RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 (Nikola Jokic)

Moderators: Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier

Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,614
And1: 3,131
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#21 » by Owly » Sat May 8, 2021 11:02 am

HeartBreakKid wrote:
Owly wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:Criteria

Spoiler:
I'm a pretty big peak guy, I'm not that interested in value of total seasons. The value of multiple seasons to me is to give me a greater sample size to understanding how good they were on the court, not necessarily the totality of their impact through out the years.

I also value impact over all else, and I define impact as the ability to help a team win games. Boxscore stats, team accolades and individual accolades (unless I agree with them personally) have very little baring on my voting so some names will look a bit wonky. The reason why I ignore accolades and winningness is because basketball is a team game and the players are largely not in control of the quality of their teammates or the health of their team (or their own personal health in key moments), thus I don't see the value of rating players based on xx has this many MVPs versus this guy has this many rings. In addition, I simply find this type of analysis boring because it's quite easy to simply look at who has a bigger laundry list of accomplishments.



1) Bill Walton. He is the best player by far here. He was probably a top 3 player in the world during his last couple years in college as well, though I believe this is NBA only. I am quite certain that Bill Walton is a top 20 peak ever. He is a top ten defensive anchor which alone adds more value than anyone left, and his offensive passing can generate very efficient offenses without him needing to score.

2) Nikola Jokic. #2 vote I'll give to the only guy who is large and passes better than Walton. I'm not a longevity guy but Jokic has actually been a star caliber player for longer than people think. He was greatly underplayed in his 2nd season and Malone was criticized for that even back then. He has 4 seasons of all-star impact and two seasons where I had him as the 2nd best player in the league. I do think his offense is so special from his position that it causes an imbalance that makes him more valuable than two way bigs. His scoring ability might be the best among all the bigs left, and what's great about him is that he doesn't need to score a lot to have impact. Walton's defense is so intense that I can't imagine taking Jokic over that, but everyone else left is a tier or 2 down from either Walton's offense or his defense.

3) Mel Daniels - I was about to do a coin flip with Beaty and Green and then I realized Mel Daniels deserves some major consideration. I think if he had won 3 NBA titles and 2 NBA MVP's but his numbers were worse he would have gotten in a long time ago. Mel Daniels should have a bit of a "baby" Bill Russell reputation. Most of his impact came from defense. He was an outlier rebounder, a good scorer albeit with little effective range. His biggest weakness was likely his passing as he was more of a finisher. Mel Daniels doesn't have the earth shattering defense of Bill Russell, but it was consistent enough for the Pacers to become the "Celtics of the ABA". They won 3 titles despite not having near the talent of some other teams - at least in terms of star power. Roger Brown, Netolicky, George McGuisness - none of those guys scream "defense" to me, yet defense is what the Pacers won with. I'm not sure if in a vacuum someone like Daniels is actually a better defender than Green, and as an offensive player he's definitely not better than Beaty - but perhaps he is the best balance? It's really hard to say. I could easily change my vote, but for now I think perhaps we should really think about giving Daniels "benefit of the doubt" for his success. He was the best player on 2 championship teams and a major contributor to one, that seems like a very winning player to me.









Beaty> Green> Hawkins > G Williams > King > Webber > Dennis Johnson >Ramsey> Lowry > Sikma > Archibald > Aldridge > Lucas > Heinsohn > Bellamy > Johnston > DeBusschere > Dandridge

I won't bite on "if he won 3 NBA titles, but see earlier thoughts about especially the early ABA (which if I had to do a hard cutoff probably includes that first title).

But on "He was the best player on 2 championship teams" ... if you're talking about them because they are "championship teams" I would assume, internal logic wise, this means playoffs. And '70 (an very clearly offensively bent team in the RS, I don't know about playoffs) Brown seems clearly the most productive player. Daniels' defense probably closes the gap somewhat (fwiw Brown seems like an outlier playoffs minute leader on the team - 693, from Netolicky's 603; Daniels third at 533). So I'm assuming you're giving him '72 and '73?

Was he plausibly the best player on those teams? Sure. Is it still a weaker league, yes. Are the Pacers dominant either year? No (both playoff runs feature series in which they didn't outscore opponents, '72 features a net tie and a narrow loss, in a 3 series run) neither in the playoffs nor the RS (in either year). My guess is he's a good player on a good team (that's relatively stable otoh, in an unstable league) that muddles through to titles (in a small league) in ensemble-y casts. To me invoking best player on a champ (or one could argue dynasty given the titles) is invoking a group that is on average much better (obviously got in sooner, of course) but that just shows it's not that titles make great players but having elite players increases your odds for titles.

He's a big man and a rebounding specialist that for a fair chunk of his prime is thin on quality bigs and where (perhaps moreso bigs') stats seem to take a quite a boost versus NBA.

It's murky. Less than complete information so significant uncertainty etc. For me though the lack of longevity hurts him more than most because because there's less of a sample versus quality opposition.


I don't know, sometimes I think people forget how long the ABA lasted. They went a full 9 years, by 1973 they were already clearly a major league basketball org. Some of his fellow ABA competition in this project are guys like Hawkins who dominated a less sophisticated league.

If we look at the NBA 1970-76, it seems like the guys who had team success during this period have gotten in. I'm not sure if that that's consistent. Was the NBA THAT much better than the ABA by 1973? If so, why even count the ABA at all for this project?

I think he is quite a bit better than Roger Brown and George McGuiness (who I think is a bit of a fools gold type of player). Sure, they were an ensemble cast - but most of the players around this point are. Worthy was nowhere near the most important guy on his team. Sikma, Williams, Johnson were teammates. Hagen's teammate is a top 30 guy of all time and he had one of the best PGs.

I don't feel it is much of a hot take to say that Daniels was the centerpiece of the Pacers, and if the Pacers were merely good because they were stable - then that is also because Daniels himself was stable. Sure as heck wasn't Netolicky. :P

Why count it?
Because a number of very good players get artificially dinged if you don't.

Was the NBA that much better than ABA by '73?
(a) Look at the competition at center ... at that position yes (overall too, but there especially).
(b) "By '73". Okay even if one grants that they are close (or certainly closer) by '73 ... that's the very final year of Daniels's prime (and showing a little decline).

Do I think McGuiness was overrated, sure. Was Daniels better than Brown in the contention window in the playoffs (per your "title" focus). 69-73.
Brown 13.1 WS, 0.191205387 WS/48. PER 19.57554331
Daniels 9 WS, 0.146821429 WS/48. PER 18.80863946

(figures above are reverse engineered from old bkb-ref pages, because calculations have been done with rounded data they may be off at the margins but, barring errors, should be broadly accurate)

Would it be "controversial" to say Daniels was better, no. But I'd argue vice-versa is also true for those playoffs. Daniels with a likely defensive edge, Brown playing more.

(fwiw, If one were tilted towards this championship equity in actual title winning runs - and I'm not, to be clear - Hagan's close to/debatable with Pettit in those playoffs. I don't like Hawkins' case here but he did at least dominate the league.)

But to the main point, is being an ensemble player a disqualification here, of course not ... but it makes the "He was the best player on 2 championship teams" ring hollow because as stated it's implication is surely "Only X,Y,Z have done this" and the reality is this team isn't a multiple title winner with slightly different luck and it certainly isn't one in a better league and as a player he isn't close to X, Y or Z. It's a bad tool as a measure of a player.

Netolicky was a flake that's a different thing, is roster stability beneficial ... yes.
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#22 » by HeartBreakKid » Sat May 8, 2021 11:04 am

Edited in Jimmy Butler. Also, decided to put Draymond Green back in front of Zelmo Beaty.

HeartBreakKid wrote:Criteria

Spoiler:
I'm a pretty big peak guy, I'm not that interested in value of total seasons. The value of multiple seasons to me is to give me a greater sample size to understanding how good they were on the court, not necessarily the totality of their impact through out the years.

I also value impact over all else, and I define impact as the ability to help a team win games. Boxscore stats, team accolades and individual accolades (unless I agree with them personally) have very little baring on my voting so some names will look a bit wonky. The reason why I ignore accolades and winningness is because basketball is a team game and the players are largely not in control of the quality of their teammates or the health of their team (or their own personal health in key moments), thus I don't see the value of rating players based on xx has this many MVPs versus this guy has this many rings. In addition, I simply find this type of analysis boring because it's quite easy to simply look at who has a bigger laundry list of accomplishments.



1) Bill Walton. He is the best player by far here. He was probably a top 3 player in the world during his last couple years in college as well, though I believe this is NBA only. I am quite certain that Bill Walton is a top 20 peak ever. He is a top ten defensive anchor which alone adds more value than anyone left, and his offensive passing can generate very efficient offenses without him needing to score.

2) Nikola Jokic. #2 vote I'll give to the only guy who is large and passes better than Walton. I'm not a longevity guy but Jokic has actually been a star caliber player for longer than people think. He was greatly underplayed in his 2nd season and Malone was criticized for that even back then. He has 4 seasons of all-star impact and two seasons where I had him as the 2nd best player in the league. I do think his offense is so special from his position that it causes an imbalance that makes him more valuable than two way bigs. His scoring ability might be the best among all the bigs left, and what's great about him is that he doesn't need to score a lot to have impact. Walton's defense is so intense that I can't imagine taking Jokic over that, but everyone else left is a tier or 2 down from either Walton's offense or his defense.

3) Mel Daniels - I was about to do a coin flip with Beaty and Green and then I realized Mel Daniels deserves some major consideration. I think if he had won 3 NBA titles and 2 NBA MVP's but his numbers were worse he would have gotten in a long time ago. Mel Daniels should have a bit of a "baby" Bill Russell reputation. Most of his impact came from defense. He was an outlier rebounder, a good scorer albeit with little effective range. His biggest weakness was likely his passing as he was more of a finisher. Mel Daniels doesn't have the earth shattering defense of Bill Russell, but it was consistent enough for the Pacers to become the "Celtics of the ABA". They won 3 titles despite not having near the talent of some other teams - at least in terms of star power. Roger Brown, Netolicky, George McGuisness - none of those guys scream "defense" to me, yet defense is what the Pacers won with. I'm not sure if in a vacuum someone like Daniels is actually a better defender than Green, and as an offensive player he's definitely not better than Beaty - but perhaps he is the best balance? It's really hard to say. I could easily change my vote, but for now I think perhaps we should really think about giving Daniels "benefit of the doubt" for his success. He was the best player on 2 championship teams and a major contributor to one, that seems like a very winning player to me.









Beaty > Green> Hawkins > G Williams > King > Webber > Dennis Johnson >Ramsey> Lowry > Sikma > Archibald > Aldridge > Lucas > Heinsohn > Bellamy > Johnston > DeBusschere > Dandridge




Criteria

Spoiler:
I'm a pretty big peak guy, I'm not that interested in value of total seasons. The value of multiple seasons to me is to give me a greater sample size to understanding how good they were on the court, not necessarily the totality of their impact through out the years.

I also value impact over all else, and I define impact as the ability to help a team win games. Boxscore stats, team accolades and individual accolades (unless I agree with them personally) have very little baring on my voting so some names will look a bit wonky. The reason why I ignore accolades and winningness is because basketball is a team game and the players are largely not in control of the quality of their teammates or the health of their team (or their own personal health in key moments), thus I don't see the value of rating players based on xx has this many MVPs versus this guy has this many rings. In addition, I simply find this type of analysis boring because it's quite easy to simply look at who has a bigger laundry list of accomplishments.



1) Bill Walton. He is the best player by far here. He was probably a top 3 player in the world during his last couple years in college as well, though I believe this is NBA only. I am quite certain that Bill Walton is a top 20 peak ever. He is a top ten defensive anchor which alone adds more value than anyone left, and his offensive passing can generate very efficient offenses without him needing to score.

2) Nikola Jokic. #2 vote I'll give to the only guy who is large and passes better than Walton. I'm not a longevity guy but Jokic has actually been a star caliber player for longer than people think. He was greatly underplayed in his 2nd season and Malone was criticized for that even back then. He has 4 seasons of all-star impact and two seasons where I had him as the 2nd best player in the league. I do think his offense is so special from his position that it causes an imbalance that makes him more valuable than two way bigs. His scoring ability might be the best among all the bigs left, and what's great about him is that he doesn't need to score a lot to have impact. Walton's defense is so intense that I can't imagine taking Jokic over that, but everyone else left is a tier or 2 down from either Walton's offense or his defense.

3) Mel Daniels - I was about to do a coin flip with Beaty and Green and then I realized Mel Daniels deserves some major consideration. I think if he had won 3 NBA titles and 2 NBA MVP's but his numbers were worse he would have gotten in a long time ago. Mel Daniels should have a bit of a "baby" Bill Russell reputation. Most of his impact came from defense. He was an outlier rebounder, a good scorer albeit with little effective range. His biggest weakness was likely his passing as he was more of a finisher. Mel Daniels doesn't have the earth shattering defense of Bill Russell, but it was consistent enough for the Pacers to become the "Celtics of the ABA". They won 3 titles despite not having near the talent of some other teams - at least in terms of star power. Roger Brown, Netolicky, George McGuisness - none of those guys scream "defense" to me, yet defense is what the Pacers won with. I'm not sure if in a vacuum someone like Daniels is actually a better defender than Green, and as an offensive player he's definitely not better than Beaty - but perhaps he is the best balance? It's really hard to say. I could easily change my vote, but for now I think perhaps we should really think about giving Daniels "benefit of the doubt" for his success. He was the best player on 2 championship teams and a major contributor to one, that seems like a very winning player to me.









Green > Butler > Beaty > Hawkins > G Williams > King > Webber > Dennis Johnson > Ramsey > Lowry > Sikma > Archibald > Aldridge > Lucas > Heinsohn > Bellamy > Johnston > DeBusschere > Dandridge
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#23 » by HeartBreakKid » Sat May 8, 2021 11:08 am

Owly wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:
Owly wrote:I won't bite on "if he won 3 NBA titles, but see earlier thoughts about especially the early ABA (which if I had to do a hard cutoff probably includes that first title).

But on "He was the best player on 2 championship teams" ... if you're talking about them because they are "championship teams" I would assume, internal logic wise, this means playoffs. And '70 (an very clearly offensively bent team in the RS, I don't know about playoffs) Brown seems clearly the most productive player. Daniels' defense probably closes the gap somewhat (fwiw Brown seems like an outlier playoffs minute leader on the team - 693, from Netolicky's 603; Daniels third at 533). So I'm assuming you're giving him '72 and '73?

Was he plausibly the best player on those teams? Sure. Is it still a weaker league, yes. Are the Pacers dominant either year? No (both playoff runs feature series in which they didn't outscore opponents, '72 features a net tie and a narrow loss, in a 3 series run) neither in the playoffs nor the RS (in either year). My guess is he's a good player on a good team (that's relatively stable otoh, in an unstable league) that muddles through to titles (in a small league) in ensemble-y casts. To me invoking best player on a champ (or one could argue dynasty given the titles) is invoking a group that is on average much better (obviously got in sooner, of course) but that just shows it's not that titles make great players but having elite players increases your odds for titles.

He's a big man and a rebounding specialist that for a fair chunk of his prime is thin on quality bigs and where (perhaps moreso bigs') stats seem to take a quite a boost versus NBA.

It's murky. Less than complete information so significant uncertainty etc. For me though the lack of longevity hurts him more than most because because there's less of a sample versus quality opposition.


I don't know, sometimes I think people forget how long the ABA lasted. They went a full 9 years, by 1973 they were already clearly a major league basketball org. Some of his fellow ABA competition in this project are guys like Hawkins who dominated a less sophisticated league.

If we look at the NBA 1970-76, it seems like the guys who had team success during this period have gotten in. I'm not sure if that that's consistent. Was the NBA THAT much better than the ABA by 1973? If so, why even count the ABA at all for this project?

I think he is quite a bit better than Roger Brown and George McGuiness (who I think is a bit of a fools gold type of player). Sure, they were an ensemble cast - but most of the players around this point are. Worthy was nowhere near the most important guy on his team. Sikma, Williams, Johnson were teammates. Hagen's teammate is a top 30 guy of all time and he had one of the best PGs.

I don't feel it is much of a hot take to say that Daniels was the centerpiece of the Pacers, and if the Pacers were merely good because they were stable - then that is also because Daniels himself was stable. Sure as heck wasn't Netolicky. :P

Why count it?
Because a number of very good players get artificially dinged if you don't.

Was the NBA that much better than ABA by '73?
(a) Look at the competition at center ... at that position yes (overall too, but there especially).
(b) "By '73". Okay even if one grants that they are close (or certainly closer) by '73 ... that's the very final year of Daniels's prime (and showing a little decline).

Do I think McGuiness was overrated, sure. Was Daniels better than Brown in the contention window in the playoffs (per your "title" focus). 69-73.
Brown 13.1 WS, 0.191205387 WS/48. PER 19.57554331
Daniels 9 WS, 0.146821429 WS/48. PER 18.80863946

(figures above are reverse engineered from old bkb-ref pages, because calculations have been done with rounded data they may be off at the margins but, barring errors, should be broadly accurate)

Would it be "controversial" to say Daniels was better, no. But I'd argue vice-versa is also true for those playoffs. Daniels with a likely defensive edge, Brown playing more.

(fwiw, If one were tilted towards this championship equity in actual title winning runs - and I'm not, to be clear - Hagan's close to/debatable with Pettit in those playoffs. I don't like Hawkins' case here but he did at least dominate the league.)

But to the main point, is being an ensemble player a disqualification here, of course not ... but it makes the "He was the best player on 2 championship teams" ring hollow because as stated it's implication is surely "Only X,Y,Z have done this" and the reality is this team isn't a multiple title winner with slightly different luck and it certainly isn't one in a better league and as a player he isn't close to X, Y or Z. It's a bad tool as a measure of a player.

Netolicky was a flake that's a different thing, is roster stability beneficial ... yes.


Yeah, I don't mean to make it seem like Daniels was this superstar and that's why he got 3 titles and all that. But I do feel like the perception would be close to that if they had been NBA titles regardless. If not seen as a superstar he'd be seen as a guy who "just knows how to win" type.

I see Daniels rings or his ability and contribution to a championship team perhaps more similar to Billups, Wallace (take your pick), perhaps Parker. He didn't play that long but not particularly short for his era. I don't think he's as good of a player as most of those guys. But I still see that some of those guys get benefit of the doubt for contributing to great teams, even if they themselves are not hubs per say. Daniels seems more like a core piece to his clubs success than many of Parker's seasons for example.
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,592
And1: 3,327
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#24 » by LA Bird » Sat May 8, 2021 12:19 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:I see a lot of us are saying the ABA was a credible league but not quite as strong as the NBA - yet no one is showing it with their actions for the most part. It seems like being one of the best players in the ABA means about as being a role player in the NBA.

It seems like even segregation era NBA has more credibility. Hagan basically got in when there were hardly any black people in the NBA during his most relevant run and didn't have a prime that really spanned toward when the NBA became major league. (not hating on Hagan, I voted for him, just pointing out that I don't think we really take the ABA that seriously even if we say we do).

The fact that Hagan posted peak level PER and WS/48 in the ABA at age 36-38 kind of showed just how weak the early ABA was even compared to late 50s NBA. I would say the ABA in its first few years was more similar to the NBA in the late 40s / early 50s. It's not a coincidence that many players who were still in their 20s were phased out very quickly in both leagues during that time period by much better incoming talent. Look at the top 10 list in WS in the ABA in 1970:

Spencer Haywood
Roger Brown
Levern Tart
Red Robbins
Larry Jones
Jimmy Jones
Goose Ligon
Donnie Freeman
Donald Sidle
Glen Combs

Besides Haywood, they were all irrelevant within a couple years. The ABA was not close to the NBA during Daniels' short prime and the fact that he didn't absolutely crush the weaker league or prove himself against stronger competition later on raises a lot of questions about his true dominance. With his longevity, I probably wouldn't even taken him over someone like Gobert.
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#25 » by HeartBreakKid » Sat May 8, 2021 12:32 pm

LA Bird wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:I see a lot of us are saying the ABA was a credible league but not quite as strong as the NBA - yet no one is showing it with their actions for the most part. It seems like being one of the best players in the ABA means about as being a role player in the NBA.

It seems like even segregation era NBA has more credibility. Hagan basically got in when there were hardly any black people in the NBA during his most relevant run and didn't have a prime that really spanned toward when the NBA became major league. (not hating on Hagan, I voted for him, just pointing out that I don't think we really take the ABA that seriously even if we say we do).

The fact that Hagan posted peak level PER and WS/48 in the ABA at age 36-38 kind of showed just how weak the early ABA was even compared to late 50s NBA. I would say the ABA in its first few years was more similar to the NBA in the late 40s / early 50s. It's not a coincidence that many players who were still in their 20s were phased out very quickly in both leagues during that time period by much better incoming talent. Look at the top 10 list in WS in the ABA in 1970:

Spencer Haywood
Roger Brown
Levern Tart
Red Robbins
Larry Jones
Jimmy Jones
Goose Ligon
Donnie Freeman
Donald Sidle
Glen Combs

Besides Haywood, they were all irrelevant within a couple years. The ABA was not close to the NBA during Daniels' short prime and the fact that he didn't absolutely crush the weaker league or prove himself against stronger competition later on raises a lot of questions about his true dominance. With his longevity, I probably wouldn't even taken him over someone like Gobert.


I'd have to look at some of those names to see why they fell off, but Roger Brown was already 30 years old and had back problems.


Sure, the ABA in its early years wasn't good. But when the ABA did get good, Mel Daniels was still a top player. If 1973 isn't a prime ABA year, what is?

Comparing the ABA to segregated NBA seems a bit much, but even if so, George Mikan is a top 20 player despite only playing 6 seasons, and you can easily discredit him as saying that by year 4 he drops off because the league is getting more competitive. It seems like to me Mikan gets a handicap, and while Daniels wasn't as good relative to his competition he wasn't exactly near the end of the bench either. He was a 2 time MVP, and his stats were quite good for someone who's impact was probably more defensive than offensive.

I do think 60s ABA was very pick up leagueish, but I barely even consider the 60s when I think of Mel Daniels. They count as generic longevity years, but I don't look at his stats in the 60s and go, wow what a guy! I look at what he did in the 70s as a better representation.

It's not like Daniels was a guy who hung around the inaugural year, feasted and then just left. He was around for two different era's of the ABA and was good in both of them. He fell off when he hit 30 years old which was common around that time, I don't think he fell off because the ABA from 1972 to 1974 became 3x better.
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,592
And1: 3,327
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#26 » by LA Bird » Sat May 8, 2021 3:13 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:
LA Bird wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:I see a lot of us are saying the ABA was a credible league but not quite as strong as the NBA - yet no one is showing it with their actions for the most part. It seems like being one of the best players in the ABA means about as being a role player in the NBA.

It seems like even segregation era NBA has more credibility. Hagan basically got in when there were hardly any black people in the NBA during his most relevant run and didn't have a prime that really spanned toward when the NBA became major league. (not hating on Hagan, I voted for him, just pointing out that I don't think we really take the ABA that seriously even if we say we do).

The fact that Hagan posted peak level PER and WS/48 in the ABA at age 36-38 kind of showed just how weak the early ABA was even compared to late 50s NBA. I would say the ABA in its first few years was more similar to the NBA in the late 40s / early 50s. It's not a coincidence that many players who were still in their 20s were phased out very quickly in both leagues during that time period by much better incoming talent. Look at the top 10 list in WS in the ABA in 1970:

Spencer Haywood
Roger Brown
Levern Tart
Red Robbins
Larry Jones
Jimmy Jones
Goose Ligon
Donnie Freeman
Donald Sidle
Glen Combs

Besides Haywood, they were all irrelevant within a couple years. The ABA was not close to the NBA during Daniels' short prime and the fact that he didn't absolutely crush the weaker league or prove himself against stronger competition later on raises a lot of questions about his true dominance. With his longevity, I probably wouldn't even taken him over someone like Gobert.


I'd have to look at some of those names to see why they fell off, but Roger Brown was already 30 years old and had back problems.


Sure, the ABA in its early years wasn't good. But when the ABA did get good, Mel Daniels was still a top player. If 1973 isn't a prime ABA year, what is?

Comparing the ABA to segregated NBA seems a bit much, but even if so, George Mikan is a top 20 player despite only playing 6 seasons, and you can easily discredit him as saying that by year 4 he drops off because the league is getting more competitive. It seems like to me Mikan gets a handicap, and while Daniels wasn't as good relative to his competition he wasn't exactly near the end of the bench either. He was a 2 time MVP, and his stats were quite good for someone who's impact was probably more defensive than offensive.

I do think 60s ABA was very pick up leagueish, but I barely even consider the 60s when I think of Mel Daniels. They count as generic longevity years, but I don't look at his stats in the 60s and go, wow what a guy! I look at what he did in the 70s as a better representation.

It's not like Daniels was a guy who hung around the inaugural year, feasted and then just left. He was around for two different era's of the ABA and was good in both of them. He fell off when he hit 30 years old which was common around that time, I don't think he fell off because the ABA from 1972 to 1974 became 3x better.

Mel Daniels was a top player but so was Beaty. Issel was also a top player in the ABA too and he was only voted in a few spots ago despite having a second career in the NBA longer than Daniels' entire career. There are many players over the course of history who were top players at one point or another. For someone with basically a 7 year career, the bar for top 100 is higher than that. Daniels is not being compared to average guys here.

He was a 2 time MVP

He won his first MVP in 69 over Connie Hawkins (injured) and Larry Jones, who had been in the equivalent of the D League the years before. Then in 71, he won MVP over Zelmo Beaty, who had previously been a mere All Star in the NBA but was suddenly #1 in PER, WS in the ABA at 31 years old while leading his team to the #1 SRS. Putting aside how Beaty probably deserved MVP over Daniels, Beaty being in the MVP conversation in the first place shows how bad the competition was. Mel Daniels' 2 ABA MVPs are about as meaningful as being a billionaire in Zimbabwean dollars. He wouldn't have been All NBA if he had switched leagues.

George Mikan is a top 20 player despite only playing 6 seasons, and you can easily discredit him as saying that by year 4 he drops off because the league is getting more competitive.

Mikan had 8 seasons based on the rules in this project and he was still posting a 27 PER while anchoring an all time dominant defense after his drop off in 52. He played in a weak era but he rampaged through everyone like King Kong on steroids. Mel Daniels wasn't remotely close to being that dominant and he couldn't even distinguish himself from someone like Zelmo Beaty in the weak league he was playing in.
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#27 » by HeartBreakKid » Sat May 8, 2021 4:23 pm

I get what you're saying, but that's the thing - I think Beaty was probably better than people thought.

If we're using Beaty as a barometer to play down the ABA's competition, couldn't we also use Rick Barry who was in the league at the same time? Rick Barry would go onto the NBA and win a title with one of the least talented championship teams. You could go both ways here. If Rick Barry plays a full season he could probably get MVP over Daniels, but it's not like these guys are not peers in some sense.

To say that winning an ABA MVP is the equivalent of having a billion Zimbabwe dollars is pretty much saying the league sucks. I'll just disagree with that one, the All-ABA rosters had plenty of good players throughout Daniels career.

As for the All-NBA comment, well there were only two teams back then and Kareem/Chamberlain were both active so yeah. Cowens and Reed were given those awards over Wilt during this time, but I honestly don't see how Cowens is waaaay better than Daniels. I actually think stylistically Daniels and Reed have a decent amount of things in common.

I'm probably not going to vote for Daniels right now, but I still think you're being way too harsh on his competition.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,450
And1: 8,114
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#28 » by trex_8063 » Sat May 8, 2021 5:11 pm

Thru post #27:

LaMarcus Aldridge - 1 (trex_8063)
Nikola Jokic - 1 (Dutchball97)
Draymond Green - 1 (sansterre)
Jack Sikma - 1 (penbeast0)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Dennis Johnson - 1 (Hal14)
Tom Heinsohn - 1 (ZeppelinPage)


About 32 hours remaining for this one.
As noted in the OP: new candidate [again] to include [in your Condorcet lists]--->Tom Heinsohn. I’d also include EVERYONE from the last thread who is still on the table, PLUS Dave DeBusschere [just in case Cavsfansince84 returns to the vote].


Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

Ambrose wrote:.

Baski wrote:.

bidofo wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

DCasey91 wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

DQuinn1575 wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dutchball97 wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

Franco wrote:.

Gregoire wrote:.

Hal14 wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

iggymcfrack wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

Joe Malburg wrote:.

Joey Wheeler wrote:.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:.

limbo wrote:.

Magic Is Magic wrote:.

Matzer wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Odinn21 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

O_6 wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

PistolPeteJR wrote:.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]
Senior wrote:.

SeniorWalker wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

Whopper_Sr wrote:.

ZeppelinPage wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

876Stephen wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,694
And1: 21,632
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#29 » by Doctor MJ » Sat May 8, 2021 5:52 pm

ZeppelinPage wrote:1. Tom Heinsohn
Heinsohn was an incredibly talented, well-rounded player. He joined Holy Cross in '54 and they immediately jumped in points scored and allowed while going 26-2. By his senior year, Holy Cross ranked 33rd in offense and 23rd on defense nationally. When Heinsohn left, they fell to 153rd of 160 teams in points allowed with an 11-12 record.

The '56 Celtics were a middle of the pack team that struggled to play defense and rebound. Auerbach was a tough coach that got the most out of his players (he helped turn Cousy into a good defender), but his team had never obtained the consistent rebounder vitally needed for the era. At one point, Bob Cousy mentioned how badly the Celtics needed a rebounder to give the rest of the players a break, as they were busy trying to gather rebounds together, with Ed Macauley unable to control the boards himself--this tired them out during playoff time. Enter Heinsohn: a switchable shooter with offensive and defensive skills while being, most importantly, a relentless rebounder.

With Auerbach's coaching, Heinsohn was quick to learn the energy needed at the professional level. Before the season, Auerbach mentioned that Heinsohn had been watching Cousy "break his neck" on defense, and that this would help him understand what was needed from him. He learned quick. The Celtics started out 14-4 with Sharman healthy, easily the best team in the league and on pace for 56 wins--finishing 17-8 before Russell joined, going 3-4 without Sharman. They allowed 99 points a game during this stretch and held the #1 offense Philadelphia Warriors to 83 and 78 points in the middle of a 10-game win streak. Auerbach seemed to be using his press defense more than ever with Heinsohn added to the roster, allowing for small ball line-ups where the guards could harass players up the court without a loss in rebounding.

The biggest additions to the team at the beginning of the season were Heinsohn, Andy Phillip, and Lou Tsioropoulos. Now obviously the sudden shift in the Celtics from treadmill to championship contender is not entirely due to Heinsohn. Andy Phillip was a good all-around ball player, and no doubt improved their defense with his stealing and deflection ability (he had a 6 steal game early in the season). Tsioropoulos was also getting quite a bit of praise for how hard he played.

But Heinsohn was the key piece. A player that solved their rebounding issues, a threat on offense with his shooting, driving, and passing ability; a player with high energy that could switch, play for steals and get deflections off-ball--while having the athleticism to contest a variety of shots. He played a pivotal role in turning a previously middling team into a powehouse, that had other teams actively complaining about the talent level of their roster early in the season (without Russell and Ramsey too). By the time the Finals rolled around, Heinsohn was leading the Celtics in scoring as a rookie against the Pettit led Hawks, closing game 7 with a 37 point game on 17-33 shooting, one of the greatest rookie performances in NBA history. All while helping to keep Pettit below his average efficiency. Heinsohn could score when his team needed him most--always playing steady, but exploding for a boost when the team needed him during a critical moment.

Biggest strengths are his defense, rebounding, and gravity. Defensively, Heinsohn was among the very best of the Celtics. In Auerbach's book Basketball for The Player, The Fan, And The Coach--he lists Heinsohn as one of the great defensive cornermen, and for good reason. On top of being a relentless rebounder, he actively played for the ball and used his hands to poke, strip, and deflect. He could switch 1 through 4 with ease and play tough man-to-man defense, often contesting shots and getting blocks on players like Jerry West.

He didn't have all-time efficiency, but his high volume and tough shot making allowed for floor spacing that was beneficial to his teammates. Heinsohn shot a significant amount of jump shots that were difficult and this hurt his efficiency, with that being said he was also a threat to the defense as he could score when left open. With Russell on the Celtics, there was less spacing and more emphasis on making jump shots. The bulk of the jump shooting was often left to guys like Cousy, Sharman, Havlicek, Heinsohn, and Sam Jones. Sharman and Jones were plus with their shooting ability, but the rest of the main offensive options suffered efficiency wise due to being the only ones that could take and make these difficult shots. With less spacing, it was harder to drive to the hoop as well as get to the line. Heinsohn could score when needed, having multiple playoff runs that were significant to their championships, and arguably could have won 2 Finals MVPs. Overall, I value his ability to be a threat on top of the defense he brings--he could even set up his teammates with good passes.

G6 '63 NBA Finals Heinsohn steal on Jerry West in a 2-point game with 2 minutes remaining
Spoiler:
Image

Heinsohn Defensive Sequence
Spoiler:
Image

Steal on Wilt Chamberlain
Spoiler:
Image

Strips on Rudy LaRusso and Guy Rodgers
Spoiler:
Image

Spoiler:
Image

Blocks on Jerry West
Spoiler:
Image

Spoiler:
Image

Passes in Game 2 '57 Finals
Spoiler:
Image

Spoiler:
Image


Whoa! Monster post Zep!

I want you to know that even if my voting doesn't seem to show it, I'm going to keep thinking on what you've presented.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,694
And1: 21,632
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#30 » by Doctor MJ » Sat May 8, 2021 6:01 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:Now I'm thinking about Elton Brand....

He's usually regarded as a "peak guy", but he had 8 seasons of 20/10 on good efficiency.. I think what's really more accurate is that people simply did not care about Elton Brand back then or the Clippers. He was just an unsexy player, and that's how the media worked back then. (when people talk about Paul Pierce they almost always refer to him 2008+ because before that people simply just did not care about him before he had a good team)

In addition, the one playoff run he had his team won a series where he was absolutely incredible. He then takes the Suns to 7 games with people saying he was the best player in the series which included an MVP Steve Nash. Not sure how true that is, but it's hard to deny that the guy was playing like an animal.

Keep in mind his entire prime took place during the most defensive oriented era. In many other eras he would consistently be a 25 PPG guy with probably 13 rebounds, or if we go to the 60s and 70s he would be above 15 RPG probably.

We have some peak guys like Bernard King getting a mention who is said to have better longevity than you would think, but Brand had a full prime and was actually healthy for most of it.

It's hard for me to see a lot of the nominated players as better on court players, and a lot of the guys at this point in the project can barely string a few healthy prime seasons. Brand was good for an entire generation AND he had a heck of a peak.


I definitely think Brand merits discussion. I have to say though that among guys from 1999, I think Baron Davis proved to have a much stronger capacity for impact in general. If that seems like a deflection or copout, given that I haven't even brought up Baron before this, but while I also think Baron merits discussion in this project, I can't say he's been in serious consideration for my Top 3 to this point.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,694
And1: 21,632
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#31 » by Doctor MJ » Sat May 8, 2021 6:45 pm

Wanted to chime in on some of the discussion I'm seeing:

Regarding ABA players to consider.

First, to state the obvious, Connie Hawkins is the top guy remaining on my list. What about after him?

Among the pure ABA guys, I'd go have to go Mel Daniels. I think it's fun to debate teammates Daniels & Roger Brown as to who the GOAT ABA Pacer was, but it was Daniels who remained the more central figure as the Pacers re-oriented themselves around McGinnis.

What about McGinnis? I'd understand people making the argument, as I used to, but I think it's important to realize that McGinnis wasn't a "better Daniels". McGinnis had some extreme talents to be sure (to go along some problematic stuff), but Daniels known for being utterly ferocious and brutal to play against.

Who else to consider? Spencer Haywood, Zelmo Beaty, and David Thompson are the ones that come to mind.

I'm not in love with Haywood as a winning basketball player. Not saying he's someone who makes you lose, but I tend to see him primarily as a volume scoring big man with okay efficiency. I'm more impressed with other types.

Over to Skywalker Thompson, Daniels vs Thompson is an intriguing debate. Daniels didn't have a super long career and so this is a case where you just know that if Thompson had had a normal career arc, he'd have easily topped Daniels...but as is, I just don't feel like Thompson's career amounted to Daniels' career.

Zelmo on the other hand, I think the Mel vs Zelmo debate is a great one, in part because in Zelmo's first 4 years in the ABA, their two teams played each other every year, splitting the series 2-2.

Head-to-Head stats in their 24 playoff games (split 12-12 between the teams):

Mel 16.3/15.2/2.0 on 52.4% TS
Zelmo 18.4/13.7/2.1 on 60.4% TS

Now remember that Zelmo was in his 30s when he did this, and Daniels was spent by then.

I'd be inclined to lean Zelmo when I think about his entire body of work.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,694
And1: 21,632
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#32 » by Doctor MJ » Sat May 8, 2021 6:48 pm

prolific passer wrote:2 of the big 3 STL Hawks are on the list. Can Lenny Wilkens make it a hat trick?


Thought I should say I'd be inclined to go for fellow Hawk Zelmo Beaty over Wilkens. From a Hawk specific perspective Wilkens would have the edge, but I think you can make the case that Zelmo still peaked higher as a Hawk (that one Wilkens MVP candidacy being an obvious counter I have to acknowledge), and then the way he adapted to the ABA was something special.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,694
And1: 21,632
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#33 » by Doctor MJ » Sat May 8, 2021 6:55 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:I get what you're saying, but that's the thing - I think Beaty was probably better than people thought.

If we're using Beaty as a barometer to play down the ABA's competition, couldn't we also use Rick Barry who was in the league at the same time? Rick Barry would go onto the NBA and win a title with one of the least talented championship teams. You could go both ways here. If Rick Barry plays a full season he could probably get MVP over Daniels, but it's not like these guys are not peers in some sense.

To say that winning an ABA MVP is the equivalent of having a billion Zimbabwe dollars is pretty much saying the league sucks. I'll just disagree with that one, the All-ABA rosters had plenty of good players throughout Daniels career.

As for the All-NBA comment, well there were only two teams back then and Kareem/Chamberlain were both active so yeah. Cowens and Reed were given those awards over Wilt during this time, but I honestly don't see how Cowens is waaaay better than Daniels. I actually think stylistically Daniels and Reed have a decent amount of things in common.

I'm probably not going to vote for Daniels right now, but I still think you're being way too harsh on his competition.


I think the point about Barry is an important one. I think it needs to be understood that right before Rick Barry was coming back to the NBA to lead the Warriors to a championship, he was competing in the same league as Zelmo and Zelmo was getting more MVP consideration.

I think there's this temptation to try to make some clear cut "handicap" to differentiate the player quality from the NBA to the ABA, but it's not that simple, and no modern observer should be looking at the ABA as some counterfeit league relative to the NBA, given that the style of play in the ABA has been a massive influence on what has proven to work better in the NBA.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,694
And1: 21,632
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#34 » by Doctor MJ » Sat May 8, 2021 6:59 pm

Repeating vote with updates.

Doctor MJ wrote:Alright...

1. Connie Hawkins
2. Bill Walton
3. Nikola Jokic

Other preferences in order:

Spoiler:
Chris Mullin
Draymond Green
Zelmo Beaty
Mel Daniels
Bernard King
Tiny Archibald
Buck Williams
Dave DeBusschere
Dennis Johnson
Tom Heinsohn
Jack Sikma
Jerry Lucas
Walt Bellamy
Gus Williams
LaMarcus Aldridge


Hawk love letter:

I think there's never been anyone like him, before or since. I'm dying to see more footage of him, because honestly I think he's got a bunch of moves that we don't have names for.

The roots of Hawkins becoming what he became are a story not of some kind of inevitable success through sheer talent, but of a guy with great talent getting bounced around and picking up stuff as he went.

Hawkins was a star in each of the following places:
1. The Schoolyard
2. Golden Age NYC High School Basketball
3. ABL
4. Harlem Globetrotters
5. ABA
6. NBA

All 6 of these things are a big deal, though I'll note that I'd consider (1) and (4) the best for understanding how Hawkins became what he became where (5) and (6) represent the proof in the pudding.

To speak on (1), the thing to understand is that play in the school yard all day is what the "good" Black boys did in this era. You were either playing basketball, or you were getting involved in gangs, pimping, and eventually drugs. So if you had basketball talent, this is where your family wanted you. Stay on the court, where it's safe.

And from the perspective of these Black kids, when they played (white) kids from other places, they just always got the sense that those white kids were far less experienced, because they were doing a lot of things other than playing basketball.

So, while Hawkins was dominating the incredibly high quality ball of NYC back then too, the Schoolyard was always where he developed his game. Just trying different things.

Others noted that while Hawkins lacked confidence in general, and was a poor reader and a poor student, he was an extremely quick learner when he saw someone else do something on the basketball court. When an opponent did something with the ball against Hawkins, Hawkins seemed to instantly have a new tool.

It's also important to note that in the Schoolyard, Hawkins didn't start out as The Man. He learned to play by fitting in around others who were older and better. We're talking about a kid who was playing against NBA pros (in the NBA off-season) before he was a High School star, so when he was playing those games, he wasn't just going in as the star. He learned to fit in. He learned how to be an aware passer before he learned to be a scorer.

About (3), so as many of you know, Hawkins was banned from college due to point shaving scandal (he later won a lawsuit clearing his name), so he ended up getting an opportunity in Abe Saperstein's ABL, which had various former NBA pros and a 3-point line. In the lone full season of that league, Hawkins would win MVP.

This is obviously impressive for a guy basically straight out of high school - and speaks both to his talent and how much experience he'd already had beyond just playing against other high schoolers - but I'd also argue that if not for the existence of the ABL, there's a good chance Hawkins would have died on the vine. He didn't have any other great skills other than basketball, so most likely he'd have ended up like many of his other peers still in Brooklyn which was being taken over by a see of heroin.

But his performance in the ABL, led to an invitation to join Saperstein's flagship product: The Harlem Globetrotters.

And as fortune would have it, Sweetwater Clifton - former New York Ren, Globetrotters, NBA all-star - played in the ABL that year with Hawkins, and re-joined the Globetrotters at the same time as Hawkins. And he told Hawkins basically, "You don't realize what kind of things you can do with those big hands!"

He mentored Hawkins on the ways you can use your ability to easily palm a hand. More flexibility when driving, more ways to protect the ball when you're guarded, myriad tricky passes, and the ability to rebound with just one hand so you can use your other arm (ahem, elbow) to fend of opponents.

I've noted before that big hands seem to be a Harlem Globetrotter thing. Beginning with the team's first clown - Goose Tatum - along through Clifton, Meadowlark Lemon, along with Wilt Chamberlain, Hawkins, and others - the Globetrotters seemed to look for guys with big hands in a way that the NBA has literally never done. I've also seen it noted that a particular Globetrotter was held back by his hand size despite being naturally very comedic.

There's a kind of trickery you can do with hands like this that lends itself well to comedy through basketball actions, and this raises the question of whether these Globetrotters were much better at certain basketball skills than NBA players.

There the answer is yes with an asterisk. Most of the tricks the Globetrotters did, while they required great skill, were not designed to hold up against actual defenders, and this was a source of frustration for Hawkins who felt that he was becoming soft due to not playing in a real competitive league, which I'd say was true.

At the same time, he'd still go back to NYC and play in the Schoolyard testing out techniques. Basically, he mined stuff out from the Globetrotters, and the stuff he found could work against actual defenders, he made a part of his repertoire. And this is how he became truly unique.

As we look at Hawkins ABA & NBA years, one of the things to understand is that both when he joined Pittsburgh in the ABA and Phoenix in the NBA, the teams did not immediately re-shape their offenses around Hawkins, and between these ramp up times, Hawkins increasing tendency toward injury, and a tendency for Hawkins to get down on himself, when we look at his yearly stats, it has to be noted that there was far more variance over the course of the season in team and Hawkins-specific performance than you'd expect not simply as a modern observer, but as a contemporary observer. Hawkins wasn't the absolute rock that you'd expect from a Jerry West, and this certainly doesn't help his Top 100 case.

But what this context also means is that when you look at Hawkins' yearly stats those first few years, as impressive as they look, know that they underrate what he was doing at his best.

I've noted before that in his first year in the ABA, Hawkins led the league in PPG despite being 3rd on his team in FGA. He did this by also leading the league in TS%, and do so while also leading the team in APG, RPG, and almost certainly BPG & SPM had they had that data (but interestingly he did not lead his team in TOs, and was 11th on his team in terms of TOs per minute). To lead a team to the title like this is amazing, but it does give rise to the question: Why were other guys shooting more than Hawkins?

The answer seems to be that these guys were just flat out bad chuckers who the coach couldn't get to pass the ball even though he'd sometimes bench them just to ensure the ball went to Hawkins, but apparently the team couldn't get anyone better mid-season (neither would last that much longer in the ABA).

Now, I tend to read stuff that focuses on Hawkins' perspective rather than the perspective Chico Vaughn, so bias is a concern. But my conclusion is that even in a young ABA that wasn't what it would later become, the Pittsburgh Pipers had no business winning a title given the lack of team play. But what was the case is that when Hawkins played the pivot, the offense hummed with Hawkins both scoring incredibly well and passing incredibly well.

Hawkins suffered the defining injury of his career midway through his second ABA season, and most don't think he was ever as good again, yet still he ended up blowing away the NBA once he got going.

What precipitated him getting going? Mid-way through the season, Phoenix Suns GM Jerry Colangelo fired coach Red Kerr, took over as coach, and had the team play with Hawkins in the high post as the guy the offense would run through. Prior to that point, Hawkins had been positioned in the corner while team captain Gail Goodrich dribbled, dribbled, dribble, and then shot. Goodrich, it should be noted seems to have had a good attitude and was willing to play in an offense with Hawkins as the focus, but when left to his own devices, he tended to just iso.

A few more anecdotes in Hawkins first year in the NBA:

1. After the Suns beat the Celtics in Boston, Bill Russell - who had retired the previous year - came over and gushed "You can do things with the ball I've never seen before!". (Hawkins responded "If you'd have been out there, you'd have blocked half my shots". Russell then said "I don't think so".)

2. Hawkins drew rave reviews as the best passer in the league. Was he better than Oscar? I'm not prepared to say that, but what I can say is that Hawkins was doing things Oscar could not. One described play involved Hawkins having the ball in the high post and making two quick passing fakes in opposite directions (which he could do because had had the ball palmed), and then casually dribbling through the now open lane to the basket.

3. Another anecdote: Apparently Hawkins could dribble through press defense unaided. When a team pressed the Suns, they'd pass the ball to Hawkins, and get out of the way, while he dribbled his way through opponents. If this seems unrealistic for a player generally, I'd note that this skill was a major thing before the shot clock, and the team most famous for this ability was the Globetrotters back in their still-competitive days in the '40s. Against the Mikan-led Lakers, the Globetrotters famously gave the ball to master-dribbler Marques Haynes, and he dribbled what remained of the 4th quarter away so that his team could take the last shot.

While the shot clock rendered this specific ability moot, the Globetrotters used it as part of their act, and so this was something the Globetrotter players actually practiced, and Hawkins honed the ability there.

So I'd say the most amazing thing isn't that someone could do this, but that Hawkins at 6'8" could do this.

4. I'd note that Wilt said that Hawkins was the only guy in the world who could play "all three positions" - by which he meant guard, forward, and center.

I should also note that Hawkins's quickness and agility was tied to his lithe fame, so when Hawkins played center, he took a severe beating that made it hard for him to sustain that kind of play over a season.

I'll also note that Hawkins was a guy who got very little training in formal defense. With his long arms and quickness he could get blocks and steals, but he struggled beyond that.

5. Some people hated his "clown antics". Some refs in particular. I think this makes sense because the Globetrotters - while they may be clowns - spend their games making their opponents look like fools. What happens when you do that to someone who isn't paid to take it? Animosity.

6. Among players, Elvin Hayes in particular apparently expressed hostility toward Hawkins, and this led to a showdown in the very last game of the '69-70 season which Hawkin's Suns needed to make the playoffs. The Suns were down 19 points at half time, and in the second half Hawkins & Hayes matched up. Hawkins led the team back to a victory with a 44/20/8 night on 30 FGA, and was said to have had 5 blocks & 5 steals in the 3rd quarter alone. Multiple of those blocks came on Hayes who went for 23/18/2 on 25 FGA.

7. In the playoffs, the Suns would fight hard before losing in 7 to the West/Wilt led Lakers, with some making the comment that it was essentially "the Lakers vs Connie Hawkins".

After that year, Hawkins would still have great runs, but injuries took more of a toll. The general feeling was that his body was much older than his age suggested having played 250 Globetrotter games per year while others his age were playing 25 college games per year, to say nothing about all that time on the Schoolyard.

In the end, with Hawkins, I think it's very hard to know how to rank him and so I completely understand those who won't have him in the Top 100. More than anything else, I hope others can just appreciate how singular he was, and how significant on a level beyond simple career impact.

But I do think he warrants a place above Bill Walton, who is my #3 pick here. Love, love, love Walton, but as much as Hawkins had longevity issues, I'd say Walton had them worse, and I'm not comfortable saying that Walton was clearly the better player best vs best. I think Walton was amazing like this, and he certainly has the defensive edge overall, but in some ways I feel like you could look at Walton on offense as a poor man's Hawkins.

Part of what I'm saying here is that I believe that the pivot-and-cut offense that Jack Ramsay instituted for Walton in Portland is not some completely new thing, but rather something that was huge and never really made it to the NBA. Once the basketball world saw Mikan & Kurland, pivot-and-cut passing didn't seem as useful as just pass to low post and score. And when that paradigm got challenged, it got challenged by perimeter-oriented offenses that in today's game are dominant.

I would submit that we've never really seen the potential for a pivot-and-cut offense in the modern NBA until Nikola Jokic, and I might make a comparison between Jokic & Hawkins. And on that front, note that I have Jokic below Walton. Through the end of last season, I didn't think Jokic had done enough to surpass Walton, but with this season, well, things are changing.

I will note, with regards to context, I consider Jokic to be more of "random genius" than Hawkins. I think Hawkins became what he did because he was shaped by unique context and had specific, rare physical gifts. Jokic seems like he was born like this.

Alright, beyond Hawk I've got Walton & Jokic on my ballot.

So first, what that means is that I'm clearly right now siding on peak/prime over longevity relative to some other folks. As I always say, I'm not going to tell you that your longevity weighting is wrong - I think that's up to personal philosophy.

I will say on Walton I've had him all over my ballots through the years and really don't know where to put him...but I do think that he deserves to be higher than Jokic through '19-20. I understand that you can argue that Jokic should win based on a longevity edge, but Jokic is obviously weak there as well, and Walton being a key part of a championship team 7 years after the first really cements that indelible impression I have of him.

If you just think Jokic through last year was better than Walton, I get that, but I'd not feel comfortable saying that because Walton was the best defender on the planet.

On Jokic over other guys, the first guy I want to mention is someone I've not even been listing out because he hasn't had traction: Draymond Green. When I look at current players not in, those two are the next ones on my list and to be honest I expected to have Green ahead of Jokic.

If I felt strongly about Green over Jokic, I'd be arguing for that now, but I'm not. I can see arguments both ways, but Green really doesn't have much of a longevity edge, and as special as Green was at his best, I do think Jokic was more special by a smidge even before this year.

On Tiny Archibald - I'm really convinced at this point that he was an absolute killer at his best. He feels like he should be easily a Top 100 guy for me, and I rank him above some guys already on the list, but obviously there are still guys left out there that I like even better.

Since Porter almost got in is that I actually would put Buck Williams over Porter. Porter's greater if you factor in just their Blazer career, but Buck's work on the Nets is big too, so I'm slotting Buck in.

Also, it's bugging me that Chris Mullin isn't being given more love. I think it's worth reiterating that he wasn't a "fringe Dream Teamer". He was more of a lock than Barkley, and his minutes played in the Olympics speaks to this. Basically he had a role with some similarities to what what Miller/Allen/Curry would later have, and which is still tremendously underrated today imho.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
ZeppelinPage
Head Coach
Posts: 6,418
And1: 3,386
Joined: Jun 26, 2008
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#35 » by ZeppelinPage » Sun May 9, 2021 12:11 am

HeartBreakKid wrote:Hey Zep, this is unrelated to my ABA posts from earlier - but out of curiosity what do you think of Hawkins as a player? You seem to not mind awarding high peaks in your list, so do you think Hawkins just wasn't that good - if so, why?


I actually do like Hawkins--it's just hard to give much value to his ABA years when there are still plenty of really impactful players with long NBA careers on the board. He probably would have been higher on this list without the knee injuries/entering league late. Even though he was really good in his first NBA season, he has a pretty short overall career and an even shorter prime. When looking over other players he is competing with for the top 100, it's just not enough. I value playoff performances pretty high--he had a tough matchup in '70 vs Wilt's Lakers with high volume (although below average efficiency). But that was his only NBA playoff series during his prime. I wish he could have had a longer prime to see what he could do against NBA playoff competition.
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 20,193
And1: 26,049
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#36 » by Clyde Frazier » Sun May 9, 2021 3:55 am

Vote 1 - Bernard King
Vote 2 - Chris Webber
Vote 3 - Tiny Archibald

DeBusschere > Bellamy > Beaty > Jerry Lucas > Hagan > Dandridge > Aldridge > Lowry > Gus Williams > Sikma > Dennis Johnson > Hawkins > Johnston > Draymond > Jokic > Walton > Heinsohn


At his peak, king was one of the most dynamic scorers the league had seen. He was more methodical than flashy, but he knew what he was good at and kept going to it. His turnaround jumper was so lethal that he didn't even have to look at the hoop when releasing the shot. It was all in 1 quick motion where the defender really had no chance to block it. He was also very bull-like in the open court. Not a high leaper, but extremely powerful with long strides getting to the rim.

From 79-85 he put up the following:

Regular Season
23.6 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 3.2 APG, 1.1 SPG, .3 BPG, 55.1% FG, 70.1% FT, 58.7% TS, .153 WS/48, 111 ORtg

Playoffs
30.5 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 2.8 APG, 1 SPG, .3 BPG, 56.8% FG, 72% FT, 60.9% TS, .213 WS/48, 122 ORtg

His prime was obviously cut short by injuries, but he still put together 11 seasons of solid production when it was all said and done. When he tore his ACL, his career was largely thought to be over given the era he played in. He went on to make an improbable comeback which culminated with him getting back to All NBA status in 90-91 with the bullets. I've alluded to this with other players in the project, but the amount of determination it takes to come back from major injuries and still perform at a high level is really impressive.

[As an aside, the Knicks stupidly released him because he wanted to do his rehab on his own instead of at the knicks training facility. Always would've loved to see even a lesser version of King get to play with Ewing. Could've been a great match.]

He was probably best known for his 1st round game 5 clincher against the pistons in 84:

In a critical and decisive Game 5, Bernard King was his usual unstoppable self putting up 40 points as the Knicks held a double-digit lead with under two minutes remaining in the fourth quarter. Then Thomas decided to take things into his own hands by putting on a performance of epic proportions, tallying 16 points within the game’s final 94 seconds, to force overtime. King and Thomas exchanged offensive blows like a heavyweight title fight, with King getting the final blow by jamming an offensive put-back in the games final moments, giving him a game high 46 points and the Knicks a 3-2 series win. King showed a national audience that he would become one of the game’s most prolific scoring machines before injuries robbed him of his explosiveness. Game 5 was also arguably the moment that put a young “Zeke” on par with the NBA’s elite.



http://www.theshadowleague.com/articles/the-epic-battle-of-bernard-king-vs-isiah-thomas

Notice the splints on both of King's hands...



The Knicks would go on to lose to the eventual NBA champion celtics in 7 games, as he played through injuries and still averaged 29.1 PPG on 59.7% TS in the series. The guy was just relentless.

"The key was his preparation," said former Knicks coach and ESPN analyst Hubie Brown.

Part of that preparation included practicing thousands of shots from what King called his "sweet spots." In the half court, he identified three points along the baseline out to the sideline, then extended an imaginary line from a halfway point up the lane to the sideline with three more, then three more extended from the foul line to the sideline. He did the same on the other side of the lane.

Within the lane he identified four spots from the rim to the top of the key. These 22 spots, all within 18 feet of the basket, created a matrix of areas from which he felt supremely confident he could score. If a team tried to deny him the ball on offense, he would move from one sweet spot to another.

"He had the ability to see what all five positions were doing. That's how he could handle double- and triple-teams, because he knew where everyone would be," Brown said. "He knew how to create space for the high-percentage shot or find the guy who was open."


http://espn.go.com/nba/halloffame13/story/_/id/9653879/bernard-king-ahead
User avatar
prolific passer
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,117
And1: 1,443
Joined: Mar 11, 2009
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#37 » by prolific passer » Sun May 9, 2021 4:36 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
prolific passer wrote:2 of the big 3 STL Hawks are on the list. Can Lenny Wilkens make it a hat trick?


Thought I should say I'd be inclined to go for fellow Hawk Zelmo Beaty over Wilkens. From a Hawk specific perspective Wilkens would have the edge, but I think you can make the case that Zelmo still peaked higher as a Hawk (that one Wilkens MVP candidacy being an obvious counter I have to acknowledge), and then the way he adapted to the ABA was something special.

What hurt Wilkens is the same thing that hurts Tiny. Not being in the playoffs much when he was at his best. After he left the hawks in 68. He never played in the playoffs ever again and had some great regular seasons from 69-74.
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,592
And1: 3,327
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#38 » by LA Bird » Sun May 9, 2021 9:11 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:If we're using Beaty as a barometer to play down the ABA's competition, couldn't we also use Rick Barry who was in the league at the same time? Rick Barry would go onto the NBA and win a title with one of the least talented championship teams. You could go both ways here. If Rick Barry plays a full season he could probably get MVP over Daniels, but it's not like these guys are not peers in some sense.

Barry was a little underwhelming during his ABA years considering the level of competition but he had proven himself in the NBA already. Daniels only had his ABA career to count on so that's why it matters more for him. My thought process is like this:

1. Did they play well in the NBA? If yes, good. If not,
2. Did they dominate the ABA and really distinguished themselves from everyone else?

The second check by itself does not mean an early ABA player is guaranteed to dominate in the NBA which is why NBA success takes precedence. Barry had already succeeded in the NBA so he passed the test. Daniels didn't pass the first check and I wouldn't say he passed the second either. He never really dominated the league like Hawkins, Gilmore or Dr J did. I think Daniels would still be pretty good in the NBA but being just good is not enough to cut it at this level with his longevity IMO. There are many great centers like Beaty, Sikma, Laimbeer, Gasol who likely won't make the top 100 either.

To say that winning an ABA MVP is the equivalent of having a billion Zimbabwe dollars is pretty much saying the league sucks. I'll just disagree with that one, the All-ABA rosters had plenty of good players throughout Daniels career.

Winning an ABA MVP over someone truly great like 1976 Dr J would have been impressive. Winning an ABA MVP over Larry Jones? Not so much. If Daniels wasn't better than the NBA MVP in the years that he won his ABA MVPs, why does it matter that he won MVP in a weaker league without the very best player? Put it another way, if a team that wins the East can't beat the best teams from the West, would you still call them a championship team overall just because they won the East and the East had plenty of good players? I don't think so.

As for the All-NBA comment, well there were only two teams back then and Kareem/Chamberlain were both active so yeah. Cowens and Reed were given those awards over Wilt during this time, but I honestly don't see how Cowens is waaaay better than Daniels. I actually think stylistically Daniels and Reed have a decent amount of things in common.

You are overlooking the difference in center quality in the two leagues. There was not a single notable center in the entire ABA besides Daniels for his first 3 years until Beaty's arrival. The NBA on the other hand was absolutely stacked with Kareem, Wilt, Reed, Unseld, Thurmond, Cowens, Lanier, Hayes, Bellamy. The NBA-ABA difference was far larger at C than any other position and if Daniels was really as good as Reed or Cowens, he should have been lapping every center in the early ABA with ease. But he didn't. Gilmore joined when the ABA was getting stronger and still dominated more than Daniels ever did. Daniels in the NBA would likely have been on Beaty's level but without Beaty's career longevity.
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,940
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 

Post#39 » by Odinn21 » Sun May 9, 2021 9:18 pm

95. Gus Williams
It's interesting to me that a player with similar prime but worse postseason resilience made the list before Gus in Lillard.
Gus had decent prime duration, elite peak and prime level. Had he not sat out a season with a contract dispute, I’d probably make a case for him earlier. But that season without him showed how valuable he was.
1979 Sonics, 52 wins and title with Gus, Sikma and DJ
1980 Sonics, 56 wins and WCF loss against the eventual champions with Gus, Sikma and DJ
1981 Sonics, 34 wins and no playoffs with only Sikma (Gus sat out, DJ was traded away for Westphal and Westphal played only 36 games)
1982 Sonics, 52 wins and 2nd round exit with Gus and Sikma (Westphal wasn’t in Seattle in that season)

96. Walt Bellamy
His prime has some inconsistencies but he had a career trajectory of a ‘00s player in the ‘60s with good quality. It’s all there for him.
(In terms of first few seasons, Bellamy and Hawkins are pretty similar but curious about why Hawkins should be a better candidate than Bellamy, Cunningham, Issel with their entire careers. It’s arguable that Hawkins peaked higher to begin with...)

97. Bernard King
Arguably the best peak among the big scoring wings of the '80s (Gervin, Dantley, English and Wilkins). Even after the injuries he was still a good impact ended up with nearly 20k career point.
I know my list is quite harsh on Bill Walton and Connie Hawkins who do not have much to show for outside of their top 3 or 4 seasons. But King is not like them to me. If anything, King is like a more impactful Carmelo Anthony IMO.

J. Sikma > C. Hagan > D. DeBusschere > J. Worthy > B. Dandridge > J. Butler > C. Webber > N. Jokic > > K. Lowry > L. Aldridge > D. Green > Z. Beaty > C. Hawkins > B. Walton > N. Archibald > N. Johnston > D. Johnson > T. Heinsohn > F. Ramsey > M. Daniels
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,450
And1: 8,114
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #95 (Nikola Jokic) 

Post#40 » by trex_8063 » Mon May 10, 2021 1:02 am

Thru post #39:

LaMarcus Aldridge - 1 (trex_8063)
Nikola Jokic - 1 (Dutchball97)
Bernard King - 1 (Clyde Frazier)
Connie Hawkins - 1 (Doctor MJ)
Gus Williams - 1 (Odinn21)
Draymond Green - 1 (sansterre)
Jack Sikma - 1 (penbeast0)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Dennis Johnson - 1 (Hal14)
Tom Heinsohn - 1 (ZeppelinPage)


10 votes for 10 players, so it again comes down to the all-around Condorcet winner…….which this time is Nikola Jokic (he’s 6-0-3 in all his H2H’s; no one else can top that [Sikma, Dray, and Walton appear closest]). Walton would have been the all-around winner from the first 9 voters, but Odinn21’s appearance changed that.

I still suspect/worry Jokic wouldn’t be here if he weren’t having the season he’s currently having [which is “inadmissible”], but anyway….I’ll have the next up in a moment.

Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

Ambrose wrote:.

Baski wrote:.

bidofo wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

DCasey91 wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

DQuinn1575 wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dutchball97 wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

Franco wrote:.

Gregoire wrote:.

Hal14 wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

iggymcfrack wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

Joe Malburg wrote:.

Joey Wheeler wrote:.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:.

limbo wrote:.

Magic Is Magic wrote:.

Matzer wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Odinn21 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

O_6 wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

PistolPeteJR wrote:.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]
Senior wrote:.

SeniorWalker wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

Whopper_Sr wrote:.

ZeppelinPage wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

876Stephen wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

Return to Player Comparisons