RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #97 (Bob McAdoo)

[Doctor MJ]

I just don't see a clear statistical argument for Davies over Hagan, and it seems to me that a lot of Davies' case is based on his pre-NBA years(and the championship and MVP he won therein), for which the available statistics are meager, and which only covers a total of 107 additional games(going back to 1945-46, as that's where Doc says consideration begins in the General thread) as opposed to the 462 regular season games he played in the NBA.

But I'm happy to be told why I'm wrong.

The pre-NBA years are definitely doing a good amount of work in Davies' candidacy as I see it, and it's up to each to decide how much they value them.

One thing about the "only X additional games" is that the NBL played a shorter schedule, but that number doesn't represent all the games the team was playing. Hence I personally don't see much of a point of treating these seasons as less valuable than later seasons simply because the seasons were shorter - the short season wasn't a reflection on player durability, and quite honestly, we'd be better off today with the season length that was played in the '40s.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Doesn't necessarily make you wrong but if you're relying on the above data then you're missing 3 years including an MVP season (in the stronger league at the time, as I understand it) and team title.

I acknowledged that in my paragraph above and expressed why I'm somewhat hesitant to give those years full weight.

It's acknowledged that they exist ...

As far as justification for not giving them full weight ...
1) the numbers are above aren't not full weight ... they're fully ignoring. I'm an early ABA cynic but if I had Hawkins and another guy and I supported the other guy citing NBA numbers and saying I don't see "a clear statistical argument for" Hawkins ... that feels flawed as a case there's that place not covered where the guy is an MVP (and whatever one feels about absolute terms, the NBL was probably initially the best league in the world at that time). Now I don't think he was Hawkins level dominant but ...

I get that maybe we can't give Davies' full numbers but I'd struggle to hand wave away "maybe the most valuable in the best league" ... now MVP is a very crude tool, I don't love it ... further back it's what we have. Ditto making the Silver Anniversary Team. And we can note his playoff primacy increases in the NBL, or his wider playmaking reputation that the boxscore then doesn't capture.

The difference is that we have full box data for Hawkins in the early ABA. We can debate about NBA vs ABA, but we can look at Hawkins' ABA stats and see scoring volume, scoring efficiency, assists, rebounds, turnovers, win shares, PER, etc. With Davies' NBL years, all we have is scoring volume, field goals made, and free throw percentage. We cannot know his scoring efficiency except to guess based upon how many made field goals it took score his points. We cannot know his impact as a playmaker without seeing his assist numbers.

What we can see is that in the year the Royals won the NBL championship, 1946, three players on the team scored more ppg than Davies in the RS, and Davies was not in the Top 10 in the league. And in the playoffs, he was second in scoring, with #3 and #4 not far behind. We can assume, based on his NBA play, that he led the team in assists and was the primary playmaker, but it's just that, an assumption, there is no data to confirm that.

Al Cervi in particular, based on his TS in his NBA years and field goals made in his NBL years, looks like he may have been a more efficient scorer on similar volume to Davies. So again I'm left thinking that Davies' biggest value was as a playmaker and again I'm left with no data to confirm that for his NBL years.

This has been my thing with Davies. We are being asked to take certain things on faith.

I won't be too upset if Davies makes the list - I may even vote for him depending on matchups - but I think the gap between him and Hagan has been exaggerated and the lack of data for his NBL years is frustrating.

2) as far as reasons to discount "which only covers a total of 107 additional games" ... that gives you somewhat less sample to say whatever conclusions are luck based ... beyond that I think most have tended to pro-rate abbreviated seasons given it's beyond a player's control (now Davies misses some time too, and that should be accounted for). I can see the case for uncertainty and going conservative ... I just think if it's eligible and you are of the belief it is the best league and he was among the elite then those years are something it's tough to breeze over.

I'm not breezing over it, I'm just saying there is arguably insufficient data to fully show WHY he was among the elite or in what ways he was among the elite in the league.

As before I'm kind inclined towards a pioneer wing for these lists for Mikan and Feerick and Davies and Haynes and Fulks et al. And among Royals guards I've moved a greater appreciation of Wanzer (especially if one skews playoff-orientated). But they are eligible and in a process where some have said narrative significance matters to them Davies is an MVP and a champ in those years (again, elevating his primacy in the playoffs), has a spot on the silver anniversary team and ... it's very fuzzy ... but it's not a small thing, especially if/where it has mattered previously (in places where such info isn't the best/least-worst info source).

I'm not sure I'd be in favor of that. Segregating a certain era of players to a separate list may open the door to further eschewing of era-relativity.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I just don't see a clear statistical argument for Davies over Hagan, and it seems to me that a lot of Davies' case is based on his pre-NBA years(and the championship and MVP he won therein), for which the available statistics are meager, and which only covers a total of 107 additional games(going back to 1945-46, as that's where Doc says consideration begins in the General thread) as opposed to the 462 regular season games he played in the NBA.

But I'm happy to be told why I'm wrong.

The pre-NBA years are definitely doing a good amount of work in Davies' candidacy as I see it, and it's up to each to decide how much they value them.

One thing about the "only X additional games" is that the NBL played a shorter schedule, but that number doesn't represent all the games the team was playing. Hence I personally don't see much of a point of treating these seasons as less valuable than later seasons simply because the seasons were shorter - the short season wasn't a reflection on player durability, and quite honestly, we'd be better off today with the season length that was played in the '40s.

Wait...I need some clarification. Are you suggesting that there are games that Davies played for the Royals in the NBA in 46, 47, and 48 - beyond the 27, 32, and 48 games that are listed - that just aren't recorded at all, that we have no information about at all? Or are you saying that he missed games for reasons not having to do with durability?

As I understand it via Wiki, the NBL didn't have a standard season length, it was left up to teams as long as they played "at least ten" games and "at least four" of them were on the road.

In any case, when I say "only" "107 additional games", my issue was just that it's a small sample size compared to how many NBA games he played, and that some of you guys seem to be arguing that he was enough better in that smaller sample to offset whatever doubts may arise from the NBA sample.

[Owly]

I acknowledged that in my paragraph above and expressed why I'm somewhat hesitant to give those years full weight.

It's acknowledged that they exist ...

As far as justification for not giving them full weight ...
1) the numbers are above aren't not full weight ... they're fully ignoring. I'm an early ABA cynic but if I had Hawkins and another guy and I supported the other guy citing NBA numbers and saying I don't see "a clear statistical argument for" Hawkins ... that feels flawed as a case there's that place not covered where the guy is an MVP (and whatever one feels about absolute terms, the NBL was probably initially the best league in the world at that time). Now I don't think he was Hawkins level dominant but ...

I get that maybe we can't give Davies' full numbers but I'd struggle to hand wave away "maybe the most valuable in the best league" ... now MVP is a very crude tool, I don't love it ... further back it's what we have. Ditto making the Silver Anniversary Team. And we can note his playoff primacy increases in the NBL, or his wider playmaking reputation that the boxscore then doesn't capture.

The difference is that we have full box data for Hawkins in the early ABA. We can debate about NBA vs ABA, but we can look at Hawkins' ABA stats and see scoring volume, scoring efficiency, assists, rebounds, turnovers, win shares, PER, etc. With Davies' NBL years, all we have is scoring volume, field goals made, and free throw percentage. We cannot know his scoring efficiency except to guess based upon how many made field goals it took score his points. We cannot know his impact as a playmaker without seeing his assist numbers.

What we can see is that in the year the Royals won the NBL championship, 1946, three players on the team scored more ppg than Davies in the RS, and Davies was not in the Top 10 in the league. And in the playoffs, he was second in scoring, with #3 and #4 not far behind. We can assume, based on his NBA play, that he led the team in assists and was the primary playmaker, but it's just that, an assumption, there is no data to confirm that.

Al Cervi in particular, based on his TS in his NBA years and field goals made in his NBL years, looks like he may have been a more efficient scorer on similar volume to Davies. So again I'm left thinking that Davies' biggest value was as a playmaker and again I'm left with no data to confirm that for his NBL years.

This has been my thing with Davies. We are being asked to take certain things on faith.

I won't be too upset if Davies makes the list - I may even vote for him depending on matchups - but I think the gap between him and Hagan has been exaggerated and the lack of data for his NBL years is frustrating.

2) as far as reasons to discount "which only covers a total of 107 additional games" ... that gives you somewhat less sample to say whatever conclusions are luck based ... beyond that I think most have tended to pro-rate abbreviated seasons given it's beyond a player's control (now Davies misses some time too, and that should be accounted for). I can see the case for uncertainty and going conservative ... I just think if it's eligible and you are of the belief it is the best league and he was among the elite then those years are something it's tough to breeze over.

I'm not breezing over it, I'm just saying there is arguably insufficient data to fully show WHY he was among the elite or in what ways he was among the elite in the league.

As before I'm kind inclined towards a pioneer wing for these lists for Mikan and Feerick and Davies and Haynes and Fulks et al. And among Royals guards I've moved a greater appreciation of Wanzer (especially if one skews playoff-orientated). But they are eligible and in a process where some have said narrative significance matters to them Davies is an MVP and a champ in those years (again, elevating his primacy in the playoffs), has a spot on the silver anniversary team and ... it's very fuzzy ... but it's not a small thing, especially if/where it has mattered previously (in places where such info isn't the best/least-worst info source).

I'm not sure I'd be in favor of that. Segregating a certain era of players to a separate list may open the door to further eschewing of era-relativity.

So far as Hawkins and the point regarding greater uncertainty ... this has been granted. It is a good cause for holding a wide plausible range on Davies regarding how dominant he was within era.

Regarding ... "We cannot know his impact as a playmaker without seeing his assist numbers." I'd argue we can't know a player's impact as a playmaker with just their assist numbers. We're significantly closer perhaps but we can't "know". Especially for eras with sparse film. Semantics aside ... it come down to how much you're willing to trust what we have. If not then ... as I've said a separate "Noteworthy pioneers" makes sense. If so the limited source we have say he was well regarded at the time.

Regarding ... "And in the playoffs, he was second in scoring, with #3 and #4 not far behind" this is a rather ... curious ... framing 0.3ppg (2 pts total) is not noted as "not far", but 0.7 and 2.3 (5 points and 16 points) are ... [all per Neft and Cohen].

As I said it depends on criteria. But I'm sure "on a champ", accolades/awards, "top 50 and top 75" and narrative have mattered to people, perhaps including yourself ... now these indirect measures are relatively more important in knowing who's good at that time because there's less data available.

Fwiw, I think a list of noteworthy pioneers is the best and perhaps only way early major league era pioneers other than Mikan get much recognition in this type of project (Schayes extends far enough in to get more publicity). And if uncertainty is a bar then then NBL guys have no chance as it is. But that's just my opinion.

But I'm not sure this is going anywhere, so I'm intending to leave it here.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Regarding ... "We cannot know his impact as a playmaker without seeing his assist numbers." I'd argue we can't know a player's impact as a playmaker with just their assist numbers. We're significantly closer perhaps but we can't "know". Especially for eras with sparse film. Semantics aside ... it come down to how much you're willing to trust what we have. If not then ... as I've said a separate "Noteworthy pioneers" makes sense. If so the limited source we have say he was well regarded at the time.

Well, agreed, but we could still tell more with assists than without.

Regarding ... "And in the playoffs, he was second in scoring, with #3 and #4 not far behind" this is a rather ... curious ... framing 0.3ppg (2 pts total) is not noted as "not far", but 0.7 and 2.3 (5 points and 16 points) are ... [all per Neft and Cohen].

Well, put another way, the #1 scorer on the team and the #4 scorer on the team are separated by on 2.6ppg, so it doesn't seem like a significant advantage to me, though based on FGM we can surmise that Davies and Cervi were the most efficient of those four.

As I said it depends on criteria. But I'm sure "on a champ", accolades/awards, "top 50 and top 75" and narrative have mattered to people, perhaps including yourself ... now these indirect measures are relatively more important in knowing who's good at that time because there's less data available.

But we've always had much more data with which to put those accolades into context. There are a number of Top 50/75 players who aren't going to make this list because enough people think the data doesn't support it.

Fwiw, I think a list of noteworthy pioneers is the best and perhaps only way early major league era pioneers other than Mikan get much recognition in this type of project (Schayes extends far enough in to get more publicity). And if uncertainty is a bar then then NBL guys have no chance as it is. But that's just my opinion.

But I'm not sure this is going anywhere, so I'm intending to leave it here.

Fair point.

[Owly]

I just don't see a clear statistical argument for Davies over Hagan, and it seems to me that a lot of Davies' case is based on his pre-NBA years(and the championship and MVP he won therein), for which the available statistics are meager, and which only covers a total of 107 additional games(going back to 1945-46, as that's where Doc says consideration begins in the General thread) as opposed to the 462 regular season games he played in the NBA.

But I'm happy to be told why I'm wrong.

The pre-NBA years are definitely doing a good amount of work in Davies' candidacy as I see it, and it's up to each to decide how much they value them.

One thing about the "only X additional games" is that the NBL played a shorter schedule, but that number doesn't represent all the games the team was playing. Hence I personally don't see much of a point of treating these seasons as less valuable than later seasons simply because the seasons were shorter - the short season wasn't a reflection on player durability, and quite honestly, we'd be better off today with the season length that was played in the '40s.

Wait...I need some clarification. Are you suggesting that there are games that Davies played for the Royals in the NBA in 46, 47, and 48 - beyond the 27, 32, and 48 games that are listed - that just aren't recorded at all, that we have no information about at all? Or are you saying that he missed games for reasons not having to do with durability?

As I understand it via Wiki, the NBL didn't have a standard season length, it was left up to teams as long as they played "at least ten" games and "at least four" of them were on the road.

In any case, when I say "only" "107 additional games", my issue was just that it's a small sample size compared to how many NBA games he played, and that some of you guys seem to be arguing that he was enough better in that smaller sample to offset whatever doubts may arise from the NBA sample.

I some possibilities ...
1) as explicit shorter seasons
2) non-league games? I don't know how much the Royals did or what the norms were. World Tournament would be a possible high profile one. I don't know if they did a big preseason (recall this claimed for some early-ish NBA teams, but don't know details) or exhibition or barnstorming was done by league teams. Honestly Davies was probably busy enough coaching Seton Hall.
3) 1946 season games missed are noted as (military service) by Neft and Cohen, and 47 due to coaching Seton Hall; 48 does seem health related Neft and Cohen list "KJ, ankle injury" - KJ in their code stands for "Knee injury" [ankle injury could have been given via code NJ] so a couple of injuries seem to be at play there.
4) Mileage in the game at that time with medical and transport at that time ... isn't the same as in the "teams own [or else have access to] planes era".

But I can't speak for others.

[Doctor MJ]

I acknowledged that in my paragraph above and expressed why I'm somewhat hesitant to give those years full weight.

It's acknowledged that they exist ...

As far as justification for not giving them full weight ...
1) the numbers are above aren't not full weight ... they're fully ignoring. I'm an early ABA cynic but if I had Hawkins and another guy and I supported the other guy citing NBA numbers and saying I don't see "a clear statistical argument for" Hawkins ... that feels flawed as a case there's that place not covered where the guy is an MVP (and whatever one feels about absolute terms, the NBL was probably initially the best league in the world at that time). Now I don't think he was Hawkins level dominant but ...

I get that maybe we can't give Davies' full numbers but I'd struggle to hand wave away "maybe the most valuable in the best league" ... now MVP is a very crude tool, I don't love it ... further back it's what we have. Ditto making the Silver Anniversary Team. And we can note his playoff primacy increases in the NBL, or his wider playmaking reputation that the boxscore then doesn't capture.

The difference is that we have full box data for Hawkins in the early ABA. We can debate about NBA vs ABA, but we can look at Hawkins' ABA stats and see scoring volume, scoring efficiency, assists, rebounds, turnovers, win shares, PER, etc. With Davies' NBL years, all we have is scoring volume, field goals made, and free throw percentage. We cannot know his scoring efficiency except to guess based upon how many made field goals it took score his points. We cannot know his impact as a playmaker without seeing his assist numbers.

What we can see is that in the year the Royals won the NBL championship, 1946, three players on the team scored more ppg than Davies in the RS, and Davies was not in the Top 10 in the league. And in the playoffs, he was second in scoring, with #3 and #4 not far behind. We can assume, based on his NBA play, that he led the team in assists and was the primary playmaker, but it's just that, an assumption, there is no data to confirm that.

Al Cervi in particular, based on his TS in his NBA years and field goals made in his NBL years, looks like he may have been a more efficient scorer on similar volume to Davies. So again I'm left thinking that Davies' biggest value was as a playmaker and again I'm left with no data to confirm that for his NBL years.

This has been my thing with Davies. We are being asked to take certain things on faith.

I won't be too upset if Davies makes the list - I may even vote for him depending on matchups - but I think the gap between him and Hagan has been exaggerated and the lack of data for his NBL years is frustrating.

2) as far as reasons to discount "which only covers a total of 107 additional games" ... that gives you somewhat less sample to say whatever conclusions are luck based ... beyond that I think most have tended to pro-rate abbreviated seasons given it's beyond a player's control (now Davies misses some time too, and that should be accounted for). I can see the case for uncertainty and going conservative ... I just think if it's eligible and you are of the belief it is the best league and he was among the elite then those years are something it's tough to breeze over.

I'm not breezing over it, I'm just saying there is arguably insufficient data to fully show WHY he was among the elite or in what ways he was among the elite in the league.

As before I'm kind inclined towards a pioneer wing for these lists for Mikan and Feerick and Davies and Haynes and Fulks et al. And among Royals guards I've moved a greater appreciation of Wanzer (especially if one skews playoff-orientated). But they are eligible and in a process where some have said narrative significance matters to them Davies is an MVP and a champ in those years (again, elevating his primacy in the playoffs), has a spot on the silver anniversary team and ... it's very fuzzy ... but it's not a small thing, especially if/where it has mattered previously (in places where such info isn't the best/least-worst info source).

I'm not sure I'd be in favor of that. Segregating a certain era of players to a separate list may open the door to further eschewing of era-relativity.

So my perspective generally here:

1. I don't see it as "taking on faith", I see it as judging the most likely reality based on the information given. There's a wider range of uncertainty the further into the past we go, but that doesn't mean we can't use the information we have as best we can.

2. However I do understand the perspective of cutting things off when we don't have enough information, and me saying '45-46 is the starting point represents a choice on my part not necessarily aligned with what the project has done in the past, so it's definitely something that I'm trying to be flexible on for others.

A little more backstory: George Mikan's been the tricky figure traditionally for us. Do you include only his NBA career? His BAA/NBA career? Entire pro career? Maybe you don't include him at all. Basically all of those things have been tried, but the idea of not including Mikan was tried only once and then never again, and I'd say that mostly what people have been doing is including Mikan's full pro career...but ignoring his actual '40s contemporaries.

3. I've chosen '45-46 as my recommended starting point for projects like this because to me that's the year where top level basketball consolidated into a dominant league with the NBL. The NBL exists prior to that, and it is gradually in the becoming the strongest pro league, but while the War is in on, most of the best talent is in the military. This is most glaring in the creation of the Rochester Royals that season built on military talent, which would then immediately become the best team in the best pro league, and would only get surpassed with the arrival of Mikan the following season.

And just to keep going on some details here:

4. At one point I thought it would be better to start with the dominance of the Zollner Pistons and star Bobby McDermott, who clearly owned pro basketball in the early '40s. 2 big things make me go against that, both related to the War. First, as I mentioned, that Piston dynasty died as soon as the guys from the military were available to turn pros. Second, McDermott was not considered the top talent of his generation, Hank Luisetti was. To the point that MSG czar and future New York Knick owner was looking to build his post-War pro-team around Luisetti up until a case of meningitis put Luisetti in a coma and ended his athletic playing career. This then to say that aside from the racial segregation Mikan/Kurland, there were other reasons to believe that McDermott didn't actually represent the gold standard of his era.

5. In theory you could make a case that the ABL of the 1940s should be considered along with the NBL as the other "major league" of basketball. But I think it's pretty clear that the establishment of the BAA represented a new attempt to established a top league for the East Coast because the ABL hadn't been able to keep up. Case in point: Eddie Gottlieb founded the Philadelphia SPHAs who were in the ABL, but he didn't try to bring them over to the new BAA. He instead created the Philadelphia Warriors, which existed simultaneously with the SPHAs who were still in the ABL.

[Doctor MJ]

Fwiw, I think a list of noteworthy pioneers is the best and perhaps only way early major league era pioneers other than Mikan get much recognition in this type of project (Schayes extends far enough in to get more publicity). And if uncertainty is a bar then then NBL guys have no chance as it is. But that's just my opinion.

But I'm not sure this is going anywhere, so I'm intending to leave it here.

So I'll just say that while a project truly focused on pioneering/innovation/influence/etc would be very worth doing, I consider it a different criteria than the one we have focused on competitive achievement.

This then to say that if I were really going by influence, Mikan would be in my Top 5, but as is Mikan got voted in earlier than I would have voted for him.

It's understandable then to ask someone like me, "Are you shoehorning influence in for a guy like Davies here?". That's where I'd go back to the point where I'm literally more impressed with Davies than I am with Cousy, who people tend to see a given for lists like this.

[Owly]

Fwiw, I think a list of noteworthy pioneers is the best and perhaps only way early major league era pioneers other than Mikan get much recognition in this type of project (Schayes extends far enough in to get more publicity). And if uncertainty is a bar then then NBL guys have no chance as it is. But that's just my opinion.

But I'm not sure this is going anywhere, so I'm intending to leave it here.

So I'll just say that while a project truly focused on pioneering/innovation/influence/etc would be very worth doing, I consider it a different criteria than the one we have focused on competitive achievement.

It would be different if done on those grounds ... I think in other phrasings I said stuff like "pioneer era"? That was my thinking anyhow. V time limited so not checking now. So I think one could do something closer to this criteria ... just maybe it isn't ranked given the substantial uncertainties. But there could be more room for pioneers and innovators too. There's probably room to be more open-ended with that sort of thing. IDK.