Induction vote: Bob CousyBeen waiting forever to have this guy on the ballot. Far overdue for the guy who was literally THE face of the PG position (and probably the
best to grace the position as well) until Oscar/West showed up.
Was a notable piece of SEVEN contender teams, winning six titles, and led some winning teams prior to that.
He stands extra tall in terms of both media-awarded and player/peer-awarded accolades, fwiw:
*There are only 16 players in NBA/ABA history with as many or more All-Star selections......and all of them were LONG since inducted.
**There are only 11 players in NBA/ABA history with as many or more All-NBA selections.......and all of them were LONG since inducted.
***He's one of only 5 NBA MVP's who have yet to be inducted......though among them, only he and Iverson actually played 29k+ minutes in his career.
People look to knock his offense, but he anchored or co-anchored not one, not two, but
THREE #1 offenses in the early-mid 50s (plus another #2-rated offense).
The +5.0 rORTG in '54 is [to this day, including current team] the 4th-best rORTG in franchise history. In terms of
proportion above league average, it's actually
3rd, behind only the '88 Celtics and the current '24 Celtics.
And based on faulty methodology toward estimating turnovers, it's entirely possible that there are actually only two negative rORTG's in his career [read below], BOTH occurring in his post-prime as his minutes dwindle [and KC Jones' increase]: '61 and '63.
And the first year after his departure is [officially, at least] the worst in franchise history.
He was not good enough [apparently] to be the best player on a title-winning team........though that hardly seems a disqualifier given I think that this is arguably true of literally EVERY CANDIDATE we have presently on the ballot, not to mention several [or all??] of the last handful of inducted players: Kyle Lowry wasn't either, nor was Bobby Jones or Rasheed Wallace; and most likely Lillard and George weren't/aren't either.
His prime/career WOWYR are +4.4 and +3.9, respectively. One poster has suggested this leans too heavily on the "before he arrived" sample (from '50), since he didn't miss much time in his prime. Though I also note the following WOWY (W/L only) in his career:
'55: 36-35 [.507] with, 0-1 without
'57: 41-23 [.641] with, 3-5 [.375] without
'58 (a noted down year within his prime): 44-21 [.677] with, 5-2 [.714] without
'59: 48-17 [.738] with, 4-3 [.571] without
'61: 56-20 [.737] with, 1-2 [.333] without
'62: 56-19 [.747] with, 4-1 [.800] without
'63: 55-21 [.724] with, 3-1 [.750] without
Overall in these years (even inclusive of post-prime years): 336-156 [.683] with, 20-15 [.571] without (equiv of >9 wins added to an already winning team). Yeah, I didn't investigate SRS or parallel injuries, but it may already be seen as supporting that his WOWYR isn't just smoke and mirrors.
I'd like to take a moment to talk about the seeming poor offenses in the Russell-era, which is often a fixation of his critics (while they ignore the elite offenses that came prior).
I'd mentioned that the pace-mandate [from Red] necessitated a lot of [bad] shots early in the shotclock, which were frequently taken by the guy(s) handling the ball. This contributes to both poorish team offense, and [arguably] to Cousy's own shooting efficiency.
@ Owly:
It was mentioned that Red always wanted to push the pace, even pre-Russell. So why didn't it affect things in that pre-Russell time period?
Well, I'd done a correlation study, looking at relative pace vs rORTG year-by-year........and I found that there seems to be a "tipping point" or critical threshold: a pace threshold where if you're trying to push significantly past it [faster], it is to the detriment of your offense.
I noted that a
very faint correlation begins to appear in years where the league-average pace is >107 (that is: where increasing rPace corresponded with worsening rORTG [or where slowing rPace corresponded with better rORTG]).
The correlation looks more reliable ["real"] in seasons where the league average pace was >115.
Which makes some sense conceptually: every possession cannot be a transition opportunity; so to maintain certain "extreme" paces, it requires taking whatever first shot presents itself (which---it goes without saying, I think---that many of those will be low quality).
And what's more, I found the OPPOSITE effect when dealing with really sluggish paces: in years were the league average pace was <92, increasing rPace was mildly correlated with INCREASING rORTG (or stated alternately: playing SLOWER than this already sluggish league-average resulted in WORSENING offense).
This too kinda makes some sense, as paces around 90 and lower almost necessitates a relative lack of transition, necessitates ALWAYS giving the defense ample time to set-up in the half-court, and likely represents relatively little offensive flow and off-ball movement (because if you WERE moving, good shots would [at least once in awhile] present themselves early in the shotclock: and then your pace wouldn't be lagging around 85-90).
So when did Boston's individual pace tip above that 115 threshold? As it turns out: '57, the year Russell arrived.
What year did the league average (which Boston was ALWAYS well-ahead of) top 115? Well, it hit 117 in '58, dropped back to 112 for one year in '59, then bounced to
>120 in '60, where it remained for a few years.
The Celtics played at an estimated pace of 125 or higher for Cousy's last FIVE seasons straight (and was 124.8 the year before that). In terms of relative to league avg, the SLOWEST pace in those years was a +7.8 rPace (one of only two years that were <+10 rPace).
The mantra I remember from my youth was "work the ball around, find a good shot".
For the Celtics of this era it was "shoot the damn ball already! don't slow the game down!"
So yes, I contest that such extremes were hurting their offense. (EDIT: btw, I mentiond the THREE #1 offenses, plus a #2 offense......the ONLY pre-Russell/prime Cousy year in which the Celtics were NOT #1 or #2 offensively was in '56, when their pace had jumped to nearly that 115 threshold [at 114.5, which was +11.7 to the league avg]; they were still 3rd that year)
I've further commented that the pace listed on bbref [and thus the rORTG/rDRTG data] is all estimated, because certain statistics were not yet recorded......such as turnovers. Turnovers were estimated largely based upon how many shots a team was taking: it was basically assumed that if you're getting "X" number of shots off, than it must correspond with a proportionate amount of turnovers.
But what if----because you're shooting early in the clock---you have less opportunity to turn the ball over (as has been suggested for these Russell-era Celtic teams)? Why, that would mean the pace estimate on bbref is HIGHER than reality!.......and thus that the ORtg listed is LOWER than reality (and the DRtg HIGHER than reality). Having logged some Celtic games from the early 60s, I could buy this as valid, since it does not appear as frenetic [visually] as circa-135 pace would suggest.
Take '59 as an example: Celtics supposedly had a 128.7 pace (way the hell out in front of league avg [by +16.7!], with a -0.4 rORTG [5th of 8 teams]. Suppose that within that pace estimate bbref is OVER-estimating their turnovers by a rate of just 2 turnovers per 48 minutes [1 per half]........that mis-estimation alone would mean their ORtg was actually +1.4 better than estimated (and their DRtg was also +1.4 worse). They'd still be comfortably the best DRtg in the league, but now have a slightly above avg ORtg [which is now ranked 4th of 8].
The result of such mis-estimations (of just 2 turnovers/48 minutes) could mean that the Celtics
never actually had a negative rORTG until '61 (perhaps non-coincidentally at the time when Cousy [at 32 years old] is beginning to dwindle into his post-prime). It's even possible that the Celtics actually only had two negative rORTG's in his career: '61 and '63.
What's more, I don't believe Red ever criticized Cousy's defense or defensive effort (something which cannot be said for Cliff Hagan, fwiw).
(NOTE: I may swap these two, pending vote specs, as they're adjacent on my list, and to me are far and away the most deserving candidates on the ballot)
Alternate vote: Allen Iverson (SKEPTICS: PLEASE READ)
The following isn't to be seen as "coming at you"; merely using this recent quote as a jumping point, because this is common type of argument that comes up with Iverson.....
Obviously he's not the calibre of offensive engine that Steve Nash was (nor has anyone said so).......if he were, we would not be discussing him right now (because he'd have been off the table
dozens of places ago).
Nash is someone this very panel inducted
55 places ago (55!), despite the fact that he's even
worse on defense, and barely has a notable edge in meaningful longevity.
The fact that Iverson doesn't compare very well to HIM is little more than a misdirect (whether that was the intention or not): it
seems like it should function as an argument against considering Iverson here, but in truth it's not.
And this happens a lot on this forum where Allen Iverson is concerned: I was digging through some archived conversations and I found one [where I was again championing Iverson], and when talking about his floor-raising potential the argument thrown at me was that he couldn't lift the floor as well as '06 Kobe or '87 Jordan.
Seriously?If negative counterpoint arguments require referencing players that were inducted 50+ places ago, that should [imo] be a red-flag that one might be struggling for actual sound reasons to NOT support him.
I found an old metric I'd archived Iverson's rank (Estimated Impact by shutupandjam: combines box and +/-, and I think some semblance of team differential)......
Estimated Impact League Rank (remember: this is a rate metric, and Iverson plays more minutes than 95+% of those ahead)'99--->15th
'00--->29th
'01--->8th
'02--->15th
'03--->18th
'04--->30th
'05--->14th
'06--->16th
'07--->34th
'08--->17th
And now I want to talk a bit about '01 (well......and actually the rest of his prime).
It is often said by his critics that he gets too much mileage out of the narrative around that season: the [undeserved] MVP, the "carried a bunch of role players to the Finals", and so on. With the counterpoint being that they didn't have to defeat any notable monster teams to get to the finals, and the "that team won with their defense and Iverson's a weak defender, so...." arguments.
To the first, it's true: he does get way too much mileage from casual fans on the basis of that narrative.......it's why he's often miscast as this top 25 player all-time in the mainstream.
Here on
this forum, he does NOT get too much mileage from that narrative (which is why we're only beginning to discuss him out past #75).
As to the "that team won with their defense and Iverson's a weak defender, so....." arguments: these are only slightly more nuanced [or accurate] than the "he carried a bunch of role players" arguments.
But first----just to show I'm not tunnel-visioned on that one season----I'll share what I found looking at basically his entire prime in Philly:
WOWY[u] (I looked at every single game Iverson missed from '99-'06 [and can share the game-by-game data upon request], noting how the team without him vs with him)
Here's how it looks each year (SUMMARY below, if you don't want to look at year-by-year):
[u]’990-2 record w/o, 28-20 (.583) record with.
Sixer avg 83.0 ppg w/o him, 89.9 ppg with (+6.9 ppg).
47.5 TS% w/o him, 49.5 TS% with (+2.0%).
97.4 ORtg w/o, 100.0 ORtg with (+2.6).
-12.04 SRS w/o, +3.17 SRS with (+15.21).
’007-5 (.583) w/o, 42-28 (.600) with
85.4 ppg without him, 96.4 ppg with him (+11.0 ppg).
46.9 TS% without him, 50.6 TS% with him (+3.7%).
94.7 ORtg w/o him, 102.7 ORtg with him (+8.0).
-1.69 SRS w/o him, +1.48 SRS with him (+3.17).
’016-5 (.545) w/o, 50-21 (.704) with
88.8 ppg w/o him, 95.6 with (+6.8 ppg).
51.6 TS% w/o, 51.8 TS% with (+0.2%).
103.2 ORtg w/o, 103.7 ORtg with (+0.5).
+0.48 SRS w/o, +4.12 SRS with him (+3.63).
’027-15 (.318) w/o, 36-24 (.600) with
84.7 ppg w/o, 93.3 ppg with (+8.6 ppg).
49.1 TS% w/o, 50.7 TS% with (+1.6%).
100.2 ORtg w/o, 102.8 ORtg with (+2.6).
-4.18 SRS w/o, +3.27 SRS with him (+7.45).
'03: no missed games
’04---banged up much of year, missed 34 games; outlier bad year when he did play
14-20 (.412) w/o, 19-29 (.396) with
85.1 ppg w/o, 90.0 ppg with (+4.9 ppg).
50.8 TS% w/o, 50.3 TS% with (-0.5%)
100.3 ORtg w/o, 98.3 ORtg with (-2.0).
-2.54 SRS w/o, -3.24 with him (-0.70).
’052-5 (.286) w/o, 41-34 (.547) with
95.9 ppg w/o, 99.4 ppg with (+3.5 ppg).
52.6 TS% w/o, 52.8 TS% with (+0.2%).
101.6 ORtg w/o, 103.7 ORtg with (+2.1).
-0.60 SRS w/o, -1.11 with him (-0.51).
’063-7 (.300) w/o, 35-37 (.486) with
90.9 ppg w/o, 100.5 ppg with (+9.6 ppg).
53.1 TS% w/o, 53.9 TS% with (+0.8%).
103.9 ORtg w/o, 106.3 ORtg with (+2.4).
-5.59 SRS w/o, -1.62 with him (+3.97).
SUMMARYAVERAGE effect of having Iverson vs. not having him over these years:
NOT weighted for games played/missed+7.3 ppg
+1.1% TS%
+2.3 ORtg
+4.61 SRS
Weighted for games PLAYED+7.4 ppg
+1.2% TS%
+2.5 ORtg
+4.21 SRS
Weighted for games MISSED (the outlier bad year in '04 drags this weighted group down)
+7.1 ppg
+0.8% TS%
+1.4 ORtg
+2.90 SRS
Overall with/without during prime in Philly: 39-59 record (.398) without, 251-193 record (.565) with him (avg of +13.7 wins per 82-game season [and roughly +4 SRS boost]).
And again: '04 was a definitive outlier within this time period; he was playing banged up and performing well below his usual standard. If I can cherry-pick a little and remove that year from consideration.....
AVERAGE effect of having Iverson vs. not having him during '99-'02, '05 and '06: (that's still a 6-YEAR sample)
NOT weighted for # of games played in each season+7.8 ppg
+1.4% TS%
+3.0 ORtg
+5.49 SRS
WEIGHTED for games played+7.7 ppg
+1.4% TS%
+3.0 ORtg
+4.81 SRS
WEIGHTED for games missed+8.3 ppg
+1.5% TS%
+3.2 ORtg
+4.82 SRS
25-39 record (.391) without, 232-164 record (.586) with:
avg of +16 wins per 82-game season (and roughly
+5 boost on SRS).
So actually it looks like he's providing pretty substantial [even "super-star"] lift straight through his prime, with the exception of '04.
Circling back to '01.....
It's been vaguely stated that he should have "passed more" or "shot less". Looking at that roster, specifically WHO is he supposed to defer to [more often]? Who's he going to allow to shoulder some of the creation on this roster? Who is going to make shots if they're found open?
Even with all the gravity he possesses (as OhayoKD illustrated previously), this team was still only 28th [of 29] in 3PA, and making only 32.6% [26th of 29]. The rest of the team [outside of Iverson] took just 5.5 3PA/game, and made just 33.0% (despite ~94% of them being assisted).
He didn't even have shooters/shot-makers/floor-spreaders, much less other creators.
And regarding them "winning with their defense": that's true only to an extent (more on that in a moment). But first, again looking at their roster make-up, we really should
expect a good defense, no?
The other starting guard is Eric Snow: an extremely limited offensive PG, but very good defensively (sort of what his career was built around).
The starting forwards were George Lynch and Tyrone Hill: good offensive rebounders, but otherwise fairly poor [to terrible??] offensive players. Their entire careers were built around defense and rebounding.
Then at C they had either Ratliff or Mutombo: an ELITE level rim-protector.
They had some capable defensive guards off the bench, too, in Aaron McKie and Kevin Ollie [I mean, Kevin Ollie only had a career AT ALL because he was sort of decent defensively].
So being good defensively is sort of a ldo, isn't it?
When looking at the OFFENSIVE cast, however.......honestly, the image that pops into my head is that of an intimate theater audience, ALL of whom are very familiar with the players of that era, though weirdly have no knowledge of the assembled teams.
You're on stage, and your act is to get them enthusiastic about how the '01 Sixers were built
for offense, by relating who the BEST offensive players on the team were......
You: "Firstly, they had Allen Iverson."
(some impressed murmurs ripple through the audience, as people kind of look at each other nodding and shrugging as if to say "that's a decent start")
You: "They also had late-prime Toni Kukoc, though only up to the All-Star break."
(few glances about the audience, seeming to say "OK, whatever")
You (unsure who to next mention): "And........Aaron McKie and late-prime Dikembe Mutombo???"
(..........[cough]..........)
You: "And Todd MacCulloch."
(.....[crickets]; audience now appears to regret paying admission to this show......)
There's just no one else on this team where offense is concerned. That they actually managed to be a better than average offense [+0.6 rORTG, 13th of 29 teams] AT ALL with that cast is truly a credit to Iverson.
And harkening back to when I said "won with defense" was only true to an extent, it's worth pointing out that this is only in looking at the rs.
In the playoffs, the paradigm basically flipped.
Here's how the Philly performed on offense and defense in each round, relative to the ORtg/DRtg faced:
1st round (Indiana, won 3-1): +5.6 rORTG, -1.4 rDRTG
ECSF (Toronto, won 4-3): +5.4 rORTG,
+2.1 rDRTG (remember positive is bad in rDRTG)
ECF (Milwaukee, won 4-3): +2.1 rORTG, -2.4 rDRTG
Finals (LAL, lost 4-1): -2.2 rORTG, +1.6 rDRTG
Summary: offense performed better than defense by fairly sizable 4.2 in the first round, by a whopping 7.5 in the second round, only 0.3 worse than the defense in the ECF, and only 0.6 worse than the defense in the Finals.
Their average rORTG was around +2.8 in the playoffs, while their average defense was +/- 0. i.e. NOT winning with their defense.
Anyway, I'll stop there for now.
It's overdue for Iverson, imo. I know he's way overrated in the mainstream, and I know his persona is off-putting to some. I'm not a fan. But it's simply overdue.
Nomination: Tony Parker
Alt Nomination: Larry Nance
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
I think he was a pretty impactful player for 11 seasons. 
