and Schayes got voted in a long time ago in the no. 41 spot.

Cousy - 13x all star, 10x all NBA 1st team, 1 MVP, 6x NBA title
Schayes - 12x all star, 6x all NBA 1st team, 0 MVP, 1x NBA title

Not to mention the impact Cousy had on the game and his legacy. We simply had never before seen a guy who could make the kind of passes that Cousy could. It's like he had eyes in the back of his head - able to see 2 steps ahead of the opposition, able to anticipate where his teammates would be, hit teammates perfectly in stride for transition layups. Some of the plays he made - you might watch them today in 2021 and think they are routine plays - but a) many of the plays he made were truly outstanding and not routine at all and b) He was so far ahead of his time - to make the types of plays he did back in the 50s was pretty amazing. Keep in mind back then there was much more strict rules in regards to dribbling. The way players dribble the ball in today's game - they would get called for a carry, palming or travel pretty much every time down the floor. Cousy was called the hardwood Houdini for a reason. And it's not like he was all flash and no substance (like Maravich, Jason Williams, etc.), Cousy was all about winning. That's all he cared about - winning. Scoring the basketball, making great passes to teammates to get them baskets. Hell, he was even a good rebounder for his size. He did whatever it takes to win. He became the player that all point guards who would come later on would model their games after.

Not for another 2 decades when Frazier came along would we see a player as good as Cousy at both scoring and setting up teammates for scores. Frazier was obviously a better defender, but he also had the advantage of coming along decades later, when more players were lifting weights, rules weren't as strict on palming/carrying/traveling, the ball was easier to shoot and easier to dribble than the one Cousy played with, etc. Frazier was voted in at the no. 30 spot in this poll. Is he really 23 spots better than Cousy? No way.

Watch on YouTube

Nate Thurmond - right in that same tier with Reed, Gilmore and Ewing. I see those four centers as pretty debatable. Ewing, Gilmore and Reed all got voted in already - it's Thurmond's time now. Thurmond has a strong case for being better than all 3 of them (probably the best defender of the group, but Gilmore has the longevity and ABA Finals MVP, Reed has 2 Finals MVPs so I've got Thurmond just barely ranked behind those other guys).

Article here:
https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

Excerpt:
Both Abdul-Jabbar and Chamberlain have gone on record saying they felt Thurmond was their toughest adversary. “He plays me better than anybody ever has,” Abdul-Jabbar told Basketball Digest when he was in his prime. “He’s tall, has real long arms, and most of all he’s agile and strong.” In an article in Sport, Abdul-Jabbar also said, “When I score on Nate, I know I’ve done something. He sweats and he wants you to sweat, too.”

"Some basketball observers have suggested that the 6-11 Thurmond provided the best mix of offense and defense in basketball history. Many say that his defense was better than Chamberlain’s, and that his offense was better than Bill Russell’s. With quickness and long hands, a smooth outside shooting touch, tenacious rebounding, classic shot blocking ability, and a total team attitude, Thurmond offered a perfectly balanced package."

Thurmond is one of the most underrated players of all time and is top 50, no question in my mind.

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/warriors/defensive-dominator-thurmond-one-nbas-most-underrated-all-time

Thurmond went against Wilt, Russell, Chamberlain, Kareem, Unseld, Bellamy, Beaty, Cowens, Reed - all in their prime. Yet he still managed:

-7 all star games in 14 seasons

-2 times all defensive 1st team, 3 times all defensive 2nd team...despite the fact that all defense awards didn't exist until his 6th season! Clearly one of the best defensive players of all time and one of the best rebounders of all time

-Did not make a 1st or 2nd team all NBA (obviously those usually went to Wilt/Kareem/Russell) but there's very little question he would have made quite a few all NBA 3rd team selections if it existed back when he played

-Finished 2nd in MVP voting in 66-67, finishing ahead of Russell, Robertson and Barry - Thurmond finished no. 2 behind Wilt who was no. 1. Finished 11th in 69-70, 8th in 70-7, 8th in 71-72, 9th in 72-73 and 8th in 73-74

-Helped his team to NBA Finals in 67, where they lost to arguably the greatest team of all time, the 67 Sixers. That series Thurmond averaged 14 PPG and 26.7 RPG while playing 47 MPG, going head to head vs Wilt. Thurmond's Warriors fell in 6 games to Wilt's Sixers. Let's compare that to the Eastern Division Finals - Russell (while also going against Wilt) averaged less PPG (11) and less RPG (23) than Thurmond, and Russell's Celtics lost in 5 games to Wilt's Sixers. How did Wilt do in each series? His numbers. were better in the Eastern Division Finals, going against Russell than they were in the NBA finals vs Thurmond. Wilt went from 21 PPG, 32 RPG and 10 APG vs Russell down to 17 PPG, 28 RPG and 6 APG vs Thurmond.

[Owly]

Curious what you mean here. Impact metrics are a beyond the boxscore measure and Lanier shows at least solidly in a variety of approaches (WoWY, Trex's or my own attempts - see previous projects) whilst Cowens' WoWY is disappointing pedestrian. A very, very noisy measure to be sure but one pointing entirely in the wrong direction for a Cowens over Lanier because "non-boxscore".

I think a full boxscore would have captured a lot Russell's value if you also price in intimidation/deterrence with with high volume, high IQ shot-blockers.

I was using metrics in a broad sense here. Obviously not all metrics are created in the same fashion just as no one metric is going to tell the full story about a player either. Just as no metric/stat I think can fully capture certain intangibles that players possess.

...
Obviously your criteria is your own ... but I'd've felt more comfortable if the response was, "I was talking boxscore metrics, WoWY is super noisy though" (and I get the idea of Cowens as a beyond the boxscore guy - otoh as much as about anyone in the near-full-boxscore era).

Because if you're weighing on stuff that isn't showing in impact on the points margin (i.e. the idea of "impact stats") or the boxscore (which you'd hope impacts the team's points margin) ... to me at least ... what (use) is it? As before I get impact measures aren't perfect, especially WoWY (but the stuff that's missing in the boxscore does show in impact measures for Duncan/Russell [though Duncan looks pretty great boxscore, and the most common version of Russell's with/without conveniently chops out '57, even so both have clear in-season evidence of high impact]). That's just me though.

[Cavsfansince84]

...
Obviously your criteria is your own ... but I'd've felt more comfortable if the response was, "I was talking boxscore metrics, WoWY is super noisy though" (and I get the idea of Cowens as a beyond the boxscore guy - otoh as much as about anyone in the near-full-boxscore era).

Because if you're weighing on stuff that isn't showing in impact on the points margin (i.e. the idea of "impact stats") or the boxscore (which you'd hope impacts the team's points margin) ... to me at least ... what (use) is it? As before I get impact measures aren't perfect, especially WoWY (but the stuff that's missing in the boxscore does show in impact measures for Duncan/Russell [though Duncan looks pretty great boxscore, and the most common version of Russell's with/without conveniently chops out '57, even so both have clear in-season evidence of high impact]). That's just me though.

I didn't say anything about discarding metrics. I use them to gauge players impact. I have my own criteria which I weigh and definitely use stats, metrics and other things. I think sometimes people take one thing someone said in reply to someone else and don't really look at the context of what they were specifically replying to. I use stats, accolades, prime, peak, playoffs and video on top of everything else I've learned by virtue of following the league for 37 years.

[Owly]

...
Obviously your criteria is your own ... but I'd've felt more comfortable if the response was, "I was talking boxscore metrics, WoWY is super noisy though" (and I get the idea of Cowens as a beyond the boxscore guy - otoh as much as about anyone in the near-full-boxscore era).

Because if you're weighing on stuff that isn't showing in impact on the points margin (i.e. the idea of "impact stats") or the boxscore (which you'd hope impacts the team's points margin) ... to me at least ... what (use) is it? As before I get impact measures aren't perfect, especially WoWY (but the stuff that's missing in the boxscore does show in impact measures for Duncan/Russell [though Duncan looks pretty great boxscore, and the most common version of Russell's with/without conveniently chops out '57, even so both have clear in-season evidence of high impact]). That's just me though.

I didn't say anything about discarding metrics...

To be clear, neither did I.

[Cavsfansince84]

...
Obviously your criteria is your own ... but I'd've felt more comfortable if the response was, "I was talking boxscore metrics, WoWY is super noisy though" (and I get the idea of Cowens as a beyond the boxscore guy - otoh as much as about anyone in the near-full-boxscore era).

Because if you're weighing on stuff that isn't showing in impact on the points margin (i.e. the idea of "impact stats") or the boxscore (which you'd hope impacts the team's points margin) ... to me at least ... what (use) is it? As before I get impact measures aren't perfect, especially WoWY (but the stuff that's missing in the boxscore does show in impact measures for Duncan/Russell [though Duncan looks pretty great boxscore, and the most common version of Russell's with/without conveniently chops out '57, even so both have clear in-season evidence of high impact]). That's just me though.

I didn't say anything about discarding metrics...

To be clear, neither did I.

I think I tend to give more leeway on metrics where guys are clearly recognized as being difference makers on defense, as well as routinely finishing highly in mvp voting and playing on teams that consistently win or more so win titles. Plus playoff performance. I'm very close to having Lanier on my ballot already. Cousy is another I am conflicted on but I think deserves recognition soon.

[Vladimir777]

I don't particularly like Allen Iverson (in fact, I actively disliked him for most of my life, including growing up), but I'm still amazed no one has voted for him thus far at all just based on his body of work. Such is life, I suppose.

[trex_8063]

I don't particularly like Allen Iverson (in fact, I actively disliked him for most of my life, including growing up), but I'm still amazed no one has voted for him thus far at all just based on his body of work. Such is life, I suppose.

I actually did begin my vote post with Allen Iverson as my 3rd pick, but on a last-second whim changed it to AD. Definitely as soon as one of my current picks is off the table, I'm fairly sure AI is the next one I'll support.

I too sort of actively disliked him......and yet I always seem to be the one defending him here.
It's as ccameron alluded to I think in the last thread: he's definitely a bit overrated by much of the mainstream, but the "corrected" outlook about him here feels like a bit of a recoil reaction [i.e. going a pinch too far in the other direction].

Anyway, I agree his body of work is worth looking at by this stage.

[Odinn21]

Mutombo - More or less agree: not an offensive liability [or at least not a BIG one], and arguably better defensively than Big Ben [personally I think he was a little better during respective peak/primes]. And solid longevity besides. Because defense is so hard to valuate numerically, I could see a wide "appropriate" range for Mutombo: as high as 50(ish), as low as maybe 75(ish). Really can't see going lower than that [his longevity is just too good].

Mourning - again more or less agree. Very similar/near guys like Reed or McHale in terms of peak. Somewhat short prime [total career length a pinch on the short side, too]. One might say "but Reed did too, and he went in at #45", to which I'll reply: I didn't vote for Reed; imo, he went WAAY too early.
Interestingly, I think he's a little overrated offensively because he frequently flirted with that 20 ppg benchmark [going as high as 23.2 ppg once]. But he was REALLY turnover-prone (like Dwight Howard level) while generally having only "good" [as opposed to "elite"] shooting efficiency, a career assist-rate of <2 ast/100 possessions, and a merely decent OREB%.

Unseld - idk. He's another guy sort of like Mutombo with a potentially wide range of "appropriate" placement. He saw too much success follow him his entire career, WOWY studies look too good, and too well-thought of by his peers to not acknowledge that he was at least somewhat better than his boxscore. Some of it is visible on tape, too [e.g. screens, outlet passing, sound defensive positioning].

Cowens - Another toughy. I don't think the box is fully capturing his defensive value. Love his energy, his shooting range helps space things [though tbh I think he shot a little too often]. Solid big-man turnover economy based on '78-'83. Incidentally, his rate metrics do take a small jump upward in '78 relative to '77, which makes one wonder if it's because it's the first year with turnovers in the mix [though '77 was also a year with missed games]. '78 is arguably his best all-around statistical season when you factor in mpg.
Longevity is a bit lacking [which hurts things for him as far as I'm concerned]. It's also a pinch troubling [or at least puzzling] that for all the talk of intangible value, WOWY studies are fairly pedestrian.

Anyway, all of these four hover in the same vicinity (55-65 range) for me [and all of them above Willis Reed for me, too, btw].


Regarding Parish and Lanier, well......see my above post.

Yeah, Reed got in there way too early. 4 and a half season of prime play only with no proper longevity. I'm higher than most on his peak but that was still way too early.

Well, I'm more of a peak/prime kind of guy. You're a bit more longevity oriented guy compared to me and I definitely see your case about Parish and Lanier. Especially Parish. The dude's longevity was on par with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Tim Duncan. And you're way bigger on longevity than me, so I'm not surprised with your picks or reasoning.

If you can give a glimpse of what your ranking would be for those names, that'd also be appreciated. Right now, I have Mourning as the clear #1 of that lot but that group feels a bit hazy. This is what I have right now (with big doubts after Mourning);
1. Mourning
2. Mutombo
3. Parish
4. Lanier
5. Cowens/Unseld
6. Cowens/Unseld

I'll be frank, I might have a negative winning-bias towards Lanier. He was a very good playoff performer, very efficient. But nothing particularly stands out to me. He doesn't get that boost Mutombo gets as a wow factor.
I know my rankings for candidates on other positions. But C position still feels too hazy.

BTW, Moncrief is another name that's slipping from us. Might throw McAdoo in there. These two are also in the crowded 55-70 range.

[penbeast0]

Mutombo - More or less agree: not an offensive liability [or at least not a BIG one], and arguably better defensively than Big Ben [personally I think he was a little better during respective peak/primes]. And solid longevity besides. Because defense is so hard to valuate numerically, I could see a wide "appropriate" range for Mutombo: as high as 50(ish), as low as maybe 75(ish). Really can't see going lower than that [his longevity is just too good].

Mourning - again more or less agree. Very similar/near guys like Reed or McHale in terms of peak. Somewhat short prime [total career length a pinch on the short side, too]. One might say "but Reed did too, and he went in at #45", to which I'll reply: I didn't vote for Reed; imo, he went WAAY too early.
Interestingly, I think he's a little overrated offensively because he frequently flirted with that 20 ppg benchmark [going as high as 23.2 ppg once]. But he was REALLY turnover-prone (like Dwight Howard level) while generally having only "good" [as opposed to "elite"] shooting efficiency, a career assist-rate of <2 ast/100 possessions, and a merely decent OREB%.

Unseld - idk. He's another guy sort of like Mutombo with a potentially wide range of "appropriate" placement. He saw too much success follow him his entire career, WOWY studies look too good, and too well-thought of by his peers to not acknowledge that he was at least somewhat better than his boxscore. Some of it is visible on tape, too [e.g. screens, outlet passing, sound defensive positioning].

Cowens - Another toughy. I don't think the box is fully capturing his defensive value. Love his energy, his shooting range helps space things [though tbh I think he shot a little too often]. Solid big-man turnover economy based on '78-'83. Incidentally, his rate metrics do take a small jump upward in '78 relative to '77, which makes one wonder if it's because it's the first year with turnovers in the mix [though '77 was also a year with missed games]. '78 is arguably his best all-around statistical season when you factor in mpg.
Longevity is a bit lacking [which hurts things for him as far as I'm concerned]. It's also a pinch troubling [or at least puzzling] that for all the talk of intangible value, WOWY studies are fairly pedestrian.

Anyway, all of these four hover in the same vicinity (55-65 range) for me [and all of them above Willis Reed for me, too, btw].


Regarding Parish and Lanier, well......see my above post.

Yeah, Reed got in there way too early. 4 and a half season of prime play only with no proper longevity. I'm higher than most on his peak but that was still way too early.

Well, I'm more of a peak/prime kind of guy. You're a bit more longevity oriented guy compared to me and I definitely see your case about Parish and Lanier. Especially Parish. The dude's longevity was on par with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Tim Duncan. And you're way bigger on longevity than me, so I'm not surprised with your picks or reasoning.

If you can give a glimpse of what your ranking would be for those names, that'd also be appreciated. Right now, I have Mourning as the clear #1 of that lot but that group feels a bit hazy. This is what I have right now (with big doubts after Mourning);
1. Mourning
2. Mutombo
3. Parish
4. Lanier
5. Cowens/Unseld
6. Cowens/Unseld

I'll be frank, I might have a negative winning-bias towards Lanier. He was a very good playoff performer, very efficient. But nothing particularly stands out to me. He doesn't get that boost Mutombo gets as a wow factor.
I know my rankings for candidates on other positions. But C position still feels too hazy.

BTW, Moncrief is another name that's slipping from us. Might throw McAdoo in there. These two are also in the crowded 55-70 range.

The problem with Zo is sort of like the Moses Malone issue; is the scoring that valuable when the passing is that bad? His competitive fire was great but offensively, his scoring greatly overrates his performance (whereas with Cowens and particularly Unseld, their scoring underrates and possibly for Wes greatly underrates their contribution to the team offense).

[Odinn21]

The problem with Zo is sort of like the Moses Malone issue; is the scoring that valuable when the passing is that bad? His competitive fire was great but offensively, his scoring greatly overrates his performance (whereas with Cowens and particularly Unseld, their scoring underrates and possibly for Wes greatly underrates their contribution to the team offense).

I'm not critical of scoring volumes as some of you guys. Having a player that could give a team 20+ points per night is always valuable.
Having a player that could give 20+ per night with the impact we're asking for, that's actually a luxury.
Remember Andre Iguodala in Philly? It was obvious that he was utilized inefficiently but the team was desperate for scoring volume and you couldn't blame it on Iggy for being such a bad impact 20 ppg player.

I agree that Unseld's contribution to the team's offense is understated in box score numbers and Unseld was a good offensive piece to have.
On the other side, Unseld played with Earl Monroe (who I'd rate as a pretty positive impact scorer) in the first half of his career. He also had Honeycomb as his teammate. Then it was Elvin Hayes (inefficient but insanly high motor scorer) and Bob Dandridge (basically budget Scottie Pippen).

This the Draymond Green dilemma. If your team doesn't have enough scoring, then Unseld type of players become significantly less valuable. They are great complementary pieces but not that great center pieces. They are great ceiling raisers but they are not great floor raisers.
Edit; Saying these for offense of course.

BTW, Alonzo Mourning was an OK 20+ ppg scorer though. Not a particularly great one or not a particularly awful one. I'm not sure if Unseld's passing and facilitating abilities would make up for 15+ ppg gap (probably more than 20 per 100 gap) even if we are to agree that Mourning's lack of good passing skills took away too much from his team's offense.

I definitely see Unseld's value as ceiling raiser, otherwise I wouldn't even have him in there and wouldn't be confused about his placement. The placement part is a bit too hazy right now.

[Vladimir777]

I don't particularly like Allen Iverson (in fact, I actively disliked him for most of my life, including growing up), but I'm still amazed no one has voted for him thus far at all just based on his body of work. Such is life, I suppose.

I actually did begin my vote post with Allen Iverson as my 3rd pick, but on a last-second whim changed it to AD. Definitely as soon as one of my current picks is off the table, I'm fairly sure AI is the next one I'll support.

I too sort of actively disliked him......and yet I always seem to be the one defending him here.
It's as ccameron alluded to I think in the last thread: he's definitely a bit overrated by much of the mainstream, but the "corrected" outlook about him here feels like a bit of a recoil reaction [i.e. going a pinch too far in the other direction].

Anyway, I agree his body of work is worth looking at by this stage.

Good call, and yes, I certainly agree with you that there is a bit of a recoil reaction, as you put it, that swings far in the other direction given AI's popular support in the mainstream world. I can certainly understand the recoil reaction, because honestly, I tend to have it sometimes with people who get overhyped on this board.

[Dutchball97]

Yeah so I heavily pushed for Reed and I don't think he was voted in early at all. I'll keep being surprised at the tendency for some people to prioritize the qualifying round over the final round. George Gervin is still the worst case in the project to me as he pretty much did nothing in the play-offs yet he gets in in the 30s? 1 prime year of a Reed or Kawhi is worth more to a franchise than a career of Gervin and 5 years of a prime like that should be a nobrainer over say a Paul Pierce or Pau Gasol who were never among the best players in the league as well imo.

[Odinn21]

I'll keep being surprised at the tendency for some people to prioritize the qualifying round over the final round.

And maybe that is also a matter of team quality?..
Gervin never got to play a team like Holzman's Knicks with Frazier, DeBusschere, Dick Barnett, Bill Bradley and Cazzie Russell (and Earl Monroe at some point).
Similar with the Spurs, the Raptors and the Clippers with Leonard.

Surely, Reed and Leonard were the primary reasons why those teams were so good. But players like Gervin or Pierce spent their entire primes (or majority of their primes) as the sole reasons why their teams were any good.

With the way you put it, you take the help Reed and Leonard got for granted, but it is not granted. Not for me at least.

[Dutchball97]

I'll keep being surprised at the tendency for some people to prioritize the qualifying round over the final round.

And maybe that is also a matter of team quality?..
Gervin never got to play a team like Holzman's Knicks with Frazier, DeBusschere, Dick Barnett, Bill Bradley and Cazzie Russell (and Earl Monroe at some point).
Similar with the Spurs, the Raptors and the Clippers with Leonard.

Surely, Reed and Leonard were the primary reasons why those teams were so good. But players like Gervin or Pierce spent their entire primes (or majority of their primes) as the sole reasons why their teams were any good.

With the way you put it, you take the help Reed and Leonard got for granted, but it is not granted. Not for me at least.

The thing for me is that you simply need a strong team to win a title but without a player like Reed or Kawhi they wouldn't get over the hump. It's hard to know what would've happened under different circumstances. Would Reed and Kawhi have performed better than Gervin with middle of the pack teammates? Would Gervin have been able to lead a strong team to a title? The answer to both those questions I simply don't know and I don't want to make assumptions on them when considering players for the top 100 list.

What we do know is that Kawhi and Reed performed exceptionally well under good circumstances, while Gervin did well with his so-so teammates but I can't help but think you'd want to see a little more play-off series going your way with one of the greatest players ever on your team. It's not all about team success though. My gripe with Gervin is that he simply doesn't have a lot of high level play-off performances in the NBA. When first coming over to the NBA from the ABA in 77 he didn't have a good start but plenty of ABA stars started rough due to having to get used to new rules so it's whatever. In 78 he probably was the best player in the first round series against the Bullets but they lost to the higher ranked team in 6 games. 79 was by far his best play-off run imo, beat the #3 Sixers in 7 and then lost to the #1 seed Bullets in 7 as well. He did get help from Silas and Kenon both averaging around 20 ppg in the play-offs as well but even then still solid considering the teams he was up against. In 1980 you get a disappointing first round exit against the #4 seed Rockets and that's where Gervin's good performances in the play-offs end. From 81 onward he never performed at an elite level in the play-offs again.

When I look at that I'm simply more impressed by what Reed and Kawhi did in their circumstances than what Gervin did under his circumstances.

[sansterre]

I'll keep being surprised at the tendency for some people to prioritize the qualifying round over the final round.

And maybe that is also a matter of team quality?..
Gervin never got to play a team like Holzman's Knicks with Frazier, DeBusschere, Dick Barnett, Bill Bradley and Cazzie Russell (and Earl Monroe at some point).
Similar with the Spurs, the Raptors and the Clippers with Leonard.

Surely, Reed and Leonard were the primary reasons why those teams were so good. But players like Gervin or Pierce spent their entire primes (or majority of their primes) as the sole reasons why their teams were any good.

With the way you put it, you take the help Reed and Leonard got for granted, but it is not granted. Not for me at least.

The thing for me is that you simply need a strong team to win a title but without a player like Reed or Kawhi they wouldn't get over the hump. It's hard to know what would've happened under different circumstances. Would Reed and Kawhi have performed better than Gervin with middle of the pack teammates? Would Gervin have been able to lead a strong team to a title? The answer to both those questions I simply don't know and I don't want to make assumptions on them when considering players for the top 100 list.

I think this is an extremely reasonable case. To say "Gervin would have done x with different teammates" is certainly hypothetical, and we don't want to overplay in that direction.

What we do know is that Kawhi and Reed performed exceptionally well under good circumstances, while Gervin did well with his so-so teammates but I can't help but think you'd want to see a little more play-off series going your way with one of the greatest players ever on your team. It's not all about team success though. My gripe with Gervin is that he simply doesn't have a lot of high level play-off performances in the NBA. When first coming over to the NBA from the ABA in 77 he didn't have a good start but plenty of ABA stars started rough due to having to get used to new rules so it's whatever. In 78 he probably was the best player in the first round series against the Bullets but they lost to the higher ranked team in 6 games. 79 was by far his best play-off run imo, beat the #3 Sixers in 7 and then lost to the #1 seed Bullets in 7 as well.

That said, I can't help but notice that you are phrasing your analysis in terms of team performance. You are referring to "Gervin's playoffs" but then defining this by team performance. Isn't this pretty problematic? Couldn't people in 1986 have looked at Jordan and said "his numbers are gaudy, but his playoff performances just haven't been that good?" That's not fair, but it feels what you're doing is looking for players you know were good on teams that played well in the playoffs. Which is fine, but it feels like it seriously bones anyone who played on bad teams. Gervin went from +4.0 OBPM in the regular season (peak) to +4.8 OBPM in the playoffs. OBPM is reasonably accurate; there is reason to think that Gervin was even better in the playoffs than in the regular season, at least offensively. Let me put the question like this: if there was a really good player who never had good supporting casts, by your reasoning how would you actually know that they were good? After all, they'd never go far in the playoffs.

He did get help from Silas and Kenon both averaging around 20 ppg in the play-offs as well but even then still solid considering the teams he was up against. In 1980 you get a disappointing first round exit against the #4 seed Rockets and that's where Gervin's good performances in the play-offs end. From 81 onward he never performed at an elite level in the play-offs again.

When I look at that I'm simply more impressed by what Reed and Kawhi did in their circumstances than what Gervin did under his circumstances.

[Odinn21]

The thing for me is that you simply need a strong team to win a title but without a player like Reed or Kawhi they wouldn't get over the hump. It's hard to know what would've happened under different circumstances. Would Reed and Kawhi have performed better than Gervin with middle of the pack teammates? Would Gervin have been able to lead a strong team to a title? The answer to both those questions I simply don't know and I don't want to make assumptions on them when considering players for the top 100 list.

What we do know is that Kawhi and Reed performed exceptionally well under good circumstances, while Gervin did well with his so-so teammates but I can't help but think you'd want to see a little more play-off series going your way with one of the greatest players ever on your team. It's not all about team success though. My gripe with Gervin is that he simply doesn't have a lot of high level play-off performances in the NBA. When first coming over to the NBA from the ABA in 77 he didn't have a good start but plenty of ABA stars started rough due to having to get used to new rules so it's whatever. In 78 he probably was the best player in the first round series against the Bullets but they lost to the higher ranked team in 6 games. 79 was by far his best play-off run imo, beat the #3 Sixers in 7 and then lost to the #1 seed Bullets in 7 as well. He did get help from Silas and Kenon both averaging around 20 ppg in the play-offs as well but even then still solid considering the teams he was up against. In 1980 you get a disappointing first round exit against the #4 seed Rockets and that's where Gervin's good performances in the play-offs end. From 81 onward he never performed at an elite level in the play-offs again.

When I look at that I'm simply more impressed by what Reed and Kawhi did in their circumstances than what Gervin did under his circumstances.

First, I want to clear out that I see what you’re saying. From my perspective you are almost naming the top 100 peaks ever and even though I’m still more of a peak/prime guy, I’m more longevity oriented than you.

Moving onto circumstances;
The randomness is there though. It’s inevitable.
If you as a team need so much (almost too much compared to the normal level) to capitalise on the higher chances of winning Reed and Leonard would bring, then in a random situation those chances maybe not that big.
Kawhi Leonard could be a part of Indiana Pacers and he probably wouldn’t reach this level of winning if it weren’t for the Spurs organization/Popovich. You wouldn’t be this impressed by his winning performances because there wouldn’t be this much of winning. His career trajectory could be far similar to Paul Pierce or George Gervin. Getting into the playoffs or making the 2nd round with solid performances would be the ultimate result for him.
Similar with Reed and Holzman. Holzman can very well be a top 5 coach ever and the Knicks were loaded. His career trajectory easily could be like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in the mid ‘70s or Wilt Chamberlain in the early ‘60s or Dikembe Mutombo in the ‘90s.

The non-winning situations/circumstances are far more common than the winning situations. That’s why I focus on randomness with the winning chances of a player would bring and for how long.
I get that you want to rely on what we saw instead of assumptions/hypotheticals. Personally, I don’t make assumptions but I consider different circumstances because the playing field isn’t levelled off for everybody.

[Dutchball97]

I mean I did say Gervin's performance in the 78 play-offs was impressive despite the first round exit and the 79 play-offs was impressive because the Spurs took two on paper stronger teams to 7 games, winning one and losing the other, and this was mostly on the back of Gervin's strong performance. 1980 was strong as well but only 3 games so I don't rate it too highly. He also has a couple of similar-ish ABA play-offs with good performances without the team success.

While it is entirely possible for Gervin to have been much better than Reed and Kawhi in a similar situation, his performances in the play-offs make me wary of Gervin's ability to lead a team all the way and with him declining in his late 20s already I'm not seeing a supposed longevity edge either. There is a reason why players like T-Mac and AD haven't been voted in yet either and despite both of them having peaked very high with the longevity to back it up, they did not elevate their teams to enough play-off success to warrant them getting in yet.

I'm not looking at this list as a who would be the best in any given situation and in a way you could blame me with winning bias but I simply think post-season success is a significant part of a player's legacy.

[Hal14]

I'd like to get some opinions on following players because it feels too close and too crowded;
Mutombo
Mourning
Cowens
Unseld
Parish
Lanier

Mutombo; To me he was like the ultimate Ben Wallace. Not an offensive liability, better longevity and prime duration. Also arguably better defensive force.
Mourning; Considerable prime duration for this stage even though the injury hurts his overall longevity but it's still not awful entirely. Also, probably only 2nd to Willis Reed in terms of peak among those names.
Cowens; He has everything (peak, prime, prime duration) but not great at anything particularly. His longevity isn't great BTW.
Unseld; I'd rate his peak after Reed and Mourning. Good prime duration, OK longevity. In terms of quality, similar to Mutombo but worse on defense and better on offense.
Parish; Not a particularly great peak but talk about longevity. His peak and prime quality are in the bottom half among these names but it's easily can be said that his longevity makes up far more than that against the other names.
Lanier; Similar to Cowens, good peak, prime quality and duration. Plus better longevity.

Thurmond was better than all of them IMO.

Article here:
https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

Excerpt:
Both Abdul-Jabbar and Chamberlain have gone on record saying they felt Thurmond was their toughest adversary. “He plays me better than anybody ever has,” Abdul-Jabbar told Basketball Digest when he was in his prime. “He’s tall, has real long arms, and most of all he’s agile and strong.” In an article in Sport, Abdul-Jabbar also said, “When I score on Nate, I know I’ve done something. He sweats and he wants you to sweat, too.”

"Some basketball observers have suggested that the 6-11 Thurmond provided the best mix of offense and defense in basketball history. Many say that his defense was better than Chamberlain’s, and that his offense was better than Bill Russell’s. With quickness and long hands, a smooth outside shooting touch, tenacious rebounding, classic shot blocking ability, and a total team attitude, Thurmond offered a perfectly balanced package."