RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #85 (Kevin Johnson)

[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):

Cliff Hagan


Kevin Johnson


Shawn Marion


Tony Parker


Bill Walton


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

Current List
Historical Spreadsheet

[penbeast0]

Vote: Shawn Marion Similar to Nance in that he was a great finisher but not a guy who created his own offense. Also an excellent shotblocker for a forward and a more active player than Nance; particularly when he was with Phoenix. Phoenix didn't miss a beat when Amare went out for the year, replaced by Kurt Thomas and Boris Diaw, as Nash and Marion kept the offensive production high while Marion kept up his job of being all over the court defensively. Even post-prime, as Marion's offensive production greatly slowed, he was still the main defender on LeBron James's epic finals fail during Dallas's title run. Certainly that's on LeBron to a large degree but Marion and the Dallas defense deserves some credit for keeping him down and not letting him turn it around.

I would say more impact than Tony Parker, both career and peak, primarily due to his considerable defensive advantage over Parker.

Alternate Vote Cliff Hagan [/b] Not a long prime, weak era, but he was a guy that stepped up in the playoffs regularly and helped the Hawks win their only title. Thought about KJ but his healthy years weren't the teams' best years and he just seemed like he got injured or had issues at a high rate for his era.

Nominate: Bill Sharman Best shooting guard of his era, combined relatively good scoring with relatively good defense for an extended period. Still valuable up into the 60s.

[LA Bird]

Vote: Bill Walton
Nom: Al Horford?

TLDR
• Walton's peak is so much higher that one season from him is equal to the top 3 or more seasons of the other candidates.
• His non-peak impact signals are still better than prime Dantley, Hagan and he had 3 of those years averaging at ~60 games.
• He added All Star level lift to the Celtics as a ceiling raiser despite overlapping with an existing All Star at the same position.

Walton is one of the most polarizing player on all time rankings so I don't really expect this writeup to change the minds of most voters. But I did switched sides myself so maybe one or two of you might also join me in the Walton camp after reading this.

The first thing with Walton is the number of seasons. Many will immediately disqualify him from a career list because he played too little but not all seasons are equal. Like LeBron said, 2 points isn't always 2 points. Similarly, 2 seasons isn't always 2 seasons. ElGee's CORP method has become quite popular on this board but I don't think many still grasp the difference between an all time level peak like Walton's and 'regular' superstars. If we refer to the graph below, the equivalent of a +7 season is about 3 seasons in the top 10, 4.5 seasons as an All Star, or 10+ seasons as an average starter. Walton's short peak loses him the debate against any elite player with a sustained peak but those guys have all been voted in a long time ago. We have reached a point in the project where some of the candidates were rarely or even never top 10 in any season. Rodman was inducted recently - how many top 10 and All Star level seasons did he have in his career? How about Horford who is likely to be nominated soon? The number of seasons matter in a career comparison but so does the value of each season.



Estimating peak Walton as a +7 player might seem high but arguments for his impact at his peak is pretty ironclad. He was the clear leader on both offense and defense for a title team that completely fell apart without him. Walton is the WOWY GOAT in ElGee's dataset with a +10 net difference in 77/78 (raw MOV change without any teammate adjustment is even higher at +12) and he is ~100th percentile in Moonbeam's RWOWY graphs. Furthermore, the team's second best player was another big in Maurice Lucas, and they had a good backup center in Tom Owens so there is no question either if Walton's impact metrics were inflated by poor replacements. He is arguably the best passing center besides Jokic, one of the top 3 defensive rebounders ever by era-relative percentage (which synergizes perfectly with his outlet passing), and he is among the GOAT defensive players. Walton's skillset checks all the boxes you would expect from an impact monster and he has the numbers to back it up too. And since this is a career not peak list, I should also point out Walton consistently had massive impact outside of his peak years.

This is often overlooked but Walton actually played more than just 77/78/86. Obviously, him missing the 79-82 seasons is a giant red flag but unless we are penalizing players for missed potential, those years just get a zero from me. Now, from the team's point of view, was he a negative contract because he was getting paid a lot for nothing? Of course. But salaries and contracts are not a consideration in this project. The best player and the best player relative to salary (ie the most underpaid) are separate topics. Moving on to the seasons where Walton actually played over half the games, we get 76/84/85, three more years where he averaged 58 games per season. It is not a lot of games but we normally still count seasons of that length for other players. For example, 96/97/98 Shaq over three years averaged 55 games per season and I don't believe anybody is writing off those years because he didn't hit a threshold in games played. Such seasons get valued less than full 82 game seasons but they still usually get some credit.

Other than the numbers of games, the next thing with non-peak Walton is his minutes per game. He did play less but I think there is too much emphasis on the number of minutes itself rather than his impact in those minutes. Which, if we are being honest, seems a bit inconsistent for a board that already voted for a career 6th man in Ginobili at #39 because of his high impact in low minutes. Looking at samples with more than 10 games, Walton's raw WOWY scores were consistently quite strong even during his non-peak years (outside of an ugly rookie season)

Walton WOWY (MOV)
1975: -5.0
1976: +3.7
1980: +4.9
1983: +5.9
1984: +4.7
1985: +2.7

By the same measure, Dantley had 3 prime seasons with a negative raw WOWY (1980: -0.1, 1983: -2.0, 1988: -2.0) and Hagan, as trex_8063 pointed out before, often saw his teams perform better without him too. In other words, if we remove any preconceptions about his health, these forgotten years of Walton still provided more lift for his team than prime Dantley and Hagan did. The box scores are not as favorable to Walton but then again, his box score stats were never that impressive even at his peak. Still, a 13/10/3 slash line is comparable to some of the prime seasons of non-scorers like Unseld and Draymond. Walton is often penalized for having a GOAT-level peak because seasons which would otherwise be viewed as prime for lesser players get written off as meaningless for him, which in turn makes his already short career look even shorter than it really is.

1986 is the only non-peak season of Walton that gets any recognition but it is still underrated in my opinion. Winning 6MOY is nice but it relegates him to a mere footnote as just a good bench player when his impact was so much more. The Celtics saw a bigger jump after adding Walton than the Sixers did with Moses or the Warriors with Durant.

Celtics RS SRS / PO Relative Rating
1984: +6.4 / +6.9
1985: +6.5 / +5.8
1986: +9.1 / +13.1
1987: +6.6 / +3.5
1988: +6.2 / +4.7

The Walton team stands far above the rest despite the starters in 86 playing fewer minutes than in 85 and 87. The only other roster change in 86 was swapping Quinn Buckner for Jerry Sichting but that doesn't explain the improvement on defense or why the team fell back down to earth in 87 with Sichting still playing. Walton was the difference maker that elevated the Celtics from great to GOAT team status. I am guessing Walton's naysayers will still bring up his low minutes off the bench as rebuttal but focusing on minutes alone is pointless without evaluating his contribution in those minutes. There is no guarantee that a 40 minute starter would have more impact than a 20 minute reserve just because he played more. And once we move pass the labels, it's obvious to see how big of a difference Walton made to the Celtics.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Thought about KJ but his healthy years weren't the teams' best years and he just seemed like he got injured or had issues at a high rate for his era.

I assume you're thinking of the 93 Suns making the Finals in what looks like a down year for KJ and then them being contenders in 94 and 95(winning 56 and 59 games, respectively), but devil's advocate: The Suns' three highest SRSs came in KJ's early, healthy years - 6.84 in 89, 7.09 in 90, and 6.49 in 91. The 93 team was 6.27, while 94 and 95 were 4.68 and 3.86.

You can probably argue either way on that, though.

[trelos6]

Vote: 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.

Alt vote: Kevin Johnson

Made it as high as 51 on a previous project, but he's always been elected by 76. KJ was another guy with a monster prime.



From 89-97 KJ was 20 pp75 on +5.3 rTS%. His best 3 yr post season stretch was 25, +6.2%. He was also an incredible offensive engine, who frequently had his teams at +5 rORtg.

Nom: Terry Porter

88-93 in the last 2 projects. I have him with 6 very strong seasons, 2 of which I have at a weak MVP level. His career had some longevity to it, though it wasn't at any great level.

These can be seen on his career PIPM graph.

His 3 year post season peak from 90-92, he averaged 20 pp75 on + 10.6 rTS%. I think an efficient PG makes team building so much easier, and if they can also not be a turnstile on defense, it helps even more. Porter did that really well. Playoff Porter increased both his usage and shooting against playoff defenses, and that's not something that can be said of a lot of players.

Alt Nom: Jack Sikma

Defensive anchor of the Late 70's early 80's Sonics. Historically, he's made the top 100 careers list every time, ranging from 78-99. I know I use PIPM graphs a lot, but Sikma's truly shows his value.



We can see that defensively, he was always an impactful player, with several seasons worthy of All D level. He was also playing at an all star level for 10-11 years. Offensively, his ability to shoot the ball, and free throws, cannot be overrated. A player vastly ahead of his time, I think he would thrive in the modern era.

[AEnigma]

VOTE: Kevin Johnson
Alternate: Tony Parker
NOMINATION: Al Horford
AltNom: TBD

I imagine Trex will do a more thorough analysis later, but just as a cursory point for Tony Parker:

From 2002-2017, the Spurs were +7.7 with a 72.6% win rate with Parker, then +4.4 with a 64.7% win rate without Parker. By win percentage, that is on average — across sixteen seasons! — a shift from a 53-win team to a 59.5-win team. Respectable and valuable over that time span, but I can see why prime-focused people may not care much. So for the prime-focused, seems fair to look at 2006-15 as Parker’s best ten-year split (I think 2015 is slightly out-of-prime but whatever). Over that period, the Spurs are +7.3 with a 71.8% win rate with Parker, then +3.6 with a 62.7% win rate without Parker. Reasonably consistent with the career marks, although slightly higher change in net rating (+3.7) and raw win rate (51.5-win pace to 59-win pace).

Again, not a commendable peak, no… but all the remaining players with high (“weak MVP” or better) peaks have abysmal prime lengths, so give me the guy who spent roughly a decade as a low-end all-star and then added on six useful starter seasons past that.

The best criticism against him is that he might not be an all-star calibre player in the postseason. Reductive to an extent, but he is enough of a faller for me consider it. So then the question becomes, is having a functional but unspectacular point guard for that long worth more than having a pretty good but not great point guard for 60% of the time? At that level of difference, I lean no, but I am not excited about Parker, and I am consequently open to value-based cases for others.

Relatively indifferent to the Sharman/Grant debate. I am impressed by Sharman’s coaching career as an indicator of his overall basketball intelligence and possible locker-room influence, but among notable coach players I far sooner side with Billy Cunningham.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I have a few 'pets' - guys I've been championing hard - and as we head into the final 15, I want to re-state my arguments.

Bill Sharman is obviously one of them, but he's been discussed a lot and I assume will continue to be discussed, so I'll just briefly say that he played ten years for the Celtics with great durability and, in that time, was the best perimeter scorer of his era by a margin(going by rTS and TS Add), was resilient in the playoffs, had a good reputation as a defender(though some don't buy that), and by WS/48 played an important role on multiple championship teams within the sport's greatest dynasty. If Cousy and Sam Jones are in, I don't see why Sharman shouldn't be.

But I'm really making this post to try to generate some discussion about Chet Walker(who has only been discussed in passing) and Chris Mullin(who's barely been discussed at all). I'm quoting my own write-ups from a couple months ago here.

Chet Walker
I'm going to add something new before I quote myself re:Chet Walker. I want to look specifically at his 1971-72 season, which statistically is his peak season. He posted a .268 WS/48 RS and 231.1 TS Add, both career highs. This peak season for him also looks like the peak season for that era of the Bulls, as they won 57 games, posting a 7.91 SRS and +7.6 Net Rtg. The Bulls had the third best record in the NBA that season(in a league of 17 teams by then). The only teams ahead of them were the defending champion Bucks and that season's champion Lakers.

But unfortunately for the Bulls, they were in the Western Conference, and the playoffs were shorter, so their first playoff opponent was the 1972 Lakers in all their glory, and they dismantled the Bulls. But I don't think Chet or the Bulls should be punished for not being able to hang with that team, while I do think it's worth noting that that Bulls' era's peak team statistically coincided with Chet's peak statistical season.

And my earlier writeup:

On the 1967 Sixers - often touted as one of the greatest single-season teams ever - he was the second-highest WS/48 on the team after Wilt in both RS and PO - .181 and .201, respectively - and the second-highest TS Add after Wilt - 180.1 - ahead of Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham, both of whom usually get more credit than Walker.

1966-67: 19.3ppg/8.1rpg/2.3apg, 55.7% TS(+6.4 rTS, 180.1 TS Add), .181 WS/48 RS -> 21.7ppg/7.6rpg/2.1apg, 54.6% TS, .201 WS/48 in 15 playoff games

On the 1969 Sixers, after Wilt was gone, Walker was #1 on the team in WS/48 and TS/Add in the regular season on a team that won 55 games and recorded a 4.79 SRS and +4.2 Net Rtg. That team was upset by the Celtics in the first round of the playoffs, but there's no shame in losing to Russell in one of the great last-gasp runs in the history of sports. Walker's individual playoff performance was still solid...he scored fewer points because he got off fewer FGAs, but his efficiency was still where it normally was.

1968-69: 18.0ppg/7.8rpg/1.8apg, 54.8% TS(+5.7 rTS, 155.0 TS Add), .170 WS/48 RS -> 13.5ppg/5.8rpg/2.0apg, 55.9% TS, .132 WS/48 in 4 playoff games

And then he went to Chicago, in Dick Motta's second year there, and was there for six seasons.

No one remembers those Bulls teams because they had the misfortune of playing in the Western Conference in those years and constantly had the Wilt/West Lakers and Kareem/Oscar Bucks in their way.

But Walker was the best player on those teams.

They made the playoffs for six consecutive seasons, going to the WCF in the last two, and getting within a game of the Finals in the last season.

For all six seasons, Walker was #1 on the team in TS Add by a significant margin. In those six seasons, his TS Add was Top 5 in the league twice and Top 10 in the league five times.

69-70 - 143.2(next on team - Bob Love, 82.8), #9 in league
70-71 - 135.7(next on team - Bob Love, 60.3), #11 in league
71-72 - 231.1(next on team - Jim King, 3.7), #3 in league
72-73 - 128.6(next on team - Clifford Ray, 28.1), #7 in league
73-74 - 174.8(next on team - Clifford Ray, 42.8), #5 in league
74-75 - 168.5(next on team - Matt Guokas, 40.4), #7 in league

For five out of six seasons, Walker was #1 on the team in WS/48(the one season he wasn't, he was .004 below #1). In those six seasons, his WS/48 was Top 3 in the league three times, Top 5 4 times, and Top 10 5 times.

69-70 - .172(#10)
70-71 - .178(#11)
71-72 - .268(#2)
72-73 - .213(#3)
73-74 - .191(#5)
74-75 - .205(#3)

I suppose the knock against Walker is that he looked like a playoff faller a bit too often. I concede that his playoff numbers don't look too good from 70-73, but I also caution that those are smaller sample sizes because (for all but one of those years) the Bulls kept running into a Lakers team that just had their number.

And his playoff numbers do look good in 74 and 75 when they went on longer playoff runs. He was #1 on the team in TS/TS Add, WS/48, and BPM in the playoffs in both years, 74 being when they were swept by Kareem and Oscar in the WCF, and 75 being when they lost to the Warriors in 7 in the WCF:

1973-74: 19.3/5.0/2.4, 56.6% TS(+6.3 rTS, 174.8 TS Add), .191 WS/48, 2.6 BPM RS -> 20.9/5.5/1.6, 59.4% TS, .188 WS/48, 3.6 BPM in 11 playoff games
1974-75: 19.2/5.7/2.2, 56.8% TS(+6.6 rTS, 168.5 TS Add), .205 WS/48, 2.5 BPM RS -> 17.5/4.6/1.8, 57.9% TS, 205 WS/48, 3.4 BPM in 13 playoff games

Between those two years and Walker's performance in the 1967 Sixers run, I think he showed up in the playoffs just enough on top of his regular season excellence to warrant a late spot on the list.

One final note - after Walker retired in 1975, the Bulls' 2.88 SRS/+3.1 Net Rtg from 1974-75 - #3/18 in the league on both counts - cratered to -2.89 SRS/-2.9 Net Rtg in 1975-76 - dead last, #18/18 in the league, on both counts. It's true that Jerry Sloan also suffered a knee injury that limited him to just 22 games that season and ended his career, and given that Sloan's WOWY record for that season looks like this:

With Sloan: 8-14(.364)
Without Sloan: 16-44(.266)

that was certainly probaby part of it, but I'm leaning toward the loss of Walker being the primary factor in the drop-off, and I think it's a notable impact signal.

Walker just looks like one of the league's best scorers for nearly a decade between 66-67 and 74-75.

Chris Mullin:

I might be biased because he's a guy I grew up watching and I just love his game, but I think prime Mullin is one of the most underappreciated scorers of his era. He wasn't just a shooter, either - at 6'7'/215lbs, he had legit size, he could put the ball on the floor a little, and he was surprisingly crafty/adept at finishing around the rim. He made the Top 100 four times before missing the last two, so I don't think it's too out there to say that I think he deserves to make it back in.

The Five-Year Prime
After having issues with alcohol early in his career, Mullin got sober in 1988, and from 1988-89 until a torn right thumb ligament in February 1993 kicked off a string of injuries and effectively ended his prime, Mullin had a five season run(he played over half the games in 92-93) in which he scored at least 25ppg on at least +4 rTS in each season(the exact rTS are +4.4, +10.6, +8.4, +5.5, and +4.2). I haven't been able to do a comprehensive search, but it seems that not that many players have accomplished that feat, and most of the ones that have have either already been inducted on the 2023 list or were inducted on prior lists.

In 1989, he led the Warriors in WS/48(.165), BPM(4.0), and TS Add(164.0, #12 in the league).
In 1990, he led the Warriors in WS/48(.174), BPM(5.0), and TS Add(322.7, #4 in the league).
In 1991, he led the Warriors in WS/48(.176), BPM(4.7), and TS Add(285.6, #4 in the league).
In 1992, he led the Warriors in WS/48(.155), BPM(3.7), and TS Add(194.2, #7 in the league)
In 1993, when he played 46 games, he slipped a bit - #3 in WS/48(among those who played significant minutes, .122), #2 in BPM(3.3), #1 in TS Add(86.8).

And remember he was playing with Tim Hardaway for four of those seasons and Mitch Richmond for three. It's a very, very good five-year peak. Run TMC is a team remembered for its novelty, and Mullin was their best player, imo(I think Mullin has a better case than Richmond for the Top 100 and probably an equal case with Hardaway, though I'm not as high on Hardaway as others might be).

In addition to the scoring, he also recorded 5+ RPG and 3+ APG in those seasons, and seems to have a reputation as having been a solid man defender, and at the very least box stuff(steals/blocks) supports that.

Playoffs During Prime
Now, the question is the playoffs for those five seasons. I do think the extent to which Mullin might be a playoff faller is overstated. He delivered some great playoff performances during his prime.

1989
WCQF vs Jazz: 32.7ppg/5rpg/5apg/2.0spg on 62.6% TS
Leads the #7 seeded Warriors to an upset 3-0 sweep of the #2 seed, 4.01 SRS/+5.1 Net Rtg Malone/Stockton Jazz

WCSF vs Suns: 27.4ppg/6.4rpg/4.2apg/1.6spg on 60.0% TS
Warriors fall in 5, no shame in losing to that 6.84 SRS 55-win Suns team

1990
The Warriors missed the playoffs by four games, despite it being the first year of Run TMC. Everyone was healthy, so I'm not entirely sure what happened here, besides a glaring lack of rebounding. It seems difficult to blame Mullin for it though, when he put up 25.1ppg/5.9rpg/4.1apg/1.6spg on +10.6 rTS and, as I said before, leading the team in WS/48, BPM, and TS Add.

1991
WCQF vs Spurs: 25.3ppg/7.3rpg/3.5apg/1.8spg/1.3bpg on 62.6% TS
Leads the #7 seeded Warriors to a 3-1 upset over the #2 seed, 4.30 SRS/+4.5 Net Rtg D-Rob Spurs

WCSF vs Lakers: 22.3ppg/7.3rpg/2.3apg/2.0spg/1.8bpg on 61.5% TS
Warriors fall in 5 to Magic and the Finals-bound Lakers, even less shame in losing to them than the 1989 Suns.

(A side note: The Warriors were so deficient on the boards that Mullin's 7.3rpg led the team in the playoffs.)

1992
WCQF vs Sonics: 17.8ppg/3.0rpg/3.0apg/1.3spg on 51.3% TS
A poorer showing vs the Sonics, to be sure, in a 3-1 defeat.

1993
The Warriors missed the playoffs after Mullin only played 46 games.

1994
WCQF vs Suns: 25.3ppg/4.7rpg/3.7apg/1.7bpg on 68.1% TS
After missing the end of 92-93 and the beginning 93-94, Mullin helps Sprewell and Webber to 50 wins and, in his last playoff hurrah as a star, has a big series vs the #3 seeded Barkley Suns that were coming off a Finals appearance. His stellar performance wasn't enough to prevent a sweep.

So Mullin played in 24 playoff games between 1989 and 1994 and, while the team had limited success, he was putting up superstar box statlines for the bulk of it, and in fact led them to two playoff upsets vs fellow Dream Teamers Malone/Stockton and Robinson and also put up a monster statline against fellow dream teamer Barkley in a series loss. It's not as much as you might like to see, but it is something.

(there was a section here about his injury-plagued 1993-1997 period, but I've omitted it because this is already long and it doesn't really ultimately say anything much beyond that he missed a fair bit of time and declined in ability in that period.)

Last Year With The Warriors

Mullins last season with the Warriors - 1996-97 - was his healthiest season since 1991-92, and signaled the beginning of a late stretch of his career in which he'd re-invent himself as a role player.

He recorded 14.5ppg/4.0rpg/4.1apg/1.6spg, but even though Sprewell and Joe Smith scored on more volume, Mullin was much more efficient and ended up leading the team in TS Add(194.2), WS/48(.124), and BPM(2.8), and shot 41.1% 3P. This may not be saying much, because that Warriors team simply wasn't good, but it does show that Mullin was still a positive contributor at the point despite the diminished role.

Pacers Years
Mullin was dealt to the Pacers in the summer of 1997.

In his first season there - 1997-98 - he played and started all 82 games. Because he was in a smaller role, playing only 26.5mpg, and taking far fewer FGAs than in his prime, his counting stats took a hit - 11.3ppg/3.0rpg/2.3apg/1.2spg - but he shot 44% from 3 and was still #2 on the team - behind Reggie Miller - in TS Add(126.8), WS/48(.168), and BPM(4.3), and #4 on the team in points per 100 possessions(23.3) with a +7.8 on/off on a 6.25 SRS 58-win team.

In the playoffs, he looked like an elite role player for the first two rounds before having a poor shooting series vs the Bulls.

ECQF vs Cavs: 10.5ppg/4.0rpg/1.0apg/1.0spg/1.8bpg on 76.9% TS in 3-1 win
ECSF vs Knicks: 11.0ppg/3.4rpg/2.4apg/1.8spg on 56.7% TS in 4-1 win
ECF vs Bulls: 6.4ppg/3.4rpg/1.0apg on 48.5% TS in 3-4 loss

He had a 3.3 BPM and a -3.3 on/off(looks like that Bulls series really hurt him on that front - credit to Scottie I guess) for the playoffs.

In the lockout-shortened 1999 season, Mullin played and started all 50 games. He put up 10.1ppg/3.2rpg/1.6apg and shot 46.5% from 3 while leading the team in BPM(4.5), and being #2 behind Reggie in TS Add(86.1) and WS/48(.167) with a +5.6 on/off on a 3.86 SRS team that was in a three-way tie for the league's fourth best record.

Similar to 1998, he looked like a very good player in the 1999 playoffs.

ECQF vs Bucks: 11.3ppg/1.3rpg on 63.2% TS in 3-0 sweep
ECSF vs 7ers: 10.0ppg/1.3rpg/1.3apg/1.3spg on 54.8% TS in 4-0 sweep
ECF vs Knicks: 8.3ppg/1.8rpg/1.3apg on 53.5% TS in 2-4 loss

He had a 1.6 BPM and a +2.5 on/off for the playoffs.

He was replaced in the starting lineup with Jalen Rose for 1999-00 and played much less, and hardly at all in their run to the finals(10mpg), and his counting stats are pretty small, but his advanced box stats and on/off speak well of his impact in limited minutes.

.142 WS/48, 3.4 BPM, 59% TS(+6.7 rTS and 40.9% 3P), +2.6 on/off in 12.4mpg in 47 games
.148 WS/48, 3.6 BPM, 60% TS, +5.6 on/off in 10.0mpg in 9 playoff games

He played one more best-forgotten year with the Warriors after that, and that was it.

Conclusion
Mullin had a five-year prime where he was one of the league's elite scorers(again - five consecutive seasons of 25+ppg and 4+ rTS) and solid rebounder to boot, and he put up some superstar playoff performances upsetting higher-seeded teams, even if his own team never got past the second round.

After a string of injury-plagued seasons, he became a high-level role player for the late 90s Pacers. I do think this adds real value to his career, especially in light of certain other players who maybe don't accept a lesser role as gracefully in their later years.

There are reasons to argue against him, but there are players that made the last Top 100 that, like Mullin, are primarily known as volume scorers, but did so much less efficiently while not having much more in the way of playoff success - I'm thinking of Carmelo Anthony here, as well as Dominique. Those two had one 100+ TS Add season each, while Mullin has six(and it would've been seven if he hadn't gotten hurt in 92-93). Like Mullin, Dominique never got past the second round as an alpha, and Melo only did it once in a season where Chauncey Billups was arguably the better player. Melo and Dominique have alpha longevity over Mullin, but the efficiency gap is pretty big.

As a final note - Mullin was on The Dream Team, and there have always been people that say it should've been Dominique(even though he wouldn't have been able to play anyway due to his achilles injury), but I firmly believe it was the right choice, both because of the fit(Mullin could play off-ball and the team needed that release valve guy) and because Mullin was dramatically more efficient in 1990-91 when the selections were being made.

I really think Mullin deserves a spot, and if he doesn't get in, he'd be the only Dream Teamer other than Laettner to miss the cut.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Also, Dan Issel hasn't gotten much discussion yet, so here's my pitch:

1. He's got the highest career RS WS/48 - .181 - of any of the yet-to-be-inducted players we've been discussing and/or who made the 2020 list. I looked at 29 such players(including the five currently on the ballot), and Issel is tops, and that's over fifteen seasons where he never really had a big fall-off.

I don't necessarily think this is the be-all, end-all, by any means, but I do think being #1 on that list at the very least indicates he should be discussed more than he has been.

2. He recorded 11 100+ TS Add seasons(and 2 200+ TS Add seasons) in his 15 year career. Between this and the WS/48 factor, it just seems like he was remarkably consistent.

3. He went to four ABA Finals and won an ABA ring. I know he wasn't #1 on any of those teams(and maybe not even #2 on some), and that the ABA Nuggets were already good when he got there, and that he never got to a single Finals in the NBA, but he still had a fair bit of team success in the ABA, and unless you just think he was consistently in the right place at the right time, you can't ignore it. He did have two additional WCF appearances in the NBA too, winning 6MOY on the second of those teams in his last season.

4. He was amazingly durable. There is almost no WOWY W/L sample of note for him because the guy only missed 24 games in 15 years. It's just a strong longevity/durability combo.

I don't feel as strongly about Issel as I do about Sharman/Walker/Mullin, but I did want to bring him up. Maybe I'm missing something with him.

[trex_8063]

Induction vote: Tony Parker
Starting PG for a virtual dynasty of more than a decade. Near his peak was good for around 20 pts and 7 ast on good efficiency, functioning as the primary driver of their offense......they were sometimes better offensively than defensively in that period. For example, he once anchored [led in pts and assists] a +6.3 rORTG [#1 in league]. Multiple other good ones around that time, too.

In '13 he was 9th in PER, 5th in WS/48 (and I think like 12th or 13th in BPM), while having the 2nd-best [behind only LeBron] RAPM in the league (RAPM including playoffs, fwiw) [note: other sources have him lower]; this for a 7th-rated offense that came one made trey away from winning the title in 6 games.
Was top 5 in RAPM in '12, too by that same source: that was as the leader in ppg and apg (18.3 and 7.7, with +1.2% rTS and only 2.6 topg) for a +6.3 rORTG [#1 in league].

Other years lag behind; still, he's got really solid longevity to augment some of these bullet points. While I don't think he peaked any higher than roughly All-NBA 2nd Team level, I think [as far as CORP evaluations are concerned] he's got probably SIX seasons "All-Star level" or better, and a whopping ELEVEN at "Sub All-Star" or better (that's equal/more seasons than the entire careers of Walton and Moncrief), and probably FOURTEEN as at least Avg/role player (more than the full careers of all other candidates).

Anyway, he's perhaps comfortably my preferred candidate among this group.


Alternate vote: Kevin Johnson (READ ON!)
Don't know if it been forgotten how good KJ was in his prime, or if the scandals turn people away; but it has been surprising that it took this long to even make him a candidate.
Just as a starter talking point, there have been [I believe] only 11 players to EVER average at least 20 pts and 10 ast for a whole season; they are:
Magic Johnson (3 times) - inducted #10
Oscar Robertson (5 times) - inducted #15
Chris Paul (2 times) - inducted at #20
James Harden (4 times) - inducted #29
Russell Westbrook (5 times) - inducted #46
Isiah Thomas (4 times) - inducted #58
Trae Young (2 times)
Tiny Archibald, Tim Hardaway, Deron Williams, John Wall (1 time each)
....and Kevin Johnson (3 times)

I'll compare vs a few of these......

Westbrook did it while scoring WELL over 20 ppg and rebounding tons, but he also did it while averaging between 4.3-5.4 topg, and with shooting efficiency hovering +/- league average [one year substantially below], and while leading mostly mediocre offenses [except one year with Durant around].

Isiah did it on mostly sub-par shooting efficiency, 3.7-4.2 topg, and while leading [mostly] good but not great offenses.

John Wall's one season came on mediocre shooting efficiency and with 4.1 topg.

KJ's 20/10 seasons, otoh, came on rTS% between +4.8% and +7.0%, averaging 3.5-4.0 topg, and while leading offenses that hovered around +5 rORTG (and SRS's hovering near +7, fwiw).
In fact, there's a 7-year stretch from '89-'95 where the AVERAGE Suns offense was +5.11 rORTG, never being worse than +3.9 (3 seasons in sample are with Barkley, 4 without [2 years of 5+ without Barkley]). Their WORST SRS in that span is +3.86.

In the 9-year span of '89-'97, KJ averaged out to basically a 20/10 player: 19.83 ppg and 10.03 apg........NINE years, and that's inclusive of TWO injury-hit seasons; take out EITHER injury-hit season, and he was indeed averaging 20+/10+ over the other EIGHT years, collectively.
His WORST rTS% in that span was +1.8%; his BEST was a whopping +9.5%.
The worst offense in that stretch was a +2.6 rORTG.

He was an absolute offensive monster, whose greatness is massively undersold by the scant number of accolades he received (was perhaps snubbed more often than even Reggie Miller).
If his longevity were just a little better, or if he had a title to his credit, I'd have been pushing for him probably 20+ places ago.



If it comes to any runoff, I'm tentatively ranking them:
Parker > KJ > Marion > Hagan > Walton
(with KJ/Marion adjacent on my ATL [might switch my alternate, pending votes], and Hagan and Walton being very close)

Nomination: Horace Grant
Alt Nomination: Al Horford

Could see switching to Chris Bosh or Nique, pending how the tallies are turning out; but these two seem like they have more traction.

[Samurai]

Vote for #85: Kevin Johnson. Excellent peak, I think he tends to get underrated. Only player besides Magic Johnson and Isiah Thomas to average 20 points and 12 assists/game in a season (1989 - same season he won the Mikan award for Most Improved Player). All NBA five times (4 second teams and 1 third team). Accurate shooter, finishing in the top 20 in TS% four times. He was also very good at drawing fouls, consistently finishing in the top 20 in FTr, often among the top five among guards.

Alternate vote: Tony Parker. Don't have particularly strong feelings here. Seems like a good but not elite peak with solid longevity and consistency. Six-time all star and four All NBA Team selections (three 2nd teams and one 3rd team).

Nomination: Billy Cunningham. Excellent peak but injuries cut his career short. But his peak was outstanding: MVP (ABA), three-time All NBA First Team, one All ABA First Team, and one All NBA Second Team. Very good rebounder with elite hops (hence his nickname of the Kangaroo Kid), very good passer and solid defender with excellent bbIQ. Career 21.2 point/game scorer. Biggest knock outside of longevity is that he wasn't a good dribbler. But he always played with heart and tenacity with a non-stop motor.

Alternate nomination: Jack Sikma. While the memory I have is that nearly unblockable jump shot that seemed to almost come from behind his head, Sikma was a very good all-around player. Seven time all star. Excellent rebounder, particularly on the defensive glass (led the league in Def Reb% once and finished in the top 5 nine times). Not a shot blocker but an otherwise very solid defender (All Defensive second team in 82). Also a very good screen setter and decent passer for a big.

[Owly]

(If we're leaving aside off-court stuff, directly and potential costs thereof...)
I'd been inclined toward thinking without a deep dive KJ was perhaps overdue ...

That said I'm not sure about the threshold arguments. They always seem pretty arbitrary, whether you happen to cross one or two lines. With assists, beyond pace there's how they're called too.

Alternate vote: Kevin Johnson (READ ON!)
Don't know if it been forgotten how good KJ was in his prime, or if the scandals turn people away; but it has been surprising that it took this long to even make him a candidate.
Just as a starter talking point, there have been [I believe] only 7 players to EVER average at least 20 pts and 10 ast for a whole season; they are:
Magic Johnson (3 times) - inducted #10
Oscar Robertson (5 times) - inducted #15
James Harden (4 times) - inducted #29
Russell Westbrook (5 times) - inducted #46
Isiah Thomas (4 times) - inducted #58
Tiny Archibald (1 time)
....and Kevin Johnson (3 times)

I think that list is incomplete or at least unclear (some of the below may be quibble-able depending on games required, and I haven't checked rounding so ...)
'08 and '09 Chris Paul (80 and 78 games)
92 and 93 Tim Hardaway (Sr) both look like 20 and 10 or better by Reference, though the former year assists is listed at exactly 10.0 apg (just checked the count and he's under, that's a round up) and 93 sees him playing 66 games ('92 was 81 games).
2011 Deron Williams is at 20.1, 10.3 over 65 games.
'23 Trae Young 26.2, 10.2 (73 games)
'17 John Wall 23.1, 10.7 (78 games) ('16 is just short at 19.9ppg)
(this is a quick skim and may well not be comprehensive [it isn't intended to be])

... Jason Kidd or Guy Rodgers could have got there by taking an extra couple of shots a game ... would that have been beneficial to their teams ... perhaps not.

Vote for #85: Kevin Johnson. ... Only player besides Magic Johnson and Isiah Thomas to average 20 points and 12 assists/game in a season (1989 - same season he won the Mikan award for Most Improved Player).

It could be a coincidence these all occurred between 1985 and 1989 ... or high pace, high fg%, high percentage of fgs credited as assisted could all be occurring at that time (on this last one per STATs Inc % assisted was at or north of .600 for 49-56, 84-89, 93 and 94 through 1994).


I think he's very good but hitting thresholds in accumulation/slashline stats isn't why. I get that this isn't the whole of anyone's case (Trex in particular comparing it to some other seasons in areas beyond those listed), still I tend to regard these (thresholds) as a weak argument and I'd say his 89-97 production overall (rather than specific aspects, hitting thresholds in a particular year in a particular league context) is very impressive.

[trex_8063]

Also, Dan Issel hasn't gotten much discussion yet, so here's my pitch:

I'll join you. Only reason I hadn't is because I suspected he would not have been well-received previously. But I absolutely think he should be drawing discussion by now.

1. He's got the highest career RS WS/48 - .181 - of any of the yet-to-be-inducted players we've been discussing and/or who made the 2020 list. I looked at 29 such players(including the five currently on the ballot), and Issel is tops, and that's over fifteen seasons where he never really had a big fall-off.

That career .181 WS/48 is while averaging of 34.3 mpg for his 15-year career, too; and as you later pointed out, he was extraordinarily durable over that span, missing just 24 games total in his career (only 13 in his first 13 seasons).

The guy played nearly 42k rs minutes (only five non-inducted players have ever played more).

He's consequently got more career rs WS than any non-inducted player (he's 25th all-time; one has to walk 16 places further down the list to find the next non-inducted player, and another 10 places after that to find the next one after that).

I don't necessarily think this is the be-all, end-all, by any means, but I do think being #1 on that list at the very least indicates he should be discussed more than he has been.

Agree.

2. He recorded 11 100+ TS Add seasons(and 2 200+ TS Add seasons) in his 15 year career. Between this and the WS/48 factor, it just seems like he was remarkably consistent.

Yeah well, one sort of ties right into the other (WS loving shooting efficiency so much).

Though I'll also point out he was very efficient in terms of ball control. His career [minus '77] mTOV% is 7.71%, which is very elite among big men. Basically the only ones better in this regard are those that are often referred to as the "GOAT tier" of big-man turnover economies (e.g. LMA, Dirk, Horace Grant, AD, Al Horford).

3. He went to four ABA Finals and won an ABA ring. I know he wasn't #1 on any of those teams(and maybe not even #2 on some), and that the ABA Nuggets were already good when he got there, and that he never got to a single Finals in the NBA, but he still had a fair bit of team success in the ABA, and unless you just think he was consistently in the right place at the right time, you can't ignore it. He did have two additional WCF appearances in the NBA too, winning 6MOY on the second of those teams in his last season.

Overall the Nuggets were reasonably successful in the NBA during his stint. In the nine NBA seasons he was there, they had a winning record and positive SRS six times, AVERAGED 43.7 wins per season [.533 win%] collectively, and made it into the playoffs 7 of 9 years, FOUR times making it past the 1st round (once by automatic berth to the semifinals, by winning at least one series the other years), and [as you said] twice getting to the WCF (not getting swept in either instance, fwiw).


Overall, I view him much like Amare Stoudemire......except with FAR better durability and longevity, and better ball-control. If we're considering someone like Cliff Hagan here, I see absolutely no reason why Dan Issel should not also be considered.

[trex_8063]

Good catches, thanks. I knew I was probably missing a player or two (can't believe I missed Chris Paul, though). Has been edited.

Otherwise I just wanted to respond to one point:

(If we're leaving aside off-court stuff, directly and potential costs thereof...)
I'd been inclined toward thinking without a deep dive KJ was perhaps overdue ...

That said I'm not sure about the threshold arguments. They always seem pretty arbitrary, whether you happen to cross one or two lines. With assists, beyond pace there's how they're called too.

It is arbitrary. I think there are random ones like 20+ pts, 10+ reb, and 5+ ast, that Chris Webber is one of only something like 10(ish) players to ever achieve........but then you look at some of the finer points [outside of the thresholds], and we see his 20/10/5 season is sorely lacking compared to some of the other guys.
For instance, he was -3.4% rTS and averaged >3 topg.

Compare this to, for example, Kevin Garnett's 20+/10+/5+ season (where his rTS is >0 and his topg <3 [to say nothing of the defensive gap]).


And that's why I noted some of the other things relating to KJ's 20+/10+ seasons, in comparison to others........noting his shooting efficiency was also elite in those years; noting that his turnovers were a bit lower than some/most of the others; noting that his big numbers were associated with elite team offenses (can't be said for all of the others).

The company he keeps with having a 20+/10+ season is already fairly impressive........but what if I added a threshold of +5% rTS, too?
Suddenly there's just a Magic, Oscar, CP3, Harden, Tiny, and KJ.

Suppose we then add in also <4 topg?
Harden now disappears, too. We don't know for certain, though I'd say it's LIKELY that Tiny Archibald does as well. Oscar is an unknown.

And KJ doesn't have just one such season [of 20+ pts, 10+ ast, >+5% rTS, and <4 topg]......he's got TWO.
And both came as the very clear best player [no additional "superstars"] on ELITE offenses.


So yeah, the threshold thing is sort of arbitrary, but it's just a means of sort of capturing one's consideration. Then once you push a little deeper on KJ, it gets difficult find any reason to believe he wasn't an absolutely monster offensively (at least relative to the calibre of competition this far out in the project).

[eminence]

Vote #1: Tony Parker
-Good longevity, peak not that far below competition (fringe All-NBA level)
-Important role on a historically notable team
-Manu is the toughest competition for a backup in terms of on/off numbers

Vote #2: Kevin Johnson
-Surprised myself a bit here going with him over Marion. But he seems notably more important to the Suns and I'm not that impressed by Marion's work in Dallas.
-High volume offensive guard that led a fair number of strong teams/offenses in Phoenix (top 7 '89-'97). Looked great when Chuck joined as well.
-Injuries notably sap his overall value.

Nomination #1: Bob Davies
-1st great guard, #2 overall of the first era
-8 years at a star level ('46-'53)
-2x champ as a star

Nomination #2: Horace Grant
-Similar to Parker in story, as one of the most important 3rd guys ever
-More proven across settings

Bosh probably my next guy in line. Issel probably narrowly beating out other guys mentioned.

[f4p]

Vote: Kevin Johnson

Alternate vote: Kevin Johnson (READ ON!)

i did read on. other than when i occasionally note that they knocked off a very good lakers team in 1990 and that their SRS that season was very good, the pre-Barkley suns are definitely a blind spot for me. very impressive SRS's, very impressive offenses, beat the lakers one year, huge improvement upon adding KJ. besides already feeling he was overdue, your post convinced me to pop back in and vote for him. longevity is an issue but feels a level above the other guys we are talking about in the time he did play. as a rockets fan who was watching game 7 in 1995 live, i still get a little queasy thinking what would have happened if KJ completed his perfect free throw game and made the second one right before the Kiss of Death. as is, he finished with 46 points and 10 assists. we had no answer.

[Owly]

Trae Young (2 times)

I think Trae x2 requires counting this year (incomplete [and not project eligible]). If one were doing that then Haliburton is set to do it too, and seemingly likely to play more.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Tony Parker
Vote 2 - Shawn Marion
Nomination 1 - Bill Sharman
Nomination 2 - Horace Grant

Parker has solid longevity on one of the best sustained stretches of team success in league history. While his impact relative to other spurs may have been uneven, I think he peaked pretty highly and is deserving at this point in the project. At his best he was a killer off the dribble, crafty finishing in the paint and a respectable shooter.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Induction Vote #1: Kevin Johnson

Induction Vote #2: Bill Walton

Feels like this one is coming down to Parker and KJ, and I just think KJ’s individual numbers look more impressive, especially in the box, and he had more primacy on some of his teams than Parker seemingly ever did.

Giving Walton my #2, undeniable peak. Almost gave him my #1 this time around.

Nomination Vote #1: Bill Sharman

Nomination Vote #2: Chet Walker

I nominate Sharman again. I implore you all to support him for his outlier scoring efficiency, his significant(by WS/48) contribution to multiple championship teams, his durability, and his overall athleticism.

See my in-depth arguments for Walker here: viewtopic.php?p=112016882#p112016882

[OhayoKD]

Vote

1. Bill Walton

Not an ideal pick but the current crop of nominees is kid of underwhelming imo. After all the hubaloo about modern and recency bias over the last few threads, it's wierd to me no one takes an issue with the 80's and 90's still getting way more representation than any other decade in terms of inductees who have played and peaked and current nominees, including the 10's and 2000's which took place after foreign talent doubled within a span of 6 years and kept increasing.

Is no one going to push for a course correction here?

But I digress. LA Bird made Walton's case better than I could so...

Spoiler:

Walton is one of the most polarizing player on all time rankings so I don't really expect this writeup to change the minds of most voters. But I did switched sides myself so maybe one or two of you might also join me in the Walton camp after reading this.

The first thing with Walton is the number of seasons. Many will immediately disqualify him from a career list because he played too little but not all seasons are equal. Like LeBron said, 2 points isn't always 2 points. Similarly, 2 seasons isn't always 2 seasons. ElGee's CORP method has become quite popular on this board but I don't think many still grasp the difference between an all time level peak like Walton's and 'regular' superstars. If we refer to the graph below, the equivalent of a +7 season is about 3 seasons in the top 10, 4.5 seasons as an All Star, or 10+ seasons as an average starter. Walton's short peak loses him the debate against any elite player with a sustained peak but those guys have all been voted in a long time ago. We have reached a point in the project where some of the candidates were rarely or even never top 10 in any season. Rodman was inducted recently - how many top 10 and All Star level seasons did he have in his career? How about Horford who is likely to be nominated soon? The number of seasons matter in a career comparison but so does the value of each season.



Estimating peak Walton as a +7 player might seem high but arguments for his impact at his peak is pretty ironclad. He was the clear leader on both offense and defense for a title team that completely fell apart without him. Walton is the WOWY GOAT in ElGee's dataset with a +10 net difference in 77/78 (raw MOV change without any teammate adjustment is even higher at +12) and he is ~100th percentile in Moonbeam's RWOWY graphs. Furthermore, the team's second best player was another big in Maurice Lucas, and they had a good backup center in Tom Owens so there is no question either if Walton's impact metrics were inflated by poor replacements. He is arguably the best passing center besides Jokic, one of the top 3 defensive rebounders ever by era-relative percentage (which synergizes perfectly with his outlet passing), and he is among the GOAT defensive players. Walton's skillset checks all the boxes you would expect from an impact monster and he has the numbers to back it up too. And since this is a career not peak list, I should also point out Walton consistently had massive impact outside of his peak years.

This is often overlooked but Walton actually played more than just 77/78/86. Obviously, him missing the 79-82 seasons is a giant red flag but unless we are penalizing players for missed potential, those years just get a zero from me. Now, from the team's point of view, was he a negative contract because he was getting paid a lot for nothing? Of course. But salaries and contracts are not a consideration in this project. The best player and the best player relative to salary (ie the most underpaid) are separate topics. Moving on to the seasons where Walton actually played over half the games, we get 76/84/85, three more years where he averaged 58 games per season. It is not a lot of games but we normally still count seasons of that length for other players. For example, 96/97/98 Shaq over three years averaged 55 games per season and I don't believe anybody is writing off those years because he didn't hit a threshold in games played. Such seasons get valued less than full 82 game seasons but they still usually get some credit.

Other than the numbers of games, the next thing with non-peak Walton is his minutes per game. He did play less but I think there is too much emphasis on the number of minutes itself rather than his impact in those minutes. Which, if we are being honest, seems a bit inconsistent for a board that already voted for a career 6th man in Ginobili at #39 because of his high impact in low minutes. Looking at samples with more than 10 games, Walton's raw WOWY scores were consistently quite strong even during his non-peak years (outside of an ugly rookie season)

Walton WOWY (MOV)
1975: -5.0
1976: +3.7
1980: +4.9
1983: +5.9
1984: +4.7
1985: +2.7

By the same measure, Dantley had 3 prime seasons with a negative raw WOWY (1980: -0.1, 1983: -2.0, 1988: -2.0) and Hagan, as trex_8063 pointed out before, often saw his teams perform better without him too. In other words, if we remove any preconceptions about his health, these forgotten years of Walton still provided more lift for his team than prime Dantley and Hagan did. The box scores are not as favorable to Walton but then again, his box score stats were never that impressive even at his peak. Still, a 13/10/3 slash line is comparable to some of the prime seasons of non-scorers like Unseld and Draymond. Walton is often penalized for having a GOAT-level peak because seasons which would otherwise be viewed as prime for lesser players get written off as meaningless for him, which in turn makes his already short career look even shorter than it really is.

1986 is the only non-peak season of Walton that gets any recognition but it is still underrated in my opinion. Winning 6MOY is nice but it relegates him to a mere footnote as just a good bench player when his impact was so much more. The Celtics saw a bigger jump after adding Walton than the Sixers did with Moses or the Warriors with Durant.

Celtics RS SRS / PO Relative Rating
1984: +6.4 / +6.9
1985: +6.5 / +5.8
1986: +9.1 / +13.1
1987: +6.6 / +3.5
1988: +6.2 / +4.7

The Walton team stands far above the rest despite the starters in 86 playing fewer minutes than in 85 and 87. The only other roster change in 86 was swapping Quinn Buckner for Jerry Sichting but that doesn't explain the improvement on defense or why the team fell back down to earth in 87 with Sichting still playing. Walton was the difference maker that elevated the Celtics from great to GOAT team status. I am guessing Walton's naysayers will still bring up his low minutes off the bench as rebuttal but focusing on minutes alone is pointless without evaluating his contribution in those minutes. There is no guarantee that a 40 minute starter would have more impact than a 20 minute reserve just because he played more. And once we move pass the labels, it's obvious to see how big of a difference Walton made to the Celtics.

TLDR
• Walton's peak is so much higher that one season from him is equal to the top 3 or more seasons of the other candidates.
• His non-peak impact signals are still better than prime Dantley, Hagan and he had 3 of those years averaging at ~60 games.
• He added All Star level lift to the Celtics as a ceiling raiser despite overlapping with an existing All Star at the same position.

Impact portfolio only really cleanly topped by Lebron and Russell, a dominant championship, and an MVP, not to mention a key role in a second dominant championship is better than what everybody else on the board has to offer.
 
Nomination

1. Al Hoford

2. Horace Grant


Going with these two as they seem to have the most traction, but will make a case some other players I think more deserving than most of the current nominees(and maybe even a couple inductees).

1. Horace Grant

Not neccesarily the most deserving player, but with Sam Jones being pushed for a while now, I'd say Grant's case is probably a better version of Jones':

Spoiler:

I've pointed this out before, but these box-numbers likely don't give Grant his full credit as a co-primary paint-protector on Chicago:

(if you want to check, 20 possessions are finished through 19:42 amd 40 are finished through 49:52)

Note it was very hard to make out players(besides pippen whose got a nasty case of roblox head), so i could be misattributing here and there though I used jersey numbers, names, commentator[url][/url]s, and head/body shapes the best i could. I also counted "splits" for both parties(which is why the numbers don't add up to 40)


Distribution went

Pippen/Grant
14 each

Purdue
6 or 7

Cartwright
4

Armstrong/Jordan
1 each

FWIW, Grant seemed more significantly more effective than Pippen but otoh, Pippen was trusted to deal with laimbeer far more than anyone else

All that aside, what's notable here is that it's the non-bigs who are checking rim threats the most. Not the centres. With one of the two deterring attempts, sometimes on an island, the rest of the team was enabled to try and force turnovers with suffocating pressure.

FWIW, Chicago postseason defense tended to be closer to their postseason offense than one might think.

Horace Grant also probably deserves at least some credit for the 2001 Lakers dramatically improved postseason defense(and overall) performance relative to their 2000 iteration(their rim-protection numbers in particular were significantly).

Probably fair to say he played a "key role" on 4 champions and 5 finalists with three distinct cores(though there was common ground between all 3 teams). Nothing mind blowing in terms of rs impact(similar to Sam Jones and Sharman), but there's a consistent trend in terms of playoff results:

-> Chicago improves drastically overnight as he and pippen see their roles increase in 1990, looks similar to the 91 Bulls in the first two rounds per M.O.V iirc
-> Chicago has their worst playoff run of the dynasty with his depature(despite looking pretty good without him in the RS)
-> Magic go from a first round out to a finalist(though the "real nba finals" was arguably in the West)
-> Lakers go from one of the worst champions ever to statistically maybe the best

All these teams specifically see their defense and ability to protect the paint rise and drop with his arrival and depature in the postseason.

I think if we're going to have the jones and sharmans inducted, Grant should also probably be there as well. Replication across contexts and a more clear connect between team performance and the nature of his contributions are advantages for him here I think.

TLDR: While both have eh rs profiles, unlike Sam Jones, Horace Grant has a consistent pattern of joining teams and seeing their playoff performance jump, and leaving teams and seeing their playoff performance fall, with his specific contributions correlating with the side of the floor the team jumps the most in. He also had one chance taking up a bigger role in 1994 and played like a legit no.2 on a contender. Sam Jones has no track record to speak off without the biggest impact outlier in history. Moreover, while the Bulls clearly missed Grant vs the Magic when he left, the Celtics went on their most impressive two-year playoff run with Sam Jones as a 6th man beating the 68 Lakers(highest mov ever with west), the 68 Sixers(wilt + a team that was good without him), the 69 Lakers(merger of 2nd and 3rd best team in the league, core that won a championship soon after), and the 69 Knicks(rotation that won the next year's championship and made three finals, winning two in short order). All in all, I'd say there are bigger questions around Sam Jones replicability than Grant and don't really see why Sam Jones should go ahead.


2. Marc Gasol

This omission is really weird to me:

-> Was the clear best player on a fringe contender, most notably going 2-1 up on the eventual champion 2015 Warriors before their point guard got hurt.
-> Post-prime, was the clear-cut defensive anchor on a toronto side that won a title and then contended without their best player on the back of an all-time defense: Said defense becomes all-time when he comes, and returns to mediocrity when he leaves. Team immediately turns from contender to fringe playoff team
-> Was correctly identified as the best defender in the league in 2013, and an all-time menace for opposing bigs(giannis, gasol) even post-prime
-> Was helping the Lakers post the best defense and rs record and srs in the league before injuries derailed their 2021 campaign

The comparisons that come to mind are are

already inducted Sam Cousy who
-> did not co-lead a team as close to winning as what Gasol led
-> did not show the same level impact post-prime on a winner

already getting inductee votes larry nance
-> did not co-lead a team as competitive as the grizzlies
-> never won
-> not as clear-cut of a defensive anchor

Bill Sharman
-> same as cousy except without the MVP

Gasol has yet to get a single nomination vote, I don't get it at all. Probably should have been inducted already tbh.


3. Iggy
A few years as the star(and defensive anchor) of playoff teams, and then post-injury played a key role for 3 championships and 6 final apperances over two teams. Since championship role-players are in vogue right now...

Also strong rapm for what it's worth.

4. Luka Donicic

Better peak than anyone left on the board besides Walton and argument for being the best in a vacuum. His longetivity is a knock but he was pretty much better than anyone here besides Bill in his second year in the league if not his first and while people may not be overly impressed by the round finishes and rs record, on a series to series basis, Luka's Mavs have done pretty well:

-> went toe to toe with "maybe win the title if kawhi is healthy" clippers with kawhi
-> beat "best record over the last 5 years" suns a year removed from their final run

Mavs have been a fringe contender with Luka in the playoffs and haven't been a good team without him in the regular season if you go by game instead of "few minutes without". If Walton is getting serious inductee consideration, Luka deserves some nomination love I think.



With Jones and Cousy getting some traction, i'll copy and paste some of the counterpoints offered in the #72 thread that I do not think have been satisfactorily addressed:

Skepticism on Sam Jones and Bob Cousy

Spoiler:

As an era-relativist, I get irked when the only(or predominant) argument someone can come up with for one player over another is "tougher era".

I also take issue with "reasonably equivalent offensive production" when Sharman was significantly more efficient relative to his competition.

Ultimately though, my real gripe isn't that you might take Jones over Sharman(though I disagree with it), it's the fact that Sharman didn't make the Top 100 at all last time(or the time before that) while Jones made it both times. I just want to make sure Sharman is in the conversation because I don't see any argument for him not to make the list if Jones is in.

Or we can exclude both

Sam Jones does look better by WOWY, mostly by default:

In ’61, Sharman missed 18 games and the Celtics were (again) better without him.

This trend would hold throughout most of Russell’s career. In ’66, Sam Jones missed eight games and Boston’s performance didn’t budge. Jones missed 11 more contests in ’69 and the team was about 2 points worse without him. All told, as the roster cycled around Russell, his impact seemed to remain

I would have pause considering either for the top 100 simply because they were on championship teams. I also know some voters here have put stock into moonbeam's version of psuedo-rapm where Russell is the gold standard regularized and torches the field to a degree no one else across history does with his raw inputs(doubles 2nd place Wilt iirc over a certain stretch). Lots of emphasis on points and ts add on average offenses seems odd. Sam Jones defense has been praised but he is a guard and the defenses don't actually seem to care too much about whether he's there or not. 1969 is probably not fair since it's 6th man Sam Jones, but 1966 Sam Jones put up one of his highest point totals and fg percentages so if that version is not making a signficant impact, why is he being voted in here, let alone Sherman?

Honestly would be wierd to be putting more of Russell's teammates on this list than last time when we have a bunch of new evidence/argumentation suggesting Russell is more valuable individually than people were crediting him as the last go around and we have a bunch of new players to consider. Do these players actually warrant being considered over 100 other nba players?

Am pretty open to Cousy since he was post-prime with his own unimpressive signal and I assume he did something to earn the MVP but...

Will first emphasize that your above comments appear to specifically delineate Cousy's post-prime. And I'll also acknowledge that the league/game progressed faster than Cousy did as a player.

That said, the limited/noisy impact metric from the very same source (Ben Taylor) reflects decently upon Cousy: his prime WOWYR is +4.4, career +3.9.

As always, when using these sorts of numbers I think it can be worthwhile to check what the sample here is. I don't know what exact years are factored into prime, but up until 1957, Cousy doesn't really miss time with the exception of 52 and 51 where the Celtics see a +1.3 SRS improvement when Cousy joins. I don't highlight that to criticize rookie Cousy, but rather to highlight a potential discrepancy:

With how WOWYR works(this is true in general when you take stretched singals vs concentrated ones but WOWYR's "adjustments" compound this considerably), that +3.9(and perhaps to a degree the +4.4) is disproportionately operating off that 1951 and 1952 wothout sample and transposing it as part of the off for all the other years(where cousy barely misses time) as well. Also note, unlike Moonbeam's version, the much larger sampled +1.3 mark is not factored in at all.

In other words, that score, mantained over a very small per-season sample, is likely significantly inflated by 9 games coming with a much weaker cast from Cousy's first two years.

I am also somewhat concerned with the lack of success in this pre-russell prime period where the team does not make a single final in a very weak league winnig a grand total of 4 series. The term "offensive dynasty" is thrown around for the Cousy years, but success on one side of the court is really not the point.

The Celtics having goat-level defenses is cool, but it matters to the degree it helped produce the most successful team ever, not because the goat defense isinofitself of extreme importance. Good on them for having the best offenses pre-Russell, but does it really matter if they weren't the all that close to being the best team?

On Cousy.

I think his early career WOWY signal is unfortunately impossible to pin down.

He/Macauley arrive in Boston at the same time, the league contracts from 17 to 10.5 teams, both the without and with samples have large gaps between their ratings/win% (in opposing directions). It all combines to make the '50 vs '51 Celtics comparison very difficult, though I think it's clear the two combine with Red to turn the franchise around (they were absolute garbage their first four seasons and turned into a consistent .500+/playoff squad).

He then misses a grand total of 1 RS game prior to '57.

Agreed that 'offensive dynasty' oversells the Celtics of the period (hey, sometimes we're all sellers). They were a decent to good team, built around a strong offense. Related - I believe they only won 3 series over that period (you may have counted the '54 round robin as two wins).

0-2 vs Knicks '51
1-2 vs Knicks '52
2-0 vs Nats '53
1-3 vs Knicks '53
2-2 '54 Round Robin (2-0 vs Knicks, 0-2 vs Nats)
0-2 vs Nats '54
2-1 vs Knicks '55
1-3 vs Nats '55
1-2 vs Nats '56

For comparison the other Eastern conference squads from '51-'56 (not counting tiebreakers).
Knicks 6 series wins
Nats 8 (counting the '54 round robin as 2 wins)
Warriors 2 (their '56 title)

A worse but healthier version of the Lob City Clippers.

My current sentiment on inclusion in the top 100 for both is Cousy as a maybe(entirely on the basis of him winning an MVP really), and Sam Jones as a no. The former does not have notable team-success in the "prime" we don't have substantial data for and Russell's Celtics play better without him in the post-period.

For the latter, we have a peak signal where the Celtics do not drop-off without him, a marginal bit of lift in the year he's a 6th man, and is his claim to fame is scoring prowess on an average offense with the possiblity that this is a result of scheme(which still only works if we assume Sam Jones had substantially better impact than what can be discerned statistically).

Possible he's just gotten unlucky with the games he's missed, but the evidence for Jones being top-100 worthy just isn't there I think.

[ShaqAttac]

okay


ill go

WALTON

CHIP n MVP and swept KAreem

HAGAN

led team to a chip

Gonna nom

TATUM

luka better but he led his team to finals and cfs galore and doc pointed out he has really good impact stats so

HOFORD

he led boston to cf and has good longevity i guess. no one is voting for luka so ill go him.