RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 (Sam Jones)

[sansterre]

Well, I don't consider number of teams as an indicator. I tend to evaluate seasons as each. 1962 season had Russell, Chamberlain, Robertson, Baylor, West all in their prime or at their peak. Bob Pettit and Cliff Hagan were still in their respective primes. Then you can complete the top 10 with 3 of Bailey Howell, Hal Greer, Sam Jones, Richie Guerin, Tom Heinsohn, Walt Bellamy, again all of them in their respective primes. That's a pretty strong top 10 in a 9 team league.

I just keep coming back to the fact that I believe that Davis' peak is so much higher that it makes his limited seasons (and minutes) more valuable than Hayes. But implicit in that is the assumption that Davis is the better defender than Hayes. If they're comparable . . . I can see the argument for Hayes' career value being higher.

All this goes back to my initial argument about Davis' peak versus Hayes' better prime duration and way better durability (thus better overall longevity) and I just don't see Davis' better but fragile peak being enough.

Yeah, if you see Top 5 vs Top 5 (ie, the 5th best player from 1960 is, absenting other factors, just as great as the 5th best player from 1996, then you'd almost have to go Hayes here.

And I think favoring Hayes' longevity over Davis' fragile peak is completely reasonable, even if I came to a different conclusion.

[penbeast0]

I hadn't thought about the ironman v. fragility argument though I had taken longevity into account. Let me think a bit further though for the moment I will let my vote stand.

[Hal14]

I am not so sure if I'm too old school or the hype around Davis is too strong.

As for competition at his position, I just don't think that he has enough to be over Elvin Hayes for example.

Hayes had his own fair share of issues. He was a high motor but inefficient scorer.
We don't have RAPM for his time but I'd assume that he wouldn't make it to the top percentile. He probably would be in the top 5-10 percentile.
But that is also true for Anthony Davis. From 2013-14 to 2019-20, he was never in the top percentile. Aside from 2014-15 season (he was in the top 2 percentile), he barely made the top 10 percentile in single season RAPM numbers.
He was in the top 7-8 percentile with his consistency while spiking players got worse of course.
This is the data set I look at; http://nbashotcharts.com/rapm (Luck adjusted section)

Even if we'd rate Davis ahead of Hayes for peak, their overall prime quality are on the same level and as it is now, Hayes had the longer prime. Hayes had a prime lasted longer than a decade and this 2020-21 season is Davis' 9th season in the league. Hayes' overall longevity is also better.
Another thing is Hayes was one of the most durable players ever. In his 16 season career, he missed only 9 games.

This is what I see. I'd like to get a feedback on this.

I absolutely agree that for Davis to be ahead of Hayes we need to find that his peak was considerably better. So here's what I got.

I'm comparing Davis' '14-20 seasons (since he got pretty good pretty fast) and Hayes' 74-79 seasons (because that loosely looks like his peak, though I'd be happy to be corrected). Bonus, we have possession data through '74, so we can use per possession numbers.

Getting it out of the way, Hayes played 5.2 more minutes per game, and 15 more games a season. That's a real thing, and it means that Davis needs to be way, way better per possession to get the nod here. Regular season comparison incoming:

Scoring: Hayes averaged 24.1 PPX on -0.7% rTS vs. Davis averaging 35.5 PPX on +4% rTS
Rebounding: Hayes averaged 14.7 PPX, Davis averaged 14.9 PPX
Passing/Turnovers: Hayes averaged 6.9% Ast and 12.2% TO, while Davis averaged 11.9% Ast and 8.5% TO

So Davis was an excellent scorer if not ATG, while Hayes was pretty much average or below. They're comparable defensively, and Davis was the much better passer and better with the ball. And while defensive stats here get challenging (as we can both agree that box score defensive measures are imperfect) Davis sure as heck looks like the stronger defender.

All-in-one metrics are problematic, but WS/48 has Davis at 0.225 (Top 10 player range) while Hayes is 0.148 (All-star-ish). And BPM (big grain of salt) has Davis *way* out ahead, +6.7 to +1.9 BPM and 36 to 19.3 VORP.

In the playoffs the gap in scoring increases (up for Davis in PPX by 0.2 and in rTS% by +4.7 additional points).

I'll be the first to admit that these stats may be underrating Hayes. But he reads to me, basically, like an average scorer (though an above average scorer for a big) who rebounded well and wasn't particularly good with the ball. All-star level? Sure. Why not. But Davis reads to me as pretty consistently being a Top 10 player in the league. From a CORP point of view, I feel like Davis' peak may be worth twice as much per season as Hayes. And while Hayes has way more seasons, I think Davis' high end is so much higher that it's worth it.

But reasonable minds could differ here.

You've got to factor in the following:

1) Hayes playing in era with more possessions + playing more mins per game AND playing more games per season = he is more likely to be fatigued which accounts for his lower efficiency...whereas Davis, playing in era with less possessions + playing less mins per game and less games per season = he's less fatigued which accounts for his higher efficiency and higher numbers across the board..simply looking at per 100 possession numbers for who played 40 years apart is a slippery slope - the modern player has an unfair advantage
2) Hayes also played in a more physical era - dudes were literally getting the you know what beat out of them, there was less spacing, the paint (where Hayes operated) was more clogged up which also accounts for lower efficiency...all of thatw as the opposite for Davis, less physical era, so easier for him to have higher efficiency
3) No 3 point shot for most of Hayes' career (and all of his prime) so to make this an apples to apples comparison if you're looking it points per possession you'd have take all of the 3 point shots that Davis made and count them all as 2-pointers and then calculate his points. per possession.
4) The hoop/rim was different back in the 70s and so was the ball. The ball was not as favorable to dribble and shoot back then and the hoop/rim it was harder to get the ball to go in back then. The sneakers in modern era, they're more favorable, they allow you to run faster and jump higher. All of this helps Davis have better efficiency and accounts for Hayes' lower efficiency.
5) Not to mention Hayes was relied upon to carry more of his team's offensive load - teams geared up and game planned for stopping him, he saw more double teams, and it's more taxing, causes more fatigue when you have to carry the load, the shots you have to take have a higher degree of difficulty. Davis has had other guys who can score (LeBron, Cousins, etc.) so hasn't had to carry the load as much which helps his efficiency.
6) Hayes played in era not only with more defensive physicality but overall more defensive pressure, more defensive intensity and overall strategy/philosophy of the game which has shifted in modern era to be less defense focused and more of an offensive focused game with the way players are coached in modern era, rules changes, etc. and also why it might seem like Davis is a better defender because the perception is he is a top 5 defender today but is that really a great accomplishment if it's the worst era in league history for defense?

The durability factor is worth digging into further. Davis even during his 3 peak seasons (16-17, 17-18, 19-20) still missed 7, 7 and 9 games. If you look at his non-peak seasons, he's missing closer to 20 games per season. And this is is in an era with less physicality, more days off between games, star players playing less mins per game and the advantage of better weight training, better strength and conditioning programs, better supplements, better nutrition, better equipment, better facilities, etc. So it's not a reach to say that if Davis was playing in the 70s he would be a guy who at his peak would be missing 10-15 games a year and during non-peak seasons would be missing 30-40 games a year. You miss 30-40 games, you aren't even being remotely considered for an all NBA team. So we're looking at a player in Davis who is only a 3 time all NBA selection. Even as it stands today, Davis is only a 4 time all NBA selection. Does he really belong in the conversation for this poll? Cousy is a 12 time all NBA player and Hayes is a 6 time all NBA player.

[sansterre]

I am not so sure if I'm too old school or the hype around Davis is too strong.

As for competition at his position, I just don't think that he has enough to be over Elvin Hayes for example.

Hayes had his own fair share of issues. He was a high motor but inefficient scorer.
We don't have RAPM for his time but I'd assume that he wouldn't make it to the top percentile. He probably would be in the top 5-10 percentile.
But that is also true for Anthony Davis. From 2013-14 to 2019-20, he was never in the top percentile. Aside from 2014-15 season (he was in the top 2 percentile), he barely made the top 10 percentile in single season RAPM numbers.
He was in the top 7-8 percentile with his consistency while spiking players got worse of course.
This is the data set I look at; http://nbashotcharts.com/rapm (Luck adjusted section)

Even if we'd rate Davis ahead of Hayes for peak, their overall prime quality are on the same level and as it is now, Hayes had the longer prime. Hayes had a prime lasted longer than a decade and this 2020-21 season is Davis' 9th season in the league. Hayes' overall longevity is also better.
Another thing is Hayes was one of the most durable players ever. In his 16 season career, he missed only 9 games.

This is what I see. I'd like to get a feedback on this.

I absolutely agree that for Davis to be ahead of Hayes we need to find that his peak was considerably better. So here's what I got.

I'm comparing Davis' '14-20 seasons (since he got pretty good pretty fast) and Hayes' 74-79 seasons (because that loosely looks like his peak, though I'd be happy to be corrected). Bonus, we have possession data through '74, so we can use per possession numbers.

Getting it out of the way, Hayes played 5.2 more minutes per game, and 15 more games a season. That's a real thing, and it means that Davis needs to be way, way better per possession to get the nod here. Regular season comparison incoming:

Scoring: Hayes averaged 24.1 PPX on -0.7% rTS vs. Davis averaging 35.5 PPX on +4% rTS
Rebounding: Hayes averaged 14.7 PPX, Davis averaged 14.9 PPX
Passing/Turnovers: Hayes averaged 6.9% Ast and 12.2% TO, while Davis averaged 11.9% Ast and 8.5% TO

So Davis was an excellent scorer if not ATG, while Hayes was pretty much average or below. They're comparable defensively, and Davis was the much better passer and better with the ball. And while defensive stats here get challenging (as we can both agree that box score defensive measures are imperfect) Davis sure as heck looks like the stronger defender.

All-in-one metrics are problematic, but WS/48 has Davis at 0.225 (Top 10 player range) while Hayes is 0.148 (All-star-ish). And BPM (big grain of salt) has Davis *way* out ahead, +6.7 to +1.9 BPM and 36 to 19.3 VORP.

In the playoffs the gap in scoring increases (up for Davis in PPX by 0.2 and in rTS% by +4.7 additional points).

I'll be the first to admit that these stats may be underrating Hayes. But he reads to me, basically, like an average scorer (though an above average scorer for a big) who rebounded well and wasn't particularly good with the ball. All-star level? Sure. Why not. But Davis reads to me as pretty consistently being a Top 10 player in the league. From a CORP point of view, I feel like Davis' peak may be worth twice as much per season as Hayes. And while Hayes has way more seasons, I think Davis' high end is so much higher that it's worth it.

But reasonable minds could differ here.

You've got to factor in the following:

1) Hayes playing in era with more possessions + playing more mins per game AND playing more games per season = he is more likely to be fatigued which accounts for his lower efficiency...whereas Davis, playing in era with less possessions + playing less mins per game and less games per season = he's less fatigued which accounts for his higher efficiency and higher numbers across the board..simply looking at per 100 possession numbers for who played 40 years apart is a slippery slope - the modern player has an unfair advantage
2) Hayes also played in a more physical era - dudes were literally getting the you know what beat out of them, there was less spacing, the paint (where Hayes operated) was more clogged up which also accounts for lower efficiency...all of thatw as the opposite for Davis, less physical era, so easier for him to have higher efficiency
3) No 3 point shot for most of Hayes' career (and all of his prime) so to make this an apples to apples comparison if you're looking it points per possession you'd have take all of the 3 point shots that Davis made and count them all as 2-pointers and then calculate his points. per possession.
4) The hoop/rim was different back in the 70s and so was the ball. The ball was not as favorable to dribble and shoot back then and the hoop/rim it was harder to get the ball to go in back then. The sneakers in modern era, they're more favorable, they allow you to run faster and jump higher. All of this helps Davis have better efficiency and accounts for Hayes' lower efficiency.
5) Not to mention Hayes was relied upon to carry more of his team's offensive load - teams geared up and game planned for stopping him, he saw more double teams, and it's more taxing, causes more fatigue when you have to carry the load, the shots you have to take have a higher degree of difficulty. Davis has had other guys who can score (LeBron, Cousins, etc.) so hasn't had to carry the load as much which helps his efficiency.

The durability factor is worth digging into further. Davis even during his 3 peak seasons (16-17, 17-18, 19-20) still missed 7, 7 and 9 games. If you look at his non-peak seasons, he's missing closer to 20 games per season. And this is is in an era with less physicality, more days off between games, star players playing less mins per game and the advantage of better weight training, better strength and conditioning programs, better supplements, better nutrition, better equipment, better facilities, etc. So it's not a reach to say that if Davis was playing in the 70s he would be a guy who at his peak would be missing 10-15 games a year and during non-peak seasons would be missing 30-40 games a year. You miss 30-40 games, you aren't even being remotely considered for an all NBA team. So we're looking at a player in Davis who is only a 3 time all NBA selection. Even as it stands today, Davis is only a 4 time all NBA selection. Does he really belong in the conversation for this poll? Cousy is a 12 time all NBA player and Hayes is a 6 time all NBA player.

Remember, I'm not comparing Davis' TS% to Hayes' TS%. I'm comparing Davis' shooting to his league average, and Hayes to *his* league average. So Davis is being compared to a league with lower pace and three pointers and spacing, while Hayes is being compared to a league with higher pace, more physical play and less spacing. I agree inasmuch as the modern game's outliers in scoring efficiency stand out more than their 70s counterparts (seasons at the efficiency of Curry, Durant or James simply never happened in the 70s) so I think taking the scoring difference with a grain of salt is appropriate. But we're comparing them to their era. Hayes' efficiency was below average, not compared to Davis, but compared to the average scorer of his time.

Given that Davis was clearly the higher usage player, I don't know that the "teams were gearing up to stop Hayes" holds water. And perhaps you could argue that Hayes had worse offensive teammates, but Davis played with the Pelicans so . . . (then again, Hayes' best teams were defensive, not offensive, so perhaps there's something to it).

If nothing else I'm learning a lot about Hayes from these conversations so I appreciate that.

[DQuinn1575]

I only grabbed Hayes' best years by WS/48; as I said, I don't represent that it's his true peak or anything. I don't know how it would matter too much.

Hayes peaked around the mid '70s. I'd probably have 1974-75 as his single best season.

Elvin Hayes led the league in scoring once and rebounding twice.
He averaged over 28 ppg and 16 rebounds a game his first 3 years.
And you arent including that in his peak.
He is taking a 15 win expansion team to 37 wins his first year, while scoring like crazy. Of course he wasnt efficient, the team was awful.
AD at his peak was/is a better player, but Hayes was real good for a real long time.
Hayes wasnt much of a passer, but AD's assist numbers arent a lot better.
Davis never played more than 75 games in a season - Hayes led the league in minutes played 4 times.
Hayes played more than twice as much as AD as an All-Star player - through 1980.
Or, he played as much as AD has already, way out scoring and out rebounding him,
And then played as much as AD has already again, all as an all-star player.

[trex_8063]

Good breakdown.

For me the arguments for Lanier here are:

1) Lanier's scoring efficiency improved in the playoffs where English's declined (that isn't everything right there, but they're close enough in the regular season that I think that this counts);
2) If they're comparable offensively, the big is probably the more valuable player (as the average big is more valuable defensively than the average small) unless you have reason to think that the big is notably inferior defensively;
3) Lanier's WOWYR numbers are considerably better.

But I could easily be wrong

I will disagree strongly with point #2. Bigs were more valuable than non-bigs as a rule but it was mainly due to their DEFENSIVE impact; offensively, superior playmaking seems to be the clearest team value adder to the individual numbers, not position. That's why guys like Oscar have more OFFENSIVE impact than guys like Wilt (while Wilt has vastly superior defensive impact making him the better player). I believe English is the superior playmaker to Lanier, both from watching them and from the numbers . . . and the numbers overstate Lanier's turnover economy because they don't include the first few years of his career where players generally have worse turnover economy (and the first years after they counted turnovers, Lanier didn't look that good).

Fair point regarding turnovers, though you must admit you're speculating a bit there.

As to playmaking, the above seems mostly conjecture, as I don't think "the numbers" posit English as a clearly better playmaker. AGAIN bear in mind that per game stats are going to be inflated for any member of the 1980s Nuggets (in this case, even marginally so against someone who entered the league 6 years earlier [when pace was a pinch faster]).
English averaged 5.1 ast/100 possessions for his career [peaking at 6.3]; Lanier averaged ~4.25 ast/100 for his career [peaking at 5.6].
If we look at that in terms of positional expectation, one could argue Lanier has the edge.
But even if you want to just take the assist figures at face-value, then I'd counter that Lanier has the slight edge in offensive rebounds (~3.7 oreb/100 for his career, vs 3.3/100 for English)......and one can't counter with "that's just because he's a center and English a SF" if we're not going to do the same for assists.

And citing career TS% is a little misleading, as league-avg TS% was a full 1.5% better during English's career vs Lanier's. That is: English has a career rTS% of +1.7% [on 30.2 pts/100 possessions], while Lanier sits at +4.1% [on 27.1 pts/100].

Since I'm citing per 100 possession numbers, I'll also note the marginal edge to Lanier in career mpg [although I guess it's fairly negligible].


So all together, this does start to look pretty much like a wash offensively, unless you want to give props to slightly higher volume [scoring] on a little worse efficiency (but I'm led to believe that really isn't your bag).


Defensively, I gather you're pretty low on Lanier. However, I watched English: he's no prize, imo. Not bad, necessarily, but he's not in any way notable or good defensively either. Lanier certainly has more of an imprint in terms of defensive rebounding, if nothing else.

And I'll again give a shout-out to '74.....
While I admit I don't have much of any eye on this season at all, ALL indications seem to be that Lanier was a legit big impact defender in that season:
*this was a -3.9 rDRTG (3rd of 17), without any notable defensive studs [other than maybe Chris Ford, who did get lots of steals (only 25.1 mpg, though)....and opp TOV% was their best defensive FF (Lanier was 3rd on the team in spg, fwiw)]
**Lanier averaged 3.7 blk/100 [Rudy Gobert has averaged 3.8 for his career; though I know blocks were "easier" to come by in Lanier's day because the halfcourt was smaller, I could also note that Dave Cowens never averaged more than 1.3 blk/100, and Kareem post-1973 averaged 3.4]
***Lanier averaged a whopping 5.3 stl+blk/100 [something Giannis has yet to do, for example; Kareem never again did it after '80]
****Lanier did this WITHOUT committing an excess of fouls.
*****Lanier led the league in DRtg and DBPM, was 3rd in DWS [behind only Hayes and Kareem (both near-peak level that year)], and 5th in DREB% [behind Hayes, Abdul-Aziz, Cowens, and Clifford Ray].

While on the one hand I'll acknowledge this appears like an outlier year for him defensively, I'll also suggest that if he was capable of being this good defensively one year, I'm skeptical he was trash the rest of his career.

If WOWYR numbers are better for Lanier, that implies either (a) his defensive impact was indeed stronger

That's what I'm suggesting...

or (b) the Nuggets had good wing reserves while the Pistons had weaker backups for Lanier which is probably true but not dispositive on the issue of defensive impact.

I don't think it's the former; let's look at the primary back-up wings for Denver.....
'81: T.R. Dunn and Glen Gondrezick
'82: Glen Gondrezick and coked-out slightly banged up David Thompson
'83: Bill Hanzlik and Mike Evans
'84: Bill Hanzlik, Mike Evans, and Howard Carter
'85: Bill Hanzlik, Mike Evans, and Elston Turner
'86: Bill Hanzlik, Mike Evans, and Elston Turner
'87: Mike Evans, Maurice Martin, and pinch of T.R. Dunn off the bench
'88: Jay Vincent, Bill Hanzlik, and Mike Evans
'89: 34-yr-old Walter Davis, Elston Turner, Bill Hanzlik, Jerome Lane

Fully acknowledging that even the worst NBA scrub from this era would totally wipe the floor with the best version of myself. That said, outside of an aging Davis in '89, this mostly looks like the who's who of who cares list of NBA players. Hanzlik, T.R. Dunn, and Jay Vincent are probably the most notable players otherwise (and Vincent and Dunn were basically just one year).

[sansterre]

I only grabbed Hayes' best years by WS/48; as I said, I don't represent that it's his true peak or anything. I don't know how it would matter too much.

Hayes peaked around the mid '70s. I'd probably have 1974-75 as his single best season.

Elvin Hayes led the league in scoring once and rebounding twice.
He averaged over 28 ppg and 16 rebounds a game his first 3 years.
And you arent including that in his peak.
He is taking a 15 win expansion team to 37 wins his first year, while scoring like crazy. Of course he wasnt efficient, the team was awful.
AD at his peak was/is a better player, but Hayes was real good for a real long time.
Hayes wasnt much of a passer, but AD's assist numbers arent a lot better.
Davis never played more than 75 games in a season - Hayes led the league in minutes played 4 times.
Hayes played more than twice as much as AD as an All-Star player - through 1980.
Or, he played as much as AD has already, way out scoring and out rebounding him,
And then played as much as AD has already again, all as an all-star player.

Perhaps you're right about those early seasons. At the same time, the guy led the league in missed shots four straight years ('69 to '72) and the year he led the league in points he shot at -0.8%, which basically makes him Iversonian. Putting up a ton of points when you can't shoot league average simply doesn't have that much value (though I'll concede that him doing it to carry an expansion team is more impressive). And you can say that '69's lack of efficiency was understandable because he had an expansion team, but Hayes was *never* efficient. He brought a lot of things to the table, but efficiency was never one of them. The best you could say about his scoring is that he could carry a heavy load to allow his teammates to specialize more (which does have value, it just has way more if you can do it above league average efficiency).

And be cautious about those per-game numbers. Adjusted to modern pace he'd be at around 23 points and 14 rebounds. That's still a good total, but it's not as good as it sounds on first glance.

And agreed, Hayes' longevity/durability is considerable.

[trex_8063]

I'm higher on Anthony Davis's best years than some appear to be, so he's got a considerable career value already for me.

But in reading arguments/sentiments, I am beginning to think I've either overvalued him relative to Hayes [or undervalued Hayes....probably that, actually]. I've argued Hayes' defensive presence in the past, and his position on a longevity/durability spectrum is.......substantial, to put it lightly.

So I'm bumping him to my 3rd vote here.
I've had Davis, Cousy, and Hayes [along with Iverson] clustered together in my mid-late 50s anyway; so it's a simple matter of shifting him to the head of the class among those four.

[Odinn21]

The best you could say about his scoring is that he could carry a heavy load to allow his teammates to specialize more (which does have value, it just has way more if you can do it above league average efficiency).

Yeah, that is the way to interpret. IMO, that is not the best thing one could say. It's the thing to say for Hayes' offense.

When Hayes joined the Rockets, the team went from -5.0 rORtg to -2.8 rORtg. Their rank didn't improve much but that's a significant impact. With his defense, the team saw 22W improvement. Their SRS went from historicaly bad (-7.94) to average (-0.30) with Hayes.
To Calvin Murphy's and Rudy Tomjanovich's credit, they were young and emerging and when Hayes left, the team didn't suffer thanks to them.

The way to interpret Hayes' scoring is understanding value of high motor - constant attacking. Remember game 7 performances such as Hakeem Olajuwon in '94 Finals, Tim Duncan in '05 Finals and Kobe Bryant in '10 Finals. It was the relentless attack on defense that delivered. They were inefficient but they were still impactful. With Hayes, it was the thing with him in general. He was inefficient but his relentless play was one of the enablers of his team's offense.

I'll jump a page with Unseld right now;
I said this about Unseld and I'll say it again. He's like Draymond Green in a way. When he plays next to impactful volume scoring, he's one of the best ceiling raisers. But on his own, he's a bad floor raiser.
When Hayes joined Unseld in Baltimore, the team saw 14W improvement and +4.11 SRS improvement. If you look at Unseld's career, you'd see that his success came with either Earl Monroe as #1 scoring option or Elvin Hayes as #1 scoring option.
From 1972-73 to 1978-79, the team averaged 50.4W per season which is quite high for the time frame due to its chaotic nature. BBRef play index is behind a paywall right now but I'd assume that 50+W mark is definitely top 3. In 5 season span, the last 5, they made 3 NBA Finals.

Looking at how well the Bullets did in the playoffs with Earl Monroe an efficient scorer and with Elvin Hayes an inefficient scorer, it'll be more obvious. Hayes was inefficient but it's hard to peg his inefficient scoring as bad offensive impact. On the contrary, despite his inefficiency (and lack of proper passing), he was a good/positive impact player on offense.

[DQuinn1575]

Putting up a ton of points when you can't shoot league average simply doesn't have that much value (though I'll concede that him doing it to carry an expansion team is more impressive).

Impressive? Who do you want him to pass to? The players from a 15 win team - the top 5 of whom in minutes played all shot worse than him? The team went from 15 wins, to almost break even SRS. Did you want him to pass more to players not as good?
And despite his flaws, he was able to fit into a better team that won a title, and made two finals.

And be cautious about those per-game numbers. Adjusted to modern pace he'd be at around 23 points and 14 rebounds. That's still a good total, but it's not as good as it sounds on first glance.

Obviously the per game numbers are a little inflated - at same time he led the league twice in an era with Cowens, Lanier, Jabbar, Reed etc.

Hayes had flaws, I didn't pick him Top 3 here, but he was a great rebounder, a top shot blocker and defender, and played well on both lousy teams and some real good teams.

[trex_8063]

Does anyone have a link to a historical PIPM database? The one I used to sometimes reference is apparently no longer in existence. I have several years for dozens of players referenced in my own files somewhere, but far from complete.

[Odinn21]

Does anyone have a link to a historical PIPM database? The one I used to sometimes reference is apparently no longer in existence. I have several years for dozens of players referenced in my own files somewhere, but far from complete.

Here you go;
https://bit.ly/2MKwtNq

I edited my vote message accordingly for the Condorcet method.

[DQuinn1575]

So Hayes shot 45% in regular season and 46% in playoffs-
win shares/48 were .116 RS and .135 PO

if you're watching Ben Taylor, he would say that Hayes, like Kobe and Hakeem, didnt take great shots, but that the level of opponents didnt affect him - whcih is part of the reason the Bullets went to 3 finals with Hayes, and only 1 with Monroe.

Unseld was a great player, did a lot of things well, but the problem you have is that his usage is so low, 11-13% is shown for the last part of his career, and is best year is only 11.3 fga per 36 minutes. When Wes was on the floor, you had to have someone else who could shoot more. And say the 77 Bullets, Chenier and Bing shot 44-45% while Hayes shot 50%.
78 - Hayes shot 45% as did Grevey, while Henderson shot 43%
79 - Hayes 49% - Grevey/Henderson 45/47
Dandridge was a real good player, but he was scoring his highest per 36 in 77 and 79, so he was already at his highest load at 29 and 31. Unseld was limited in the load he could take.
And you look, 78 and a lot of years he is playing way more than anyone else, which means he's out there without starters sometimes.
You can't have Dandridge taking every shot just because he is the most efficient. And you can't get Unseld to score - he averaged 14.7 per 36 on a team that scored 120 points a game.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #33:

Bob Cousy - 2 (euroleague, Hal14)
Sam Jones - 1 (DQuinn1575)
Paul Arizin - 1 (Dutchball97)
Bob Lanier - 1 (sansterre)
Robert Parish - 1 (trex_8063)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Alonzo Mourning - 1 (Odinn21)


Nice discussion in this one. Hope we can get at least 1-2 more votes, though.
Probably about 24 hours left for this one.

euroleague--->please provide a 3rd vote to comply with protocol. And also, please try to provide a list/order of ALL of the above players [plus maybe guys like Elvin Hayes and Anthony Davis].
These details will be needed for Condorcet validating in this and later rounds.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Cavsfansince84]

56. Sam Jones
-3x all nba 2nd team
-3x top 10 in mvp voting(high of 4th)
-10x nba champ
-6 seasons averaging over 19ppg with career ts+ of 104(highly efficient for a wing)
-5 playoff runs averaging over 23ppg all at or above .516 ts%(when league average was under 50%)
-career ws/48 of .182 which ranks 35th all time
-known as clutch playoff scorer
-from 1962-1966 the Celtics played in 6 decisive game 5 or game 7's and Jones averaged 32.5ppg in those games which were all wins(most by 3 pts or less).

57. Bob Lanier
Nice combination of peak, prime and overall longevity plus some very good playoff performances even if his teams never made it very far
-good career ast % for a big man of 14.4(better than Shaq)
-Posted 7 straight seasons with at least 21.3/11.3(highs of 25.7/14.9) with ts add over 100 each year
-career ts+ of 109 which is obviously very good
-top 10 in mvp voting 4 times(high of 4th)
-54th in career win shares
-5 playoff runs with a bpm of 6.0 or higher

58. Bob Cousy
-controversial player on here but I really feel his combination of 1st teams, high mvp finishes and rings deserves to be recognized at this point. Obviously some will agree and some won't but I feel like he deserves to get in soon.
-6x nba champ
-8x led league in assists
-1x mvp
-8x top 10 in mvp voting(4x top 4)
-12x all nba(10x 1st team)
-3x led in playoff scoring
-8x led in playoff assists
-9x led in playoff ast %
-had positive ts add in 6 of his prime seasons which shows he wasn't that inefficient relative to era
-career ts+ of 98

[euroleague]

3. Penny Hardaway - brief peak, but a special player with an outsized impact during his peak. Carried his team in 96, with Shaq as arguably the second option. I think a brief peak that’s special is more ‘great’ than a longer period with borderline all-nba play.

Other players Im considering: Unseld, Hayes, Mourning, Arizin

Hayes> Arizin > Mourning > Lanier > Alex English > Sam Jones

[sansterre]

Let the record show that PIPM really, really likes Hayes compared to Backpicks BPM, seeing his best seasons as comparable in value to AD's (though not counting the playoffs).

With that spreadsheet (thanks Odinn!) I may amend my rankings, though not in time for this vote I expect.

[trex_8063]

I think Jones is on the verge of taking this spot, which will be the highest he's EVER [or at least in the last 15 years] gone on this forum's top 100 project.....despite all the players who've come along [or capped off their careers] in that span, he's moving forward.

'06 ranking: 73rd
'08 ranking: 62nd
'11 ranking: 59th
'14 ranking: 68th
'17 ranking: 68th
'20 ranking: 56th??

For whatever it's worth...

EDIT: Gonna wrap it up in ~30-45 minutes, btw.

[Hal14]

I think Jones is on the verge of taking this spot, which will be the highest he's EVER [or at least in the last 15 years] gone on this forum's top 100 project.....despite all the players who've come along [or capped off their careers] in that span, he's moving forward.

'06 ranking: 73rd
'08 ranking: 62nd
'11 ranking: 59th
'14 ranking: 68th
'17 ranking: 68th
'20 ranking: 56th??

For whatever it's worth...

EDIT: Gonna wrap it up in ~30-45 minutes, btw.

Lots of SGs other than Iverson (Harden, Miller, Allen, Jones, Ginobili, etc.) are going higher than I expected here..

[trex_8063]

Thru post #39:

Bob Cousy - 2 (euroleague, Hal14)
Sam Jones - 2 (Cavsfansince84, DQuinn1575)
Paul Arizin - 1 (Dutchball97)
Bob Lanier - 1 (sansterre)
Robert Parish - 1 (trex_8063)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Alonzo Mourning - 1 (Odinn21)


9 votes requires 5 for a majority. Those bottom five are eliminated, which ghosts 4 and transfers one to Jones....

Jones - 3
Cousy - 2
(ghosted) - 4

Had polled everyone for his order in advance, so I know that two of the four ghost votes favour Cousy, and two favour Jones....

Jones - 5
Cousy - 4

So Sam Jones gets this [historically high for the forum] spot. Will have the next up shortly.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.