RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #78 (Dennis Rodman)

[Doctor MJ]

Our system is now as follows:

1. We have a pool of Nominees you are to choose from for your Induction (main) vote to decide who next gets on the List. Choose your top vote, and if you'd like to, a second vote which will be used for runoff purposes if needed.

2. Nomination vote now works the same way.

3. You must include reasoning for each of your votes, though you may re-use your old words in a new post.

4. Post as much as they want, but when you do your official Vote make it really clear to me at the top of that post that that post is your Vote. And if you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same Vote post.

5. Anyone may post thoughts, but please only make a Vote post if you're on the Voter list. If you'd like to be added to the project, please ask in the General Thread for the project. Note that you will not be added immediately to the project now. If you express an interest during the #2 thread, for example, the earliest you'll be added to the Voter list is for the #3.

5. I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over). For this specific Vote, if people ask before the Deadline, I'll extend it.

Here's the list of the Voter Pool as it stands right now (and if I forgot anyone I approved, do let me know):

Spoiler:

AEnigma
Ambrose
ceilng raiser
ceoofkobefans
Clyde Frazier
Colbinii
cupcakesnake
Doctor MJ
Dooley
DQuinn1575
Dr Positivity
DraymondGold
Dutchball97
f4p
falcolombardi
Fundamentals21
Gibson22
HeartBreakKid
homecourtloss
iggymcfrack
LA Bird
JimmyFromNz
Joao Saraiva
lessthanjake
Lou Fan
Moonbeam
Narigo
OhayoKD
OldSchoolNoBull
penbeast0
Rishkar
rk2023
Samurai
ShaqAttac
Taj FTW
Tim Lehrbach
trelos6
trex_8063
ty 4191
WintaSoldier1
ZeppelinPage

Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):

Bob Cousy


Adrian Dantley


Cliff Hagan


Allen Iverson


Dennis Rodman


As requested, here's the current list so far along with the historical spreadsheet of previous projects:

Current List
Historical Spreadsheet

[AEnigma]

VOTE: Dennis Rodman
Alternate: Allen Iverson
NOMINATE: Al Horford
AltNom: TBD

Iverson and Rodman are my last inclusions on a sort of modified NBA top 75 (distinct from a pure CORP top 75). For Rodman, in addition to being a top three presence on two distinct dynasties (of a sort), I think his 1992 season qualifies as a top 100 peak. He has one of the highest career win percentages across an eleven-year stretch of quality play and is one of the league’s most notable rebounders and non-big defenders. With Rasheed and Bobby the favourites for the next two or three spots, I think Rodman fits in well as a strong tertiary piece on teams with title aspirations.

Much like with Isiah, I am surprisingly one of the first to back Iverson. Iverson had a pretty nice 10-to-12-year prime before his rapid decline. His cultural legacy outpaced his real impact, but his ability to shoulder massive minutes and scoring loads did have a notable lift on his team. The 76ers went from a -9.5 SRS team to a -5.5 team (factoring his missed games) upon his arrival. From 1997-2007, they won at a 33-win pace without him and a 42-win pace with him. That is not overwhelming improvement, but it is a lot of value provided over eleven years. His effect in Denver was more tepid — unsurprising given the scoring overlap with Carmelo — but I think he deserves credit for helping them reach what to that point was a new high mark in wins and SRS, and as I believe I have detailed elsewhere, the difference between the 2008 team and the 2009 team tends to be overstated (although Billups was indeed better for that team).

Scattered nomination thoughts:

- Sam Jones — fine with him but not overly impressed; not much aggregate value and not any sort of franchise centrepiece

- Larry Nance — more interested but lack of success, a noteworthy peak, and ability to be a true franchise centrepiece would make any support rather passive

- Shawn Marion — similar sentiments to Nance, with more success but a more limited playstyle

- Al Horford — thought he should have gone ahead of Gobert and will probably nominate him, although there is a sense where I would prefer to vote for someone less current. Long career and was the definite best player on a team that narrowly missed the Finals, in addition to being a co-lead on two other conference finalists and a meaningful starter on two more.

- Zelmo Beaty — might be a guy I want, but being critical, he had a lighter minutes load for a star, was arguably second to Willie Wise for the Stars’ championship run, and only found success when he joined the second best team in a weaker league

- Baron Davis — short prime with a decent but ultimately whelming peak; no real success, although credit due for the 2007 Mavericks upset

- Sidney Moncrief — even shorter prime than Davis, although he at least managed a few conference finals out of it

- Alex English — fairly decent career acting as the foundation of a consistent playoff team that went through a couple of different iterations. I think he is easier to build around than someone like Dantley, but his peak is nothing special, and his résumé is wholly uninspiring.

- Kevin Johnson — more success than Baron Davis, but similar issues with health and total longevity make me reluctant

- Tony Parker — not going to vote for him yet but I think people are disrespecting what he accomplished as the starting point guard for sixteen years of 50*-win seasons with four championships

- Jayson Tatum — fine with top 100, but this project covers merely six seasons for him, without a ring or any sort of MVP peak

- James Worthy — the drop-off by 1991 hurts him, although I would probably take his prime over Dantley’s or English’s

[penbeast0]

Vote: Adrian Dantley Easily the greatest scorer left. Amazing combination of volume and efficiency.

One of only 5 players in NBA history to have a season over .400 TS Add, something neither LeBron James or Micheal Jordan ever accomplished! Of the top 11 guys in this stat, everyone else is in except for Alex Groza whose career was ended quickly over college point shaving scandals in the 50s. And it wasn't isolated, he was consistently among the league leaders in both scoring and efficiency for his whole career.

His history with coaches is mixed. Frank Layton in Utah ripped him publicly as a selfish player though he later tried to walk it back a few times. On the other hand, Chuck Daly praised his professionalism, work ethic, and even his defense. But basically he is a serious candidate as one of the greatest wing scorers to ever play and everyone close to him in volume and efficiency is in.

Code: Select all

TS ADD LEADERS (single season) -- thanks to Owly for posting this

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 460.4
Steph Curry 454.7
Charles Barkley 433.5
Wilt Chamberlain 430.3
Adrian Dantley 404.8

Kevin Durant 394.9
Oscar Robertson 392.5
Jerry West 374.3
George Mikan 365.5
Karl Malone 362.8

+ Alex Groza '50. 377.4

Alt vote: Cliff Hagan. Best of a weak field left by a hair over Cousy and Rodman, both of whom are far stronger in terms of their strengths but both of whom have strong weak areas as well.



Nominate: Bill Sharman I like Larry Nance and Shawn Marion who have been mentioned, another one like that is (Bullets homer mention) Bob Dandridge. If one of them get momentum, I'm happy to switch. Sharman was the best wing guard of his era with both good off ball scoring and good defensive reputation despite his size.

Iverson will not be a vote for me. He had one main skill, scoring, and compared to the other top scorers he was inefficient, selfish, and didn't space the floor while putting up his huge point totals. He played weak defense and was a miserable team leader. The whole "practice?" thing was emblematic of his missing practices and focusing on his personal glory rather than team goals. Great entertainer, not a great contributor to winning; he was the Pete Maravich of

[AEnigma]

Cousy is nominated.

[LA Bird]

Vote: Dennis Rodman
Nom: Bill Walton

Was hoping to do a big writeup for Walton's nomination but that will likely have to be postponed for next round due to work.

Rodman - GOAT level rebounder in an era where rebounding had much higher correlation to championship success than today. One of the most versatile man defenders ever even if slightly overrated on point guard matchups because of Magic. Not a scorer but a good enough passer to fit well on high level offenses. For this particular round, he also has the direct advantage of being more valuable for the Pistons after Dantley was traded though I feel like that wouldn't have been so bad if the general team success for the two weren't so drastically different the rest of their careers.

Walton - GOAT level impact at his 77/78 peak and still very high impact in comparison to other candidates in his incomplete seasons. Succeeded as both floor raiser in Portland and ceiling raiser in Boston and I can't see any team where his skillset isn't a good fit. Longevity is his biggest weakness but it's not that bad when you consider how many All Star level seasons an MVP level year is equivalent to.

[trelos6]

Vote: Iverson

Enough all nba level years. Still a robust scorer despite his efficiency woes. We saw once he got to Denver, he had a season with +2rTS%, so if he wasn’t forced into hero ball, his shot profile may be different. After his rookie year, he didn’t play alongside another 20 ppg scorer until 05-06 Webber.

Alt vote: Bob Cousy

Not too many 10+ year all stars left on the board. Terrific passer.

Nomination; Nance

Larry Nance

Historically, he's been voted in around the 73-83 range. He had a 11 year stretch where he averaged 18.8 pp75 on +5.2 rTS%. When he got to Cleveland, he finally was able to make the post season with regularity. He was around 17.4 pp75 on +5.8 rTS%. The rest of his game was solid, with basically no weakness. Once you combine the efficient scoring with his reputation as basically the best shot blocking PF in history, I think that propels Nance to, at the very minimum, an ALL STAR level player for the vast majority of his career.

Looking at his PIPM over his career, I think he was a pretty impactful player for 11 seasons.

Alt nom: Marion

Shawn Marion.

Another guy who's been voted in 77-78 in the last 3 projects. Not a flashy scorer, but he was a high impact player. A couple of seasons of efficient scoring alongside prime Nash, but otherwise, he was around league average in rTS%. I have him with 6 ALL D level seasons. He was a beast defensively, as a giant wing who could rebound with the best of them.



Looking at his PIPM, he had 3 really good peak years, which were borderline weak MVP level. I err on the side of caution, so I only have them as ALL NBA level seasons, but ultimately, his great peak and defensive play is what gets him here.

[trex_8063]

Induction vote: Bob Cousy
Been waiting forever to have this guy on the ballot. Far overdue for the guy who was literally THE face of the PG position (and probably the best to grace the position as well) until Oscar/West showed up.
Was a notable piece of SEVEN contender teams, winning six titles, and led some winning teams prior to that.

He stands extra tall in terms of both media-awarded and player/peer-awarded accolades, fwiw:
*There are only 16 players in NBA/ABA history with as many or more All-Star selections......and all of them were LONG since inducted.
**There are only 11 players in NBA/ABA history with as many or more All-NBA selections.......and all of them were LONG since inducted.
***He's one of only 5 NBA MVP's who have yet to be inducted......though among them, only he and Iverson actually played 29k+ minutes in his career.

People look to knock his offense, but he anchored or co-anchored not one, not two, but THREE #1 offenses in the early-mid 50s (plus another #2-rated offense).
He was not good enough [apparently] to be the best player on a title-winning team........though that hardly seems a disqualifier given I think that this is arguably true of literally EVERY CANDIDATE we have presently on the ballot, not to mention several [or all??] of the last handful of inducted players: Kyle Lowry wasn't either, nor was Bobby Jones or Rasheed Wallace; and most likely Lillard and George weren't/aren't either.

I'd like to take a moment to talk about the seeming poor offenses in the Russell-era, which is often a fixation of his critics (while they ignore the elite offenses that came prior).
I'd mentioned that the pace-mandate [from Red] necessitated a lot of [bad] shots early in the shotclock, which were frequently taken by the guy(s) handling the ball. This contributes to both poorish team offense, and [arguably] to Cousy's own shooting efficiency.

@ Owly:
It was mentioned that Red always wanted to push the pace, even pre-Russell. So why didn't it affect things in that pre-Russell time period?
Well, I'd done a correlation study, looking at relative pace vs rORTG year-by-year........and I found that there seems to be a "tipping point" or critical threshold: a pace threshold where if you're trying to push significantly past it [faster], it is to the detriment of your offense.
I noted that a very faint correlation begins to appear in years where the league-average pace is >107 (that is: where increasing rPace corresponded with worsening rORTG [or where slowing rPace corresponded with better rORTG]).
The correlation looks more reliable ["real"] in seasons where the league average pace was >115.

Which makes some sense conceptually: every possession cannot be a transition opportunity; so to maintain certain "extreme" paces, it requires taking whatever first shot presents itself (which---it goes without saying, I think---that many of those will be low quality).

And what's more, I found the OPPOSITE effect when dealing with really sluggish paces: in years were the league average pace was <92, increasing rPace was mildly correlated with INCREASING rORTG (or stated alternately: playing SLOWER than this already sluggish league-average resulted in WORSENING offense).
This too kinda makes some sense, as paces around 90 and lower almost necessitates a relative lack of transition, necessitates ALWAYS giving the defense ample time to set-up in the half-court, and likely represents relatively little offensive flow and off-ball movement (because if you WERE moving, good shots would [at least once in awhile] present themselves early in the shotclock: and then your pace wouldn't be lagging around 85-90).

So when did Boston's individual pace tip above that 115 threshold? As it turns out: '57, the year Russell arrived.
What year did the league average (which Boston was ALWAYS well-ahead of) top 115? Well, it hit 117 in '58, dropped back to 112 for one year in '59, then bounced to >120 in '60, where it remained for a few years.
The Celtics played at an estimated pace of 125 or higher for Cousy's last FIVE seasons straight (and was 124.8 the year before that). In terms of relative to league avg, the SLOWEST pace in those years was a +7.8 rPace (one of only two years that were <+10 rPace).

The mantra I remember from my youth was "work the ball around, find a good shot".
For the Celtics of this era it was "shoot the damn ball already! don't slow the game down!"

So yes, I contest that such extremes were hurting their offense. (EDIT: btw, I mentiond the THREE #1 offenses, plus a #2 offense......the ONLY pre-Russell/prime Cousy year in which the Celtics were NOT #1 or #2 offensively was in '56, when their pace had jumped to nearly that 115 threshold [at 114.5, which was +11.7 to the league avg]; they were still 3rd that year)


I've further commented that the pace listed on bbref [and thus the rORTG/rDRTG data] is all estimated, because certain statistics were not yet recorded......such as turnovers. Turnovers were estimated largely based upon how many shots a team was taking: it was basically assumed that if you're getting "X" number of shots off, than it must correspond with a proportionate amount of turnovers.
But what if----because you're shooting early in the clock---you have less opportunity to turn the ball over (as has been suggested for these Russell-era Celtic teams)? Why, that would mean the pace estimate on bbref is HIGHER than reality!.......and thus that the ORtg listed is LOWER than reality (and the DRtg HIGHER than reality). Having logged some Celtic games from the early 60s, I could buy this as valid, since it does not appear as frenetic [visually] as circa-135 pace would suggest.

Take '59 as an example: Celtics supposedly had a 128.7 pace (way the hell out in front of league avg [by +16.7!], with a -0.4 rORTG [5th of 8 teams]. Suppose that within that pace estimate bbref is OVER-estimating their turnovers by a rate of just 2 turnovers per 48 minutes [1 per half]........that mis-estimation alone would mean their ORtg was actually +1.4 better than estimated (and their DRtg was also +1.4 worse). They'd still be comfortably the best DRtg in the league, but now have a slightly above avg ORtg [which is now ranked 4th of 8].
The result of such mis-estimations (of just 2 turnovers/48 minutes) could mean that the Celtics never actually had a negative rORTG until '61 (perhaps non-coincidentally at the time when Cousy [at 32 years old] is beginning to dwindle into his post-prime). It's even possible that the Celtics actually only had two negative rORTG's in his career: '61 and '63.

What's more, I don't believe Red ever criticized Cousy's defense or defensive effort (something which cannot be said for Cliff Hagan, fwiw).


Alternate vote: Adrian Dantley (I'd like to go with Iverson, but he has no traction; might switch if he gets it)
Monster scorer whose box-based metrics merit his inclusion a long time ago; the lag on his apparent impact and general lack of team success has held him back, but he nonetheless feels [easily, imo] like a top 80 inclusion at least.

He's an interesting comparison to Cliff Hagan......

Hagan's claim is as an efficient scorer. Yet he's less efficient (even relative to a less efficient league) than Dantley......and on smaller volume.......and in a weaker overall league.......and for a shorter period of time. And he has a coach who publicly criticized his defense.
So why then should I favour him over Dantley?
Oh right: ringz.
Basically, he's a short prime in a weak era, nice box-based metrics for a handful of years [with precisely two years where he looks like a playoff riser], though with impact signals that lag well-behind (and an account from a coach expounding on how he's a bad defender......which perhaps explains the phenomenon??). And I note that NO ONE in his own time thought as highly of him as we're trying to elevate him to now, after the fact.

So he still feels like a pretty weak candidate, especially with a similar [but better] player sitting right there on the same ballot.

Rodman gets a lot of compliments that run along the lines of "GOAT-level rebounding and all-time tier defense". Except he was rarely [ever?] both of these things at the same time. He actively sacrificed good defense to be a GOAT-level rebounder. He can be seen neglecting to box guys out to instead "chase" the rebound (to his credit, his instincts were good, as was his quickness [especially on that second/third jump], and his energy in this endeavour was tenacious). He also completely gave up perimeter defense (one of the things he was known to be a versatile "stopper" with during early years in Detroit) to chase those rebounds. This is a big part of why Robert Horry goes off like an All-Star in the series against San Antonio: because Rodman is often no where to be found near his man.
His off-court antics and persona also leave a lot to be desired.
That said, his impact signals are at least decent/good, generally, and he was a key piece in a number of title teams. Still, I think his position in lists such as this overstate his value/importance.


Maybe I'll end up flipping my picks around, pending winds; and/or subbing in Allen Iverson, who I actually favour over Dantley (but he doesn't seem to have any traction).


Nomination: Kevin Johnson
Alt. Nomination: Larry Nance
Originally had Parker and Bosh as my noms, but don't seem to have any traction, so switched to two guys in the immediate vicinity on my ATL who do have a little representation this thread.

[eminence]

Genuinely surprised I didn't wind up voting for Gobert before he got in.

[penbeast0]

...I don't believe Red ever criticized Cousy's defense or defensive effort (something which cannot be said for Cliff Hagan, fwiw)....

Red had already gone on record as not wanting Holy Cross star Bob Cousy in the draft, "Am I supposed to win, or please the local yokels?"

Cousy was picked fourth in the first round, by Tri-Cities, but was soon traded to the Chicago Stags. Before the season started, the Stags folded and their best players were distributed throughout the league. The names of Max Zaslofsky, Andy Phillip, and Cousy were put into a hat. After the Knicks drew Zaslofsky, Boston got "stuck" with Cousy. This expansion draft is when Red went on record as saying that he wanted Zaslofsky and didn't want Cousy because of his poor defense, though I couldn't find the actual quote. Once Cousy became a Celtic, there is nothing I've seen about Red criticizing Cousy even pre-Russell.

[JimmyFromNz]

Vote Bob Cousy

Spoiler:

Minor additions: There's little to say about Cous that hasn't been said over decades of recognition.

• 10 years of comparatively elite production accompanied by team success he played no small part in. Pioneered the point guard position whilst being the consensus best player at that position during the time period.

• individual accolades speak for themselves regardless of whether we nit pick it season-season. No one else remaining is close on paper, literally a 1x all nba 3rd teamer was the last vote. Sure its not the determinative factor, but I do think it speaks volumes to where we are at in this process.

• Bill Russell's halo seems to be used to negate Bob's individual game, which I think is largely unfair given what we know about his immediate impact on the pre-Russell teams and selection to all NBA team from his 2nd year onwards.

• I believe, there is a level of false attribution to Bob for the late 50s Celtics offense rankings (not the outcomes apparently just offensive rating) that are used to suggest Bob wasn't as impactful. To elaborate...

•The team played at the fastest pace in the league with a well documented emphasis on just getting shots 'up' (consistently leading the league) off the back of turning teams around defense to offense , it doesn't come through in an efficiency driven metric, buts the relationship is symbiotic and Bob was the spear head of one half of that relationship, doing an incredible job of shot distribution across a team of players who absolutely needed it given some of the personalities.

• We then reflect on the materially different pre-Russell offenses, led by Bob they are consistently near the top. The contemporary viewpoint of Bob impact across both early and late 50s is important where we don't have the quantifiable data to flesh this out further, and that viewpoint at that time emphatically backs this up. I really think this overlooked consistently when considering scarcely available modern metrics with a modern lens to 'vintage' teams

I'm versed in the arguments against Cous that unpick the historical legacy from reality, and I generally agree with them, namely the scoring efficiency aspect and impact of certain 'factors' that only playing in the 50-60s could afford a white player. I take these on board wholeheartedly, especially when comparing the resumes of all time players at say the 50 mark, I'm a modernist by nature (so typically penalise older players heavily), but to have him fall outside of the top 75 behind further flawed fringe all nba players seems completely inconsistent with the logic afforded other players from that era.

As we get into the PIPM/WOWY/advanced driven arguments to separate some of the harder comparisons (which is fair enough), the tyranny of quantifiable starts to creep in at this point heavily favouring modern players e.g. Dennis Rodman, Lowry etc On the other hand I watch with interest players like Sam Mr Clutch Jones (who I love, collect a significant amount of his memorabilia and have read/studied his career in depth) are placed ahead of Bob on boards. The logic escapes me, but ultimately I'm here to vote rather than change minds

[AEnigma]

Nomination: Tony Parker
Alt. Nomination: Dominique Wilkins
Might switch to Kevin Johnson, Shawn Marion, Chris Bosh, or Larry Nance, pending who else is getting nominated.

At this point in the project we are (broadly) more of the longevity voters, so I need to ask: why Bosh over Horford, Zelmo Beaty, Buck Williams, Jack Sikma, Vlade Divac, Lamarcus Aldridge, etc.

(This is not necessarily my order, but just bigs who came to mind first.)

[Owly]

...I don't believe Red ever criticized Cousy's defense or defensive effort (something which cannot be said for Cliff Hagan, fwiw)....

Red had already gone on record as not wanting Holy Cross star Bob Cousy in the draft, "Am I supposed to win, or please the local yokels?"

Cousy was picked fourth in the first round, by Tri-Cities, but was soon traded to the Chicago Stags. Before the season started, the Stags folded and their best players were distributed throughout the league. The names of Max Zaslofsky, Andy Phillip, and Cousy were put into a hat. After the Knicks drew Zaslofsky, Boston got "stuck" with Cousy. This expansion draft is when Red went on record as saying that he wanted Zaslofsky and didn't want Cousy because of his poor defense, though I couldn't find the actual quote. Once Cousy became a Celtic, there is nothing I've seen about Red criticizing Cousy even pre-Russell.

On the "yokels" ...

It's far enough back that there are two alternate versions iirc, that have made some play in publications one where Cousy is the local yokel, one where it's the fans, I think the fans one is more common.

[Dug it up - the (or at least 'a') Cousy version, taken here from Ever Green, Shaughnessy, p7 - is "I'm not interested in drafting someone just because he happens to be a local yokel."]

That is, as you say, before he actually had Cousy as a pro. And as the distinct yet related quotes may suggest (if they aren't cited, and if one believes that it's unlikely he gave two "local yokel" quotes) these things aren't perfectly reliable.


Given I was kind of tagged at and this this post will alert TRex anyway ...
I've been someone who put forward the "pressure offense" stuff, found quotes supporting it. I don't think it's nothing. At the same time I'd guess it's marginal. Cousy's the one in charge of making it work, it's his decisions to make. Reference estimates are not certain and yes that compromises box-composites ... I would hope only at the margins. It's not the RS OWS drop though. Its those who would invoke the titles whilst not being explicit that he shot really badly on those title runs leading to -1.3 OWS on those runs ... -0.8 if we include '58 which in fairness I think we probably should ... it seems unfair to punish a strong run that's part of that era because there isn't at title - though I can argue for it if the titles are the thing) ... at the same time ... even versus his diminished RS offensive output in that era ... it's a nasty fall. I can live with a production and 50s accolades and status case. I can ... maybe tolerate a rings case (honestly, probably not very much) ... perhaps if consistently applied. I don't like a smushed together legacy case that says production and titles and ignores the really lousy shooting and OWS for the titles. OWS is only one measure but it's so far beneath water [because .000 OWS/48 is awful] that ... it's concerning. Maybe the incompleteness of those numbers is hurting at the margins on the aggregate side. And to be sure earlier he had some stronger playoffs. Even so like I say that smushed up legacy case seems to me to hide that he wasn't that helpful in the playoffs for those titles. That isn't particularly "at" you though skimming at your case it might not entirely not apply, either.


I can see arguments for him as a great offensive guard and a star early. I can also see someone's got to take a hit for Boston being unexceptional with 3 "stars". I think Macauley takes the biggest hit. All the bigs were productive at the time. My guess/impression is he's Amar'e ish where he's giving a lot ... maybe just as much ... back at the other end. I see some stuff in terms of status and longevity (and production) for Cousy over Sharman. But Sharman ... I like the efficiency, I like the coaching and intelligence shown there, I like the talk about his prep and considering diet, I like that like Cousy he's a competitor, I like the defensive rep, I like the perpetual motion, I like the spacing [I think there's a lot to like, things that tend to suggest "better than his boxscore"] ... . I think Cousy starts at a higher rep so he can take a hit and still come out even (or even ahead) but I think he's next in taking a hit (forwards just being bad is part of it too)... and it's not that Boston were bad or, if I'm fair and giving a playoff heavy view (partially in terms of arguing for what I think others playoff orientated criteria could be) late on, that he doesn't have strong playoff performances. But in a pretty even league if Cousy were a superstar, if he were that far out above his Pg peers (as maybe his box suggests) there's a bit of "Why aren't Boston better?" why aren't they ... not particularly not champs but ... not expected to be champs not a powerhouse team (not that they couldn't have snagged a ring in the interregnum between dynastic powerhouses but it's not a surprise that they didn't) . And at this point we're talking very noisy very fuzzy, very guesswork-y stuff. Information is limited. Uncertainty is high. Plausible ranges are big.

Tangent-y random thought on pace and fast-breaking, it gets a bit zero sum with Russell. If Russell's this great outlet passer and Cousy's a great point man (and Boston are getting the ball live so often) ... I'm not that high on Russell offensively, as before there's uncertainty in team possession estimates, there may be some mitigation in a strategy of exhausting opponents (maybe one could argue it's all on these factors ...) ... still couldn't it (shouldn't it?) be better?

On the quote in particular
"I don't believe Red ever criticized Cousy's defense or defensive effort (something which cannot be said for Cliff Hagan, fwiw)"
Leaving aside why Red would be criticizing Hagan's defense (or Hagan criticizing Bob's...)

Seriously though ...
Cousy side
1) I think what you mean is "I don't recall seeing ..." which unless you were around or have really extensive digital (or microfilm/microfiche etc). Or else you're opining what really is very much (as you put it) a "belief".

2) Red is generally regarded as canny. He knew who he could get on and dog and who he had to placate. And for instance he's pretty open about being deliberately vague about disciplining players in advance because he wouldn't have to be inconsistent and he wouldn't have to sacrifice good players (see, for instance p14 Ever Green). My reading/recollection suggests he was willing and happy to dog Heinsohn because he knew Heinsohn "could take it", that it would roll off him. I'm somewhat confident in believing Russell and Cousy ... would be two that he would ... not so easily criticize, even within the closed environs of the team, never mind in public.

3) Fwiw, in terms of anecdotal stuff, in John Taylor's telling/illustration of the idea of the "Hey Bill" defense (The Rivalry, p79) and granting it's talking about how it let Boston's exterior players play tight and in the example Cousy play his man close ... it's not clear whether or not the choice of Cousy as the guy who gets beat and shouts "Hey, Bill" is coincidental.

Hagan side
1) On Hagan ... I recall there was a quote earlier, one, that also, iirc, said Pettit wasn't a superstar ... I'm not sure I trust that as well, honestly given the superstar comment as I recall it, anything whatsoever. My limited impression, mainly via recollecting books didn't see him as a a standout versus peers either way on that end. Where one could perhaps see traction on that end implicitly (via net impact) is via ...

2) I think I made less of the WoWY stuff than you, particularly with some of the samples but cumulatively do understand why in a tight field, it looked bad enough to send him ... tumbling? As you noted earlier his getting on the board as early as he did was a rise though I think you missed that he did make the project last time.

Got to leave it here. I don't think I'm anti-Cousy per-se though even here and now probably lower than most. But I'm not looking to argue against him ... I'm just probably more sympathetic versus norms to Sharman and have thus tended to come from that angle. As I say, there's significant uncertainty on the older guys.

[OhayoKD]

Iverson will not be a vote for me. He had one main skill, scoring, and compared to the other top scorers he was inefficient, selfish, and didn't space the floor while putting up his huge point totals.

He generated more value playmaking than scoring, paticularly in the playoffs.

The whole "practice?" thing was emblematic of his missing practices and focusing on his personal glory rather than team goals. Great entertainer, not a great contributor to winning; he was the Pete Maravich of

Are you referring to when he skipped practice to go to his friends funeral?

[OldSchoolNoBull]

So I'm trying to figure out the rest of my list from here on out. Assuming the rest of the current ballot gets in(a big if where Hagen is concerned), starting at #83, we'd have eighteen spots left.

My definite yes's:

Cunningham - For his contributions to the 67 Sixers, 3 Top 10 MVP finishes in the NBA, winning the MVP in the ABA.

Greer - Probably the most iffy of the Yes's for me, but his role on the 67 Sixers plus good longevity is the case I guess. I could be talked out of it.

Issel - Amazing statistical consistency with good longevity, notable playoff success in the ABA, 6MOY with the 85 Nuggets who went to the WCF.

K.Johnson - Very good impact signal on his arrival in Phoenix, two WCF teams with very good team and individual numbers, part of the 93 Finals team, good on/off in 94 and 96 via Pollack.

S.Jones - Like Sharman, the main scorer on part of the Russell Celtics dynasty.

McAdoo - Shaq-like box numbers in his early years, and then played a substantial supporting role on multiple Showtime champions in the 80s.

Moncrief - Elite two-way player who was a #1 on multiple conference finalists who had the bad luck of running into ATG Sixers and Celtics teams.

Mullin - Tremendous five-year peak as one the elite scorers of his era, led to the team two playoff upsets vs higher-seeded teams, played on the Dream Team, gracefully accepted a smaller role-player role with the Pacers later in his career where he put up mostly very good impact numbers and box composites.

Sharman - The outlier perimeter scorer of his era by rTS and TS Add, the primary scorer on the early Russell championship teams, strong box composites for the most part, absolutely deserves a spot.

Walker - Posted the highest box composites other than Wilt on the 67 Sixers, led the Bulls to two ECFs, was one of the elite scorers of his era and most unappreciated players ever, huge impact signal with the Bulls falling apart when he retired.
Worthy - Won a Finals MVP and became Showtime's #2 to Magic when Kareem got old.

That gets to 93, which leaves seven more spots(eight if Hagan doesn't get in), which will come from the maybes.

Maybe's:

Dominique - I am increasingly skeptical about him, but that stretch from 85-86 to 88-89 is enough to warrant consideration.

Walton/Hawkins/Archibald/King - All have notable peaks but equally notable longevity issues. I could certainly see myself getting behind Walton or Hawkins especially if they build enough support, but I don't see pushing them too hard.

Bosh didn't do much of anything as the #1 in Toronto and was a distant #3 on the Heatles. I think he probably has a decent argument, but I struggle to get very excited about him.

Jeff Hornacek was the #3 option and Terry Porter the #2, neither ever won a ring, and Porter has longevity-of-quality issues. I can see the statistical arguments, especially for Hornacek, but I tepid nontheless.

Horace Grant is one of my guys as a Bulls fan, and he has the multiple contexts thing going for him, but it's hard for me to think of him as a Top 100 guy.

Parker has the championship pedigree, but his individual numbers - both box and impact - just aren't special and in some cases aren't even good.

I tend to take Gus Williams over Dennis Johnson in that debate, his playoff numbers are really good and I think he probably deserved that Finals MVP over Dennis. Still, his regular season numbers aren't particularly awe-inspiring and he doesn't have a ton of longevity either.

Larry Nance - I go back and forth on him. Nice longevity and individual box numbers, but playoff numbers not always great. Also, the Suns got better as soon as they traded him.

Zelmo Beaty - Not terribly excited about him, but willing to listen to arguments.

I am skeptical of Al Horford's case. I like him as a player, but when people bring up the 2015 Hawks...that's a team that's largely remembered as a paper tiger and emblematic of the easy paths to the Finals that LeBron's second-stint Cavs had. I do respect his contributions to the 2022 Celtics(and 2017 and 2018 too I guess). There are just too many other players to consider imo. I compared him to Nance, as they are both bigs of similar caliber, but for me, where Horford may have a marginal edge defensively, Nance was a good defender too, but with a much better TS Add profile. I'm not putting Horford in the No column yet, but I'm far from convinced.

No's:

I'm pretty down on Carmelo Anthony. He's a volume scorer on average efficiency who wasn't particularly good at anything else, and the one time he got the WCF, Billups was just as(if not more) responsible for it. He also wouldn't take a smaller role until he had no choice.

I can't quite get there with Dennis Johnson. Between feeling that Gus deserved that MVP and DJ always being far down the pecking order in Boston...I don't know. I have a hard time with him.

Marion's post-Phoenix career leaves something to be desired, and he had negative on/off RS and PO for the 2011 Mavs that won the title. I don't see it.

Baron has longevity issues(his post-GSW career w/LAC and NYK really doesn't add much IMO) and a lack of success in the playoffs. He's sort of the inverse of Tony Parker in that his individual playoff numbers are really good, but he never got anywhere. I don't really see the case. Honestly, if we're talking about longevity-challenged guys who didn't have much playoff success but were statistically good, I'd probably take Brad Daugherty over Baron.

LaMarcus Aldridge simply has no case imo. He won a grand total of one playoff series in Portland and the playoff success he had in 2016 and 2017 was on a very deep and talented Spurs team. He has a -29.2 TS Add and +0.0 rTS for his career while also not being anything notable defensively either.

Walt Bellamy for the reasons I wrote about in the last thread.

[Owly]

Iverson will not be a vote for me. He had one main skill, scoring, and compared to the other top scorers he was inefficient, selfish, and didn't space the floor while putting up his huge point totals.

He generated more value playmaking than scoring, paticularly in the playoffs.

The whole "practice?" thing was emblematic of his missing practices and focusing on his personal glory rather than team goals. Great entertainer, not a great contributor to winning; he was the Pete Maravich of

Are you referring to when he skipped practice to go to his friends funeral?

On the latter I would imagine ... and you should probably wait for Pen ... my impression would be it's with regard to the rant first ... though I may well know less than either of you about how many practices he missed and why. Penbeast's quote is plural so I'd guess not referring specifically to any one instance.

I would have to research on why practice came up whether the death affecting him around the time of the press conference (or another one) was the reason he missed a practice etc ... There have been suggestions he wasn't ... of fully sound mind when the quotes got out (https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29143112/the-little-known-story-allen-iverson-practice-rant).

The apparent implication for the constant repetition seemed to be ... "practice is unimportant" ... perhaps "practice is beneath me, a franchise player". And I know Pen has been a coach and maybe that makes it hurt even more ... There are times when you can buy Iverson's giving up his body and the minutes load as inspirational, you forgive being headstrong and buy in to the fire. And there's times when he says he'd rather retire than come off the bench and you think ... he isn't about helping the team if it isn't on his terms. And I can see a case for those quotes as being damning and putting him firmly in that negative intangible second camp. Because I think it can be hard, as a team, unless everything goes really smoothly, to come back from your star really laboring how unimportant practice is. Maybe if day-to-day that attitude differed it doesn't mean much. I don't know. And with the schedule I can see a case for a nuanced version of ... I give up by body about other night for circa 6 months ... I need to rest and recover and rehab during practices so my absence won't impede normal sessions for others anyhow (though that wasn't what was given).

But I can see a case for those quotes being something really harmful, especially if one thinks they're indicative of something broader.

[Samurai]

Vote for #78: Adrian Dantley. I acknowledge that the 6-time all star can be a polarizing player. But in his prime he was an elite scorer, leading the league twice and finished in the top ten in ppg 5 times. Preferred higher percentage shots closer to the rim rather than hoisting 30-footers, finishing in the top 15 in TS% for a dozen consecutive years. He was also a magnet at drawing fouls, finishing in the top ten in FT attempts 10 times, leading the league twice.ote : Adrian Dantley. I acknowledge that the 6-time all star can be a polarizing player. But in his prime he was an elite scorer, leading the league twice and finished in the top ten in ppg 5 times. Preferred higher percentage shots closer to the rim rather than hoisting 30-footers, finishing in the top 15 in TS% for a dozen consecutive years. He was also a magnet at drawing fouls, finishing in the top ten in FT attempts 10 times, leading the league twice.

Alternate vote: Dennis Rodman. Never been a big Rodman fan but can't see picking the other nominees over him. Elite defender with seven All Defensive First Team selections and one second team. Led the league in rebounds/game seven times and might be the GOAT offensive rebounder (toss-up with Moses for me). And of course, that photo of him in the list of nominees diving for the ball is just classic!

Nomination: Sam Jones. Ten rings but some will take that with a grain of salt for being Russell's teammate. Three-time All NBA Second Team (cursed by playing guard at the same time that Oscar and West were in their primes) and had three top ten finishes in MVP voting. Seven top twenty finishes in both points/game and TS% indicates that he was not only a scoring threat but an efficient shooter as well. I don't have a good feel on how good he was on defense; he had 9 top twenty finishes in DWS but Russell was obviously the primary driver of the team's excellent defense and KC Jones typically drew the assignment of defending the opposing team's primary backcourt scorer. One of the greatest bank shot artists of all-time; he was banking in shots before Tim Duncan was even born.

Alternate nomination: Sidney Moncrief. Doesn't have elite longevity but has six strong seasons of prime. Great all around player who impacted the game with his scoring, playmaking, defense and leadership. Also consistently finished in the top 3 in rebounds/game among guards during his prime. Moncrief didn't have a ton of success in the play-offs but he did consistently manage to lead teams to the play-offs and be competitive against stacked 76ers and Celtics teams. Five time all star with five All NBA Team selections (one first team and four seconds). Outstanding defender with five All Defensive Team selections, four of them on the first team.

[AEnigma]

I am generally against wild speculation that whatever extent Iverson “took practice seriously” had a noteworthy effect on his team’s success or his teammates’ approach to the game.

This is true for most players. Armchair psychology does not strike me as a productive avenue of exploration barring more concrete support of the theory (e.g. multiple teammates openly discussing how they did not bother trying because of his example and how transitioning to a different team with a different star completely changed their approach). I am okay with speculating that it could be an issue compared to other “model” players, but only to the extent that can be a point of distinction between players assessed as similarly valuable otherwise.

[penbeast0]

He generated more value playmaking than scoring, paticularly in the playoffs....

Having watched Iverson, I've never seen him as a playmaking savant. Indeed, he always looked to me as someone who put his head down and drove ignoring teammates then kicked out if needed rather than someone who put his teammates in THEIR sweet spots. He definitely had gravity but it was a scorer's gravity rather than being an outstanding playmaker. Do you have any evidence that he's better than mediocre as a playmaker who creates well for others?

[trelos6]

Larry Nance - I go back and forth on him. Nice longevity and individual box numbers, but playoff numbers not always great. Also, the Suns got better as soon as they traded him.

Phoenix got West (a decent defensive big for the next five years) and Dan Majerle while replacing Nance with free agent Tom Chambers.

[iggymcfrack]

Vote: Dennis Rodman
Best WOWY of the remaining candidates and was a major contributor to 5 championship teams across 2 franchises.

Alternate: Bob Cousy
Much better WOWY numbers than Hagan and a key part of 6 championship teams. Had some big playoff numbers at times.

Nominate: Sidney Moncrief
Incredible all-time defender with incredible WOWY numbers

Alternate: Kevin Johnson
Tremendous well-balanced point guard who could score efficiently and dish with ease. Led the Suns on several deep playoff runs.