RealGM 2023 TOp 100 Project - #91 (Bill Walton)

[trelos6]

I'm happy to support for nomination a number of guys at this point. Terry Porter and Mo Cheeks from my previous thread, Shawn Kemp, Grant Hill, Marques Johnson, Dominique Wilkins.

Even Connie Hawkins and Bob McAdoo are all in my top 100, just that some guys outside my 100 made it in already. So hopefully I can check before the vote to see the nominations and perhaps change my picks. Please send me a message if you think I can help with nominations.

[trex_8063]

Induction vote: Horace Grant
I like Grant's defense, offensive rebounding, GOAT-tier turnover economy,

Elaborate?

I meant to say "among big-men", fwiw, if that's the beef here.

By my Modified TOV%, among big-men [those identified as PF's or C's], here are the best career rs mTOV%'s I've yet identified [career ps listed for some]:

LaMarcus Aldridge - 6.39% [actually gets marginally better in playoffs, at 6.01%]
Dirk Nowitzki - 6.42% [though falls off substantially in the ps, to 7.46%]
[b]Horace Grant[/b] - 6.61% [nearly identical 6.64% in the ps]
Al Horford - 6.81% [6.98% in ps]
Anthony Davis - 6.95% [though drops off somewhat to 7.78% in the ps]

So Grant looks GOAT-tier among bigs in this, with LMA being the ONLY player definitively ahead of him (though not by a big margin).


Can look at turnover economy in other more familiar terms, such as pts scored per turnover (comparing to some BIG volume scorers, some mid-level scorers, and some complete NON-scorers; erring toward mostly PF's [like Grant], including a number of contemporaries); career rs fwiw.......

Dirk Nowitzki - 12.654 [though again would note this figure drops a bit in the ps]
LaMarcus Aldridge - 12.512
Anthony Davis - 12.148
Horace Grant - 9.974
Sam Perkins - 9.662
Rasheed Wallace - 9.454
Al Horford - 9.304
Kevin McHale - 9.157
Amar'e Stoudemire - 8.189
Karl Malone - 8.163
Joel Embiid - 8.131
Dale Davis - 7.987
Paul Millsap - 7.948
Tom Chambers - 7.865
Giannis Antetokounmpo - 7.781
Charles Barkley - 7.037
Otis Thorpe - 6.345
Tyrone Hill - 6.055
Buck Williams - 6.029
Ben Wallace - 5.894
Lamar Odom - 5.763
Shawn Kemp - 5.548
Rick Mahorn - 5.332
Charles Oakley - 4.459
Draymond Green - 3.810

Even though Grant isn't known as a scorer, aside from a few score-first PF's (from somewhat more modern era) who are clear outliers, it's Horace Grant over the rest of the field. I thought about doing TSA/turnover, but that's more or less exactly what TOV% conveys; fwiw, he has the edge in TOV% vs the whole field except those three outliers.


And we'll combine that^^ with a look at Ast:Turnover ratio (where some of the above look very different [like Draymond going from last to first]; and I'll include a GOAT-tier playmaker like Jokic).....

Draymond Green - 2.460
Nikola Jokic - 2.400
Al Horford - 2.300
Horace Grant - 1.976
Giannis Antetokounmpo - 1.620
Lamar Odom - 1.577
Dirk Nowitzki - 1.464
Ben Wallace - 1.354
Paul Millsap - 1.300
LaMarcus Aldridge - 1.264
Anthony Davis - 1.253
Charles Barkley - 1.249
Sam Perkins - 1.245
Rasheed Wallace - 1.178
Karl Malone - 1.160
Charles Oakley - 1.155
Joel Embiid - 1.056
Otis Thorpe - 0.984
Dale Davis - 0.897
Tom Chambers - 0.896
Kevin McHale - 0.882
Rick Mahorn - 0.743
Shawn Kemp - 0.616
Buck Williams - 0.591
Amar'e Stoudemire - 0.538
Tyrone Hill - 0.520

^^^So here again: aside from three outliers [all of whom are behind Grant in pts/turnover], it's Horace Grant above the rest of the field (and somewhat comfortably so).

Note I've included many contemporaries of Grant, including a few who had similar(ish) roles, at least through large chunks of their careers. Still he crushes them.

Among big-men, there are precious few for whom we can make ANY argument of better ball-control (and NONE of them by a significant margin).
Grant took care of the ball; like.....REALLY well. Thus: among big-men, I don't think it's misleading to say he's of the GOAT-tier in terms of ball-control.
As is LMA. It's interesting noting Aldridge is still respectable in terms of Ast:TO, even though he was never a playmaker at all. He just turned it over so damn infrequently.....

[eminence]

Want to share your mTOV% formula?

How are folks feeling on Bosh for nomination? Good chance he's my top pick, will have to see how the winds blow on 2nd pick. See Bosh pretty similarly to Grant, spent a bit more time on his own, didn't accomplish much on that front. Not something I hold against guys at this point on the list, I don't expect them to be strong #1 guys (haven't for awhile really). Career cut a bit shorter, but I don't think missing out meaningfully in longevity, later career seasons lost. Less proven across situations as a #2/#3. A bit more offensively slanted. I think overall I grade him a hair higher in prime, but it's close.

[AEnigma]

Among guys with vocalised support, I have Bosh below Gus, Dominique, Chet, Worthy, Beaty, Grant Hill, McAdoo, (English)… Mixed on him versus Porter. Also have not decided how I feel about Tatum/Luka and whether I am motivated to include them, although for nomination purposes I think they offer interesting discussion opportunities at the end of the project.

[trex_8063]

Want to share your mTOV% formula?

How are folks feeling on Bosh for nomination? Good chance he's my top pick, will have to see how the winds blow on 2nd pick. See Bosh pretty similarly to Grant, spent a bit more time on his own, didn't accomplish much on that front. Not something I hold against guys at this point on the list, I don't expect them to be strong #1 guys (haven't for awhile really). Career cut a bit shorter, but I don't think missing out meaningfully in longevity, later career seasons lost. Less proven across situations as a #2/#3. A bit more offensively slanted. I think overall I grade him a hair higher in prime, but it's close.

TOV / (TOV + TSA + [Ast * 2.33] + [Reb * 0.04])

And yes, as I've said previously I feel we're OVERDUE on Chris Bosh.

[Doctor MJ]

Dan Issel

Dan Issel - sidekick to a title winner in the ABA, long NBA career

Issel is a guy with a Top 100 case, but it bothers me that it actually seems like his primacy got in the way of his team.

Most of this will be me quoting trex quoting me, but I'll point out one thing I just noticed here at the beginning, regarding when Issel left the Kentucky Colonels for the Nuggets, that maybe somewhat pushes back on what Doc said, and just about the general notion that he was sort of an empty stats guy.

In 1974-75, the Colonels won 58 games with a 6.24 SRS and a +7.0 Net Rtg and won the ABA championship in dominant fashion.

In 1975-76, the Colonels won 46 games with a 0.50 SRS and a +0.8 Net Rtg while losing in the second round(to the Nuggets, featuring Dan Issel, no less).

They had no other significant roster losses between the two seasons. Gilmore, Dampier, Averitt, Will Jones, Marv Roberts, all still there, all healthy, all playing big minutes(except for Roberts who only played 1003 minutes). In fact, they added Maurice Lucas and Caldwell Jones(for 15 games anyway).

I just thought this was an interesting signal to go along with his box numbers(one of the most efficient and consistent volume scorers left and amazingly consistent for 15 years), longevity/durability(he was more total career minutes than anyone else being discussed right now), and hardware.Issel is a guy with a Top 100 case, but it bothers me that it actually seems like his primacy got in the way of his team.

Good stuff to point out. It doesn't change the fact that the Colonels zenithed with a championship when they focused the offense around Gilmore instead of Issel though, so if we were to conclude that the '74-75 to '75-76 drop off was primarily about losing Issel - which would indicate pretty dang big impact for Issel, I don't think it's obvious how exactly he's achieving that much impact in that role when it would seem he had less impact when he scored more, and scoring is generally considered his main skill.

I'll note that for the Colonels in '75-76, the big drop off was on defense. Defense remained better than average and better than the offense, but the team went from decent offense being carried by an outlier defense to a decent offense not being able to be carried by a merely good defense. If that came from losing Issel while adding guys like Lucas & Jones we see as defensive specialists, that really raises a lot of questions for how that could be possible that I'd love to hear theories on.

[Doctor MJ]

I just want to say that I am elated at Sharman's induction, after championing him hard for the last three months. I'd like to think my efforts played a role in returning him to the list for the first time since 2014.

I'd like to make a few brief posts now making some nomination cases - I'm putting them in separate posts rather than creating a huge novel-length post. Mind you, I still think Chet Walker and Chris Mullin deserve spots, but I'm losing hope, they don't seem to have the support with few spots remaining, and I'm tentatively waiving the white flag.

Oh definitely think you had an impact with Sharman, and I hope it feels satisfying.

Love that you're making separate thought out posts for some of these guys who have been falling through the cracks.

Re: losing hope. Well, not all of these guys are going to make it, and that's not going to feel very satisfying for you. Sucks, but we have to take the disappointment with the elation I'm afraid.

[AEnigma]

Issel also joined a 6.6 SRS team and dragged them down to a 5.5 SRS team — and then pretty narrowly beat that “0.5 SRS” remnant in Kentucky before losing to a 2.6 SRS Nets team.

To whatever extent we want an explanation for all that, I would start with the league going from ten teams to seven teams.

[Doctor MJ]

Billy, Bob, Horace, Cliff and Bill.

Vote: Bob Davies

He wasn't in my short listed pool of 160 odd players I initially ranked, but after some support in the last 10-15 threads, I've done some deep dives and I'm happy to have him at 91. I'd give him 4 years at an ALL NBA level, with another 3 at an ALL STAR level. This is enough longevity to get him over Bill Walton.

Alt Vote: Bill Walton

He was here for a good time, not a long time. Terrific peak. But it was so short lasting. I think he deserves a spot in the top 100, perhaps at 100, but I'm happy with him in the 90's considering we collectively rated his peak to be the 17th best of all time in 2022.

For the rest, I see it: Grant > Hagan > Cunningham

Nomination: Jerry Lucas

I have him with 10 ALL STAR level seasons, peaking ALL NBA for 4 seasons. That's pretty good at this stage in the game.

Alt nomination: Gus Williams

Between Gus and Nique. Both high volume scoring with middling efficiencies. ~5 ALL NBA seasons. Gus seems a bit better in the playoffs, so I'll give him the alt. nomination.

On Lucas ...

WoWY is noisy but iirc we have decent size samples where for the 60s through to 1970 (his production prime) his teams did better without him. Even allowing for the significant margin for error it's enough that, to me, it renders it fairly implausible that he was a (consistently/ on average) significantly positive impact player. Royals did improve on his arrival. Your mileage may vary. Fwiw, he's a bit of a playoff dropper, for those who care a lot about that sort of thing.

I have to nod along with Owly here. When I started participating on RealGM, I was generally a Lucas champion (and an Oscar skeptic), but the more I saw the WOWY data, the more I came to the conclusion that Lucas didn't actually have that impactful of an NBA career despite the fact it seems like he had all sorts of skills and abilities that make it seem like he could have. Not saying Lucas had a "bad career" by any means, but I think it was many tiers below what it was expected to be based on his HS/college domination & hype.

This then to say, I'd have to become aware of some subtle things that make me totally re-think what I think I've safely concluded in order to consider voting for him in the 100.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Good stuff to point out. It doesn't change the fact that the Colonels zenithed with a championship when they focused the offense around Gilmore instead of Issel though, so if we were to conclude that the '74-75 to '75-76 drop off was primarily about losing Issel - which would indicate pretty dang big impact for Issel, I don't think it's obvious how exactly he's achieving that much impact in that role when it would seem he had less impact when he scored more, and scoring is generally considered his main skill.

I'll note that for the Colonels in '75-76, the big drop off was on defense. Defense remained better than average and better than the offense, but the team went from decent offense being carried by an outlier defense to a decent offense not being able to be carried by a merely good defense. If that came from losing Issel while adding guys like Lucas & Jones we see as defensive specialists, that really raises a lot of questions for how that could be possible that I'd love to hear theories on.

I cannot fully explain the drop, but I think the fact that it's there when there are no other significant factors changed other than a few teams folding is something we shouldn't ignore.

Also, WRT to the bolded, I'm not entirely sure what you're basing that on. I suppose it's that the SRS/Net in Issel's rookie year, 1970-71, before GIlmore was there, was significantly lower than after Gilmore got there, and the fact that Issel only averaged 17.7ppg when Kentucky won the championship(we should point out that his minutes were cut by six minutes going from 74 to 75, so the drop in scoring volume is a bit exaggerated).

Ok, but we should also acknowledge that Kentucky, despite the unimpressive SRS/Net, got one game away from winning the championship in 1971. They took Zelmo's Utah Stars, who had a much higher SRS, to seven games. And before that they defeated a Virginia Squires team that had better numbers all around. They did this with Issel as the main guy, averaging 29.9ppg, and no Gilmore. The previous season, when Dampier was the #1 guy, they lost in the division Finals in five games. So I would argue that Issel did have impact as a ceiling rasier.

Also, in 1972-73, Kentucky again got within one game of a championship(this time with Gilmore) with Issel still averaging 27.3ppg on +3.6 rTS.

Issel also joined a 6.6 SRS team and dragged them down to a 5.5 SRS team — and then pretty narrowly beat that “0.5 SRS” remnant in Kentucky before losing to a 2.6 SRS Nets team.

To whatever extent we want an explanation for all that, I would start with the league going from ten teams to seven teams.

But it's a noisier signal with Denver. They traded three starters to get David Thompson that same offseason, got a new point guard in Chuck Williams, and the bench was changed a lot too. A lot of moving pieces to know what exactly caused what in the end is a fairly marginal drop.

Kentucky's drop after losing Issel is a much cleaner signal. Much less changed.

The contraction of the league certainly could be part of it, but I doubt it's all of it.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Billy Cunningham
Vote 2 - Horace Grant
Nomination 1 - Carmelo Anthony
Nomination 2 - Jerry Lucas

The Kangaroo Kid
Cunningham's contributions to the incredible '67 sixers in only his second season was impressive. Elite athlete, versatile skillset at his size and a reasonably efficient volume scorer for his time. Jumped to the ABA later in his career, winning MVP in '73. The cougars would lose to the pretty stacked colonels (gilmore, issel, dampier, mount) in the finals (7 games). His longevity is average at best, but as we round out the project, I don’t think there are many players left as talented and accomplished as him.

Melo
While accolades aren't everything, Carmelo was recognized for his stellar play throughout his prime:

- 6x All NBA (2x 2nd, 4x 3rd)
- Finished 3rd and 6th in MVP voting

He also ranks 10th all time in total career points.

Below are players already voted in in Melo’s VORP and Win Shares range. I left out older players who had some seasons before VORP was calculated since it's cumulative:

VORP
Dwight Howard 38.97
Rasheed Wallace 38.36
Kevin Johnson 37.27
Jack Sikma 37.02
Carmelo Anthony 36.71
Ben Wallace 36.15
Kevin McHale 34.29
Dikembe Mutombo 33.86
Sidney Moncrief 33.14
Tony Parker 30.13
Alonzo Mourning 27.45
Dennis Rodman 21

Win Shares
Paul Arizin 108.8
Carmelo Anthony 108.52
Manu Ginobili 106.4
Rasheed Wallace 105.09
Rudy Gobert 104.65
Kawhi Leonard 99.16
Allen Iverson 98.97
Tracy McGrady 97.27
Ben Wallace 93.51
Kevin Johnson 92.77
Sam Jones 92.29
Bob Cousy 91.11
Sidney Moncrief 90.32
Dennis Rodman 89.83
Alonzo Mourning 89.74
Dave Cowens 86.32
Isiah Thomas 80.69

Peak carmelo developed into a very good offensive player. The “iso melo” narrative was overstated in his best seasons. This coincided with having a decent PG rotation to keep the ball moving (a little different, but billups certainly got the best out of him in denver). He became one of the better off ball players in 12-13, actually shooting more efficiently and on higher volume than durant in catch and shoot situations. His transition to a good volume 3PT shooter also opened up his game, and he stepped into transition 3s about as well as anyone in the league.

He’s obviously known for his post up and face up game, but not acknowledged as much for being a great offensive rebounder for his position. He had a deceptively quick second jump and soft touch around the rim for put backs. He also possessed a unique rolling spin move to the hoop which created a lot of space on his drives. The one thing he was really average at is finishing at the rim, and i’d say that partially has to do with him not being able to take advantage of the way the game is called these days. He wasn’t a freak show athlete like lebron, and he didn't have those long strides like durant/harden where they know the angles and draw fouls easily.

I'd also point out that while melo's transition to a role player was a bit rocky, he didn't call it quits like iverson when asked to come off the bench. You could make the argument that he was scapegoated in houston (to be clear, no conspiracy theories here about him getting blackballed -- that was just dumb). There's some revisionist history there as he did what he was told. Then his first year in in portland he did exactly what you'd want from a role player in year 17: 38.5% from 3 on 3.9 attempts per game, posting a positive net rating and on/off along with being a great teammate.

As I noted earlier, melo's best years came when he had decent PG play around him. Knicks management largely failed him in this regard post 2013. In 12-13, a merely average PG rotation of felton, kidd and prigioni was quite beneficial to him. In 13-14 felton was out of shape and kidd retired. After that:

14-15: Shane Larkin, Langston Galloway, 37 yr old Prigioni, 33 yr old Calderon

15-16: Langston Galloway, rookie Jerian Grant, 34 yr old Calderon — this PG rotation was so poor that Carmelo ended up leading the team in APG and just about equaled Calderon in AST%

16-17: Rose, Jennings, rookie Ron Baker

Jennings was really the one penetrate and dish PG the knicks had in those 3 seasons.  He even seemed to buy in to the fact that he couldn't shoot and really got everyone involved.  Of course, he had rose starting in front of him, so his time on the floor with melo was limited.  He was used more in bench lineups that actually thrived, relatively speaking.

In an era where dynamic PG play is paramount, knicks management abhorrently ignored the position.  I don’t think you can find such ineptitude in a front office with playoff aspirations outside of the cousins-era kings.  

Then we get to the clutch play.  82games.com looked at shot data from '04-'09 in the regular season + '04-'08 in the post season.  Carmelo was 6th in the league in game winners, but #1 in the league by far in FG% on game winners at 48.1%:

http://82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm

By 2011, he already had enough game winners to choose from to create a top 10 for his career:

Watch on YouTube

For clutch data from 2000-2012, carmelo was 7th in the league in FG%, and 50% of his FGs were assisted, which is interesting to note for being criticized for holding the ball too long.

http://bit.ly/1wnySdJ

[I’d obviously prefer eFG% or TS% for these figures, but they weren’t available here]

Carmelo gets a decent amount of flack for his playoff resume, and I think it’s a little overstated, so I’d like to provide some context for each season.  It also seems to get pushed aside that making the playoffs 10 seasons in a row is no big deal or something, especially when the majority of them came out west.  Below is carmelo’s team SRS rank and the opponent’s SRS rank that he lost to in the playoffs in his prime.

CARMELO SRS RANK / OPPONENT SRS RANK
'04 - 11th / 2nd
'05 - 10th / 1st (eventual NBA champion spurs)
'06 - 15th / 9th
'07 - 9th / 1st (eventual NBA champion spurs)
'08 - 11th / 2nd
'09 - 8th / 3rd (eventual NBA champion lakers)
'10 - 8th / 3rd
'11 - 15th / 6th
'12 - 11th / 4th (eventual NBA champion heat)
'13 - 7th / 9th

Aside from 2013, the team he lost to has always been favored in SRS, with 4 of the 10 series losses coming to the eventual NBA champs.  To me, this doesn’t reflect a player who’s come up short when he’s been expected to go farther in the playoffs.  You can make the argument that if he was a better player, he may have been favored in more series, but that only goes so far.  

Some details on his later playoff appearances:

'09 - This run to the WCF almost gets glossed over at times.  Nuggets were 2 wins away from the finals, losing to the eventual NBA champion lakers, who were just flat out the better team. He had some great performances during that run.

'11 -  Billups gets hurt in game 1 against boston (out for rest of series), then amare gets hurt in game 2 only playing 17 min.  First 2 games are decided by 2 and 3 points respectively.  

Tony douglas forced to play PG for the rest of the series, basically putting it out of reach.

'12 - Disastrous number of injuries.  Tyson chandler finishes off a DPOY season, and of course gets the flu as soon as the playoffs start.  Lin doesn’t come back for the playoffs, shumpert and douglas only play 1 game a piece, baron davis eventually goes down, and the knicks are only left with 33 yr old mike bibby to run the point, who already had 1 foot in retirement.

'13 - First time since carmelo came to the knicks that they really looked like a team who could make a run to the finals.  PG play was always an issue prior to this season, and felton came up big in the 1st round against boston.  Ball movement flowing with kidd and prigioni as well.  Then in the 2nd round against indiana, chandler again doesn’t look himself, which would later be revealed that he had an “undisclosed illness” during the series.  I think there’s a good chance they beat the pacers with a healthy chandler, and who knows what happens from there.

Here are the best players carmelo’s played with in his prime: andre miller (first few seasons of carmelo's career), kenyon martin (often injured), post 30s iverson, camby (often injured), JR smith, nene (often injured), billups, afflalo, amare (often injured), tyson chandler (often injured), kidd in his last season, in shape felton and porzingis' rookie/soph year.  

Outside of iverson, that’s a collection of good players, but nothing that screams "consistent second option", or even "consistent first option" if you want to push carmelo down a notch.  Porzingis and carmelo actually had great chemistry until rose came along, but their timelines unfortunately didn't match up.  Fit is clearly important, too, and while iverson and carmelo never had "problems" with each other, it wasn't working.  It’s not an accident that carmelo’s best seasons came with billups running the show in 2009 and a knicks team in 2013 which focused heavily on keeping the ball moving and quick decision making.

When he made it to OKC with westbrook and george it was just too little too late. Not denying the growing pains, but he was in year 15 and not the same player since his knee surgery. Took him time to adjust his game to a true role player like he did with the blazers and the lakers. 

[trex_8063]

Induction vote: Horace Grant
I like Grant's defense, offensive rebounding, GOAT-tier turnover economy, and soft floor-spacing he provides; and for a good long time. Meshed easily with several contenders in his career, his impact profile actually somewhat rivals his one-time teammate, Scottie Pippen. And he's "got the hardware", as one poster puts it.


Alternate vote: Cliff Hagan????
Honestly, I'm so thoroughly non-enthused by all the candidates except for Grant, that I almost didn't offer an alternate. I'd argued rather vociferously and at considerable length AGAINST Hagan several threads back (as he was nominated way too early, imo). But he feels like maybe the best of the rest within this particular class (sort of a poor man's Adrian Dantley).


If it comes to any runoff, I'm presently ranking them:
Grant > Hagan > Sharman > Walton > Cunningham (though all of those last four are reasonably close)



Nomination: Dominique Wilkins
Alt Nomination: Chris Bosh

Could flop these two, pending preferences of others.

As to Dominique, I know he had his playoff failings, but his WOWY profile (referenced in the #87 thread) is respectable for this stage of the list. He was often the ONLY notable scorer his team had, and obviously would then be the focal point of the opposing defense.
So I thus just cannot see how a guy who was even capable (through his talents and durability/longevity) of scoring >26k points in a very competitive era with mostly good shooting efficiency in his prime and a GOOD turnover economy (comparable to that of LeBron James and Ray Allen in mTOV%; BETTER THAN guys like Scottie Pippen, Latrell Sprewell, and Sidney Moncrief), and doing so while often at the helm of some of the best offenses in the league for a few years in the mid-late 80s....

....who was also a good offensive rebounder, and placed 53rd in MVP win shares [fwiw], and who looks competitive via PIPM wins added [see below].....

I'll further quote this argument for him:

Spoiler:

Why Nique rather than his contemporary Alex English? Both great scorers and apparently great guys, Nique is clearly the better rebounder, English the better playmaker, English more versatile and without the playoff efficiency fail. Nique was flashier, had more accolades, and had the best nickname in NBA history but I don't think he was actually better. Willing to listen though.

Atlanta Hawks rORtg and league rank during Nique’s prime
‘86: +0.7 rORTG (11th/23)
‘87: +4.3 rORTG (4th/23)
‘88: +3.3 rORTG (5th/23)
‘89: +4.4 rORTG (4th/25)
‘90: +4.9 rORTG (4th/27)
‘91: +3.0 rORTG (8th/27)
‘92: -0.9 rORTG (16th/27)*
*Important to note Nique missed 40 games this^^^ year. They were +0.8 rORTG in the 42 games he played, -2.6 rORTG in the 40 he missed [+3.4 shift].
‘93: +1.3 rORTG (10th/27)
‘94 (Nique traded late season): +0.9 rORTG (12th/27)


And I want to point out who his primary supporting cast was, in descending order of playing time, for that 5-year stretch in which they were >+3.0 rORTG each and every year.....
'87: Kevin Willis, Doc Rivers, Randy Wittman, Cliff Levingston, Tree Rollins, Jon Koncak
'88: Doc Rivers, Randy Wittman, Cliff Levingston, Kevin Willis, Tree Rollins, Antoine Carr, Spud Webb, John Battle
'89: [late prime/early post-prime] Moses Malone, Reggie Theus, Doc Rivers, Cliff Levingston, John Battle, Jon Koncak, Antoine Carr, Spud Webb
'90: Moses Malone (post-prime), Kevin Willis, Spud Webb, Cliff Levingston, Doc Rivers, John Battle
'91: Doc Rivers, Kevin Willis, Spud Webb, Jon Koncak, Moses Malone (35 yrs old, very post-prime), John Battle


Dominique Wilkins with/without records in prime
‘86: 49-29 (.628) with, 1-3 (.250) without
‘87: 56-23 (.709) with, 1-2 (.333) without
‘88: 48-30 (.615) with, 2-2 (.500) without
‘89: 51-29 (.638) with, 1-1 (.500) without
‘90: 39-41 (.488) with, 2-0 without
‘91: 43-38 (.531) with, 0-1 without
‘92: 22-20 (.524) with, 16-24 (.400) without
‘93: 39-32 (.549) with, 4-7 (.364) without
‘94: 42-32 (.568) with, 4-5 (.444) without
TOTAL: 389-274 (.587)---on pace for 48.1 wins---with him; 31-45 (.408)---on pace for 33.5 wins---without him. Avg +14.7 wins added.


Prime English (‘81-’89)
PER 21.2, .139 WS/48, +2.7 BPM in 36.6 mpg
77.5 WS, cumulative VORP: 28.9

Prime Wilkins (‘86-’94)
PER 23.2, .173 WS/48, +4.5 BPM in 37.4 mpg
89.6 WS, cumulative VORP: 32.8


Career English
Per 100 poss (rs): 30.2 pts, 7.7 reb, 5.1 ast, 1.3 stl, 1.0 blk, 3.4 tov @ .550 TS%
19.9 PER, .127 WS/48, 111 ORtg/110 DRtg (+1) in 31.9 mpg
100.7 rs WS
Per 100 poss (playoffs): 31.1 pts, 7.0 reb, 5.5 ast, 0.9 stl, 0.6 blk, 2.7 tov @ .556 TS%
19.9 PER, .129 WS/48, 116 ORtg/115 DRtg (+1) in 35.7 mpg
6.5 playoff WS

Career Wilkins
Per 100 poss (rs): 34.7 pts, 9.3 reb, 3.5 ast, 1.8 stl, 0.8 blk, 3.5 tov @ .536 TS%
21.6 PER, .148 WS/48, 112 ORtg/108 DRtg (+4) in 35.5 mpg.
117.5 rs WS
Per 100 poss (playoffs): 33.8 pts, 8.9 reb, 3.4 ast, 1.7 stl, 0.8 blk, 3.6 tov @ .510 TS%
18.7 PER, .079 WS/48, 106 ORtg/112 DRtg (-6) in 38.8 mpg
3.6 playoff WS

So Nique looks better in the rs, English looks better in the playoffs (though neither made a huge playoff imprint in their careers, nor has a particularly sizeable playoff game sample size).


I'll also make note of the difference in pts/100 possessions (both rs and playoffs). You've said previously that English gives the "same scoring volume (but on better efficiency)"; but that's not actually true. English, in fact, only has ONE season where he EVER topped Nique's career avg in pts/100 possessions.

I think English’s reputation as a scorer is perhaps a little inflated by the pace and focus on offense that existed on Doug Moe’s Nuggets. During English’s tenure in Denver (third of ‘80 season, then ‘81-’90), the Nuggets had the league’s fastest pace every single year from ‘81 thru ‘89 (sometimes by >5 over the 2nd-fastest team!), and were 2nd in pace in ‘90. Consequently, if you adjust for his numbers for pace, things come back to Earth a little.

English’s best year as a scorer was probably either ‘86 (35.9 pts/100 possessions on +2.15% to league TS%) or ‘82 (30.2 pts/100 poss on TS% +5.75% to league).
Dominique’s best year as a scorer was ‘93 (39.4 pts/100 poss on TS% +3.4% to league)--->I would say Nique wins the battle of scoring peak.
Looking at longer samples, English closes the gap, but doesn't definitively take the lead.......

Prime English (‘81-’89):
32.6 pts/100 poss, +1.9% to league TS%
career: 30.2 pts/100 poss, +1.65% to league TS%
Prime Wilkins (‘86-’94): 36.9 pts/100 poss, +0.8% to league TS%
career: 34.7 pts/100 poss, +/- 0% to league TS%


Couple other measures (career rs stats, fwiw):
Pts/Missed FGA: English--- 2.468, Wilkins--- 2.29
Pts/Turnover: English---- 8.97, Wilkins--- 9.99

So Nique’s obv right there with him as a scorer, arguably marginally better [at least in the rs] imo.
wrt the playoffs, I can't help feeling like opposing defenses couldn't preferentially focus in on English in the same way they would target Nique.......because some of those Denver teams also had Kiki Vandeweghe, Dan Issel, Calvin Natt, then Michael Adams: other guys who could put the ball in the bucket. I'm not sure guys like Kevin Willis or Doc Rivers truly compare as far as guys you need to worry about going off on you, if you cheat toward shutting down Nique.

This is not to say Nique's playoff regression isn't a valid criticism; it absolutely is. But it, shall we say, carries less relevance out here at #90 (when considering all the Nique accomplished in the rs).


And maybe there's something to Nique's bigger fan/media/accolade presence. Those are the guys that drive the imaginations of new generations, and generally drive the increasing popularity of the game........and that's important to the league's evolution.


So those would be my arguments as to why Nique > English.

idk, the guy described belongs somewhere in the top 100, imo.

I'd also REALLY like to see guys like Chris Bosh, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Dan Issel gain some traction.

Looking at some of our candidates and other notable non-inducted players (and a few recent inductees) by PIPM career wins added (as I know it's a metric some have expressed significant confidence in or appreciation of).....

(Shawn Marion: 123.97)
Maurice Cheeks: 119.15
(Jack Sikma): 117.54
Terry Porter: 116.64
Horace Grant: 114.81
(Tony Parker: 113.50)
**Dan Issel: 67.54 (**9-year NBA career ONLY; pro-rated for all 15 seasons would come to 112.57 [though his ABA seasons are likely to be even MORE highly rated])
Chris Bosh: 111.58
LaMarcus Aldridge: 109.02
Dominique Wilkins: 105.11
(Al Horford): 88.24
Carmelo Anthony: 87.39
Chris Webber: 85.49
Chris Mullin: 84.82
Alex English: 82.41
(Sidney Moncrief: 78.53)
Bill Walton: 52.38

[trex_8063]

VOTE: Billy Cunningham
Nominate: Gus Williams

No alt votes? I suspect both of these will get ghosted on the first pass, and then your voice is just up in smoke.

Might I suggest [ahem] Horace Grant and Dominique Wilkins (or Chris Bosh), respectively?

[eminence]

.

Gotta update Sharman > Davies.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Nomination 1 - Carmelo Anthony

Great write-up - I love the effort - but as someone who hasn't been supporting Melo, I do feel the need to make a counter-argument.

Below are players already voted in in Melo’s VORP and Win Shares range. I left out older players who had some seasons before VORP was calculated since it's cumulative:

VORP
Dwight Howard 38.97
Rasheed Wallace 38.36
Kevin Johnson 37.27
Jack Sikma 37.02
Carmelo Anthony 36.71
Ben Wallace 36.15
Kevin McHale 34.29
Dikembe Mutombo 33.86
Sidney Moncrief 33.14
Tony Parker 30.13
Alonzo Mourning 27.45
Dennis Rodman 21

Win Shares
Paul Arizin 108.8
Carmelo Anthony 108.52
Manu Ginobili 106.4
Rasheed Wallace 105.09
Rudy Gobert 104.65
Kawhi Leonard 99.16
Allen Iverson 98.97
Tracy McGrady 97.27
Ben Wallace 93.51
Kevin Johnson 92.77
Sam Jones 92.29
Bob Cousy 91.11
Sidney Moncrief 90.32
Dennis Rodman 89.83
Alonzo Mourning 89.74
Dave Cowens 86.32
Isiah Thomas 80.69

I generally don't love cumulative stats because they can too easily become longevity stats. But looking at such stats, I would point out that a handful of other guys in the nomination conversation surpass, or are right there with, Melo in those metrics.

Dan Issel - 157.8 WS, 33.9 VORP
Dominique Wilkins - 117.5 WS, 50.6 VORP
Chet Walker - 117,4 WS, no VORP for most of his career
Chris Bosh - 106.0 WS, 31.1 VORP
Alex English - 100.7 WS, 38.2 VORP

So Issel, Dominique, and Walker comfortably surpass him in WS, while Bosh is just a shade below, and Dominique and English surpass him in VORP, while Issel and Bosh aren't too far behind.

Of those, Issel and Walker are the only ones I've been pushing strongly, but I think all five would have a case over Melo.

Carmelo gets a decent amount of flack for his playoff resume, and I think it’s a little overstated, so I’d like to provide some context for each season.  It also seems to get pushed aside that making the playoffs 10 seasons in a row is no big deal or something, especially when the majority of them came out west.  Below is carmelo’s team SRS rank and the opponent’s SRS rank that he lost to in the playoffs in his prime.

CARMELO SRS RANK / OPPONENT SRS RANK
'04 - 11th / 2nd
'05 - 10th / 1st (eventual NBA champion spurs)
'06 - 15th / 9th
'07 - 9th / 1st (eventual NBA champion spurs)
'08 - 11th / 2nd
'09 - 8th / 3rd (eventual NBA champion lakers)
'10 - 8th / 3rd
'11 - 15th / 6th
'12 - 11th / 4th (eventual NBA champion heat)
'13 - 7th / 9th

Aside from 2013, the team he lost to has always been favored in SRS, with 4 of the 10 series losses coming to the eventual NBA champs.  To me, this doesn’t reflect a player who’s come up short when he’s been expected to go farther in the playoffs.  You can make the argument that if he was a better player, he may have been favored in more series, but that only goes so far.

So, WRT Melo in the playoffs. I feel that Melo is a guy whose impact could be expected to show up in the box. Comparing his career playoff numbers to the other guys being discussed, by the box, he looks among the worst.

Carmelo Anthony:
.089 WS/48, 1.9 BPM, 51.3% TS
-3.0% TS from RS
-2.7% TS from RS league average over career)

James Worthy: .
135 WS/48, 2.9 BPM, 57.8% TS
+1.8% TS from RS
+4.1% TS from RS league average over career

Gus Williams:
.150 WS/48, 4.7 BPM, 52% TS
+1.5% TS from RS
-1.1% TS from RS league average over career

Dan Issel:
.161 WS/48, 1.7BPM, 54.4% TS
-1.5% TS from RS
+2.0% TS from RS league average over career

Chris Bosh: .
144 WS/48, 1.8 BPM, 55.3% TS
-1.8% TS from RS
+1.6% TS from RS league average over career

Chet Walker:
.133 WS/48, 3.5 BPM*, 52.2% TS
-1.8% TS from RS
+2.6% TS from RS league average over career
*only have BPM for his last two seasons

English: .129 WS/48, 2.7 BPM, 55.6% TS
+0.6% TS from RS
+2.0% TS from RS league average over career

McAdoo:
.110 WS/48, 0.7 BPM, 53.1% TS(+1.6), -2.0
-2.0% TS from RS
+1.6% TS from RS league average over career

Dominique:
.079 WS/48, 2.6 BPM, 51.0%TS(-2.7), -2.6
-2.6% TS from RS
-2.7% TS from RS league average over career

Mullin:
.088 WS/48, .1.9 BPM, 59.9% TS
-0.6% TS from RS
+5.5% TS from league average over career

[A note because I know somebody is going to think it - why do I support Mullin then and not Melo? Because

A. He was a much, much more efficient scorer on comparable volume in his prime(26.8pp100 compared to Melo's 32.8pp100, but +5.0 rTS compared to Melo's +0.2).

B. Clyde pointed out that Melo consistently lost to higher SRS teams; as I've pointed out multiple times, Mullin led the Warriors to series wins over higher-seeded, higher-SRS DRob Spurs and Malone/Stockton Jazz teams while putting up stellar individual numbers.

C. If you compare Melo's years as a role player(two with Portland and one with LA) to Mullin's(96-97 with Golden State and 97-00 with Indiana), Mullin's numbers are a lot better:

Melo RS
19-20 POR - .033 WS/48, -3.6 BPM, -4.0 rTS, +2.9 on/off
20-21 POR - .073 WS/48, -1.1 BPM, -2.5 rTS, -6.4 on/off
21-22 LAL - .097 WS/48, -0.5 BPM, +1.3 rTS, +0.3 on/off

Melo PO
19-20 POR - -0.021 WS/48, -2.9 BPM, -1.3 rTS from RS, -24.3 on/off
20-21 POR - .023 WS/48, -1.8 BPM, +2.4 rTS from RS, -32.1 on/off

Mullin RS
96-97 GSW - .124 WS/48, 2.8 BPM, +10.9 rTS, -0.1 on/off
97-98 IND - .168 WS/48, 4.3 BPM, +8.3 rTS, +7.8 on/off
98-99 IND - .167 WS/48, 4.5 BPM, +10.6 rTS, +5.6 on/off
99-00 IND - .142 WS/48, 3.4 BPM, +6.7 rTS, +2.6 on/off

Mullin PO
97-98 IND - .103 WS/48, 3.3 BPM, -2.6 rTS from RS, -3.3 on/off
98-99 IND - .084 WS/49, 1.6 BPM, -5.3 rTS from RS, +2.5 on/off
99-00 IND - .148 WS/48, 3.6 BPM, +0.1 rTS from RS, +5.6 on/off
]

Some details on his later playoff appearances:

'09 - This run to the WCF almost gets glossed over at times.  Nuggets were 2 wins away from the finals, losing to the eventual NBA champion lakers, who were just flat out the better team. He had some great performances during that run.

I don't gloss over it, but I have generally given Billups more credit for it, between the fact that the Nuggets never got close to that far before Billups got there, and the fact that Billups in some ways looks better in that playoff run. Melo had higher on/off, but Billups box numbers top Melo, especially efficiency:

Melo: +3.2 on/off, .201 WS/48, 5.0 BPM, 53.2% TS
Billups: +0.5 on/off, .249 WS/48, 6.1 BPM, 66.4% TS

And for their careers, Billups' playoff numbers are just much better too.

[trex_8063]

Vote 1 - Billy Cunningham
Vote 2 - Horace Grant
Nomination 1 - Carmelo Anthony
Nomination 2 - TBD

 

Might I suggest Nique for the alt? Fairly similar role, overall quality, overall longevity, overall team success, etc as Melo. If you're that high on Melo (who I agree should make the top 100 somewhere), it just seems to sort of make sense.
The alts matter so much at this point, because the noms are all over the place.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Induction Vote #1: Bill Walton

Highest peak here.

Induction Vote #2: Billy Cunningham

Of the two leading vote-getters right now, I go with Cunningham, as more of an all-around player with more primacy.

Nomination Vote #1: Gus Williams

See my earlier post in this thread. Of all the guys that have first-place votes right now, he's the one I go with.

Nomination Vote #2: Dan Issel

See my earlier post in this thread.

EDIT: Reversed my nomination votes.

[AEnigma]

VOTE: Billy Cunningham
Nominate: Gus Williams

No alt votes? I suspect both of these will get ghosted on the first pass, and then your voice is just up in smoke.

Might I suggest [ahem] Horace Grant and Dominique Wilkins (or Chris Bosh), respectively?

Cunningham may not, but I suppose I can put Grant — with the understanding that all these options are going higher than I would have them, and that I do think both Walton and Davies were and are substantially more significant figures.

For nominations, I was mostly just curious how votes would disperse. Does seem like Wilkins has an early stab at it, so sure. Would have preferred English, but seems like the box metrics have condemned him this go-around — and potentially for all future projects too.

[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.

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).
Nomination

1 Luka Doncic
2. Jayson Tatum

Would prefer to vote for gasol but these two are getting traction so. May swap depending on who gets support.


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.

[Doctor MJ]

Good stuff to point out. It doesn't change the fact that the Colonels zenithed with a championship when they focused the offense around Gilmore instead of Issel though, so if we were to conclude that the '74-75 to '75-76 drop off was primarily about losing Issel - which would indicate pretty dang big impact for Issel, I don't think it's obvious how exactly he's achieving that much impact in that role when it would seem he had less impact when he scored more, and scoring is generally considered his main skill.

I'll note that for the Colonels in '75-76, the big drop off was on defense. Defense remained better than average and better than the offense, but the team went from decent offense being carried by an outlier defense to a decent offense not being able to be carried by a merely good defense. If that came from losing Issel while adding guys like Lucas & Jones we see as defensive specialists, that really raises a lot of questions for how that could be possible that I'd love to hear theories on.

I cannot fully explain the drop, but I think the fact that it's there when there are no other significant factors changed other than a few teams folding is something we shouldn't ignore.

Also, WRT to the bolded, I'm not entirely sure what you're basing that on. I suppose it's that the SRS/Net in Issel's rookie year, 1970-71, before GIlmore was there, was significantly lower than after Gilmore got there, and the fact that Issel only averaged 17.7ppg when Kentucky won the championship(we should point out that his minutes were cut by six minutes going from 74 to 75, so the drop in scoring volume is a bit exaggerated).

Ok, but we should also acknowledge that Kentucky, despite the unimpressive SRS/Net, got one game away from winning the championship in 1971. They took Zelmo's Utah Stars, who had a much higher SRS, to seven games. And before that they defeated a Virginia Squires team that had better numbers all around. They did this with Issel as the main guy, averaging 29.9ppg, and no Gilmore. The previous season, when Dampier was the #1 guy, they lost in the division Finals in five games. So I would argue that Issel did have impact as a ceiling rasier.

Also, in 1972-73, Kentucky again got within one game of a championship(this time with Gilmore) with Issel still averaging 27.3ppg on +3.6 rTS.

- I'm with you that it shouldn't be ignored - and the discrepant event should be further investigated = but that doesn't mean that the most likely explanation is that Issel was secretly a DPOY level player, which is what that data seems to indicate.

- Re: what I'm basing that on. I was referring specifically to 74 to 75. They made Issel a smaller part of the offense, and team generally, and they hit the jackpot with it. Not saying it means Issel was a bad player, but its clearly a case where the choice to make the offense focus on Artis Gilmore instead of Issel - as it had done before - was a pretty dang big improvement.

Also to be clear: Issel then had a long career of success where the longevity plays a major role in why he's seen as a candidate here, and I'd say he did so because he continued to be a secondary or lower primacy guy from that point onward, which I admire a great deal. I love when guys accept a slightly less glamorous role and can really thrive for a long time in doing so.

Sigh, I'm talking myself into re-evaluating him. I'd be a lot more comfortable siding with him though if I really could confidently classify him as a much stronger defender than I ever thought he was.