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

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I mean, his peri-peak/prime region of the graph looks really good (though still slightly below the peaks of Zelmo Beaty and Lenny Wilkens (the latter who will never even get a mention in this project).

And then for the latter-half [and then some] of his curve drops below the 50th percentile (that is: below average). So I suppose you're more or less correct in saying that by Moonbeam's RWOWY he "doesn't even look weak"; though I would add "nor does he look all that strong". For instance, by total area under the curve, he looks to be slightly below Pettit and Wilkens, and WELL-below Zelmo Beaty; and about even or just slightly ahead of Lovellette and Hudson.

Isn't this essentially a longevity argument? If so, I would only say that in the latter stages of this project, Bill Walton, Jayson Tatum, and Gus Williams have gotten in with similar longevity issues(i.e. only a handful of prime years), and Luka has nearly gotten in several times now.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I notice that Bob Davies has four second place votes this round, and I just wanted to look at him vs Hagan a bit. I can understand arguments either way, but I do not think there is a big gap between them. I showed Hagan's league ranks in his prime, and I will show them again now vs Davies' league ranks during his NBA years:

Davies:
1949: #8 PPG, #8 TS Add, #1 APG, RPG unavailable
1950: #15 PPG, #36 TS Add, #4 APG, RPG unavailable
1951: #12 PPG, #16 TS Add, #6 APG, #81 RPG
1952: #5 PPG, #23 TS Add, #4 APG, #78 RPG
1953: #8 PPG,#14 TS Add, #7 APG, #75 RPG
1954: #16 PPG, #19 TS Add, #5 APG, #66 RPG
1955: #23 PPG, #20 TS Add, #7 APG, #70 RPG

Hagan:
1958 - #7 PPG, #5 TS Add, #20 RPG, #20 APG
1959 - #5 PPG, #4 TS Add, #9 RPG, #12 APG
1960 - #5 PPG, #2 TS Add, #10 RPG, #12 APG
1961 - #11 PPG, #9 TS Add, #17 RPG, #9 APG
1962 - #8 PPG, #9 TS Add, #19 RPG, #8 APG

So it looks to me like Hagan has marginal edge in scoring volume and a more significant edge in scoring efficiency and rebounding, while Davies has the clear edge in assists/playmaking.

I also look at how they ranked on their teams during their championship seasons(1951 Royals and 1958 Hawks):

Davies 1950-51(RS / PO)
#1 assists / #1 assists
#2 points / #2 points
#5 rebounds / #5 rebounds
#3 WS / #5 WS
#5 TS% / #8 TS

Hagan 1957-58(RS / PO)
#3 assists / #3 assists
#2 points / #1 points
#3 rebounds / #2 rebounds
#2 WS / #1 WS
#1 TS% / #1 TS

Again, Davies has the clear advantage as a playmaker, but Hagan looks competitive or better elsewhere, especially in the playoffs. And I would add, for context, that Davies wasn't playing next to anyone as good as Bob Pettit, either.

Career playoff composites:

Davies
.148 WS/48 RS, vs .066 WS/48 PO
-3.2% TS playoffs

Hagan
.170 WS/48 RS, .167 WS/48 PO
+0.1% TS playoffs

Last thing, Hagan's WOWY W/L has been a topic of conversation, but in his NBA years, Davies' doesn't look much better.

Hawks were 17-8(.680) without Hagan during his ten years there.
Royals were 11-5(.688) without Davies during his seven years there.

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

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

[trex_8063]

I mean, his peri-peak/prime region of the graph looks really good (though still slightly below the peaks of Zelmo Beaty and Lenny Wilkens (the latter who will never even get a mention in this project).

And then for the latter-half [and then some] of his curve drops below the 50th percentile (that is: below average). So I suppose you're more or less correct in saying that by Moonbeam's RWOWY he "doesn't even look weak"; though I would add "nor does he look all that strong". For instance, by total area under the curve, he looks to be slightly below Pettit and Wilkens, and WELL-below Zelmo Beaty; and about even or just slightly ahead of Lovellette and Hudson.

Isn't this essentially a longevity argument? If so, I would only say that in the latter stages of this project, Bill Walton, Jayson Tatum, and Gus Williams have gotten in with similar longevity issues(i.e. only a handful of prime years), and Luka has nearly gotten in several times now.

Yes, it is in essence a longevity argument. Meaningful longevity is important to me.
Among the names you mention, none of them did I ever support except for Tatum (and the only other options on the ballot were other guys with limited longevity......except for [or at least less poor meaningful longevity] Bob Davies; and I'm not an era relativist). Also Tatum has impact signals that are FAR above his box-based indicators.

But at any rate, Tatum's not in my top 100 either. He was just the best option [to me] available. Except for Nique, and now Worthy and McAdoo, none of the candidates we've had for several threads were/are in my top 100.

But even from the lens of peak only, or best 5-years only, Hagan still appears behind Zelmo Beaty on that very same chart (Zelmo's actually got five consecutive plot points on the chart that are HIGHER than Hagan's best).
And there's potentially still time to get Zelmo in, fwiw.

[trex_8063]

Fair points in general. I think an area-under-the-curve (but over 50) lens is one thing worth identifying right away, and I'd see that ranking as:

1. Zelmo
2. Lenny
3. Hagan
4. Pettit
5. Lou
6. Lovellette

If you interpret <50 years as negatives then Hagan would fall below Pettit.

Small nit-pick, but no he's NOT ahead of Pettit in area-under-the-curve (but over 50th percentile), even without counting the <50 points as negatives.

I just added the plot points >50 up: Pettit's add to +198, Hagan's to +190.

Counting the <50's as negatives just makes the gap really wide (Pettit still a +163, Hagan down to a +51). I think he'd still be slightly ahead of Lovellette and Hudson in total over/under 50, though not 100% sure (haven't added them all up yet).

[Doctor MJ]

Fair points in general. I think an area-under-the-curve (but over 50) lens is one thing worth identifying right away, and I'd see that ranking as:

1. Zelmo
2. Lenny
3. Hagan
4. Pettit
5. Lou
6. Lovellette

If you interpret <50 years as negatives then Hagan would fall below Pettit.

Small nit-pick, but no he's NOT ahead of Pettit in area-under-the-curve (but over 50th percentile), even without counting the <50 points as negatives.

I just added the plot points >50 up: Pettit's add to +198, Hagan's to +190.

Counting the <50's as negatives just makes the gap really wide (Pettit still a +163, Hagan down to a +51). I think he'd still be slightly ahead of Lovellette and Hudson in total over/under 50, though not 100% sure (haven't added them all up yet).

I stand corrected.

[OhayoKD]

make of this what you will. There is still the bias introduced by a regression, but the sample is bigger.

A more broad comment: The weight these sort of samples have(and to be clear I'd put more stock in the raw than the adjustments here), is largely dependent on your confidence in whatever prior preceded them. If you have no confidence ranking this player whatsoever based on what else is there(I imagine here it's most reputation and conventional box), then even a tiny sample(5 games) is inherently going to have more value if you already had a strong opinion on how he compared to his peers

So opening up this thread this morning this popped out to me, and wanted to say:

The fact that Hagan doesn't even look weak by Moonbeam's RWOWY makes it hard for me to take too seriously the idea that WOWY data implies he's someone far less impactful than his stats indicate, and it feels to me like just because of the timing of things, some raw WOWY data really popped Hagan's candidacy balloon despite the fact the voting body already saw that RWOWY data and seemed to really take note of it.

This then to say I don't think there's any justifiable basis for the WOWY argument knocking Hagan from a guy on pace to get in in the 60s to someone who might not make the Top 100.

But I would add: This doesn't mean Hagan maybe not making the 100 is wrong or the near 60s placement was right, only that the ability for something so small to swing placement that much is very, very interesting. It's really the type of thing I think could only happen to players from the deeper past where we have no choice to but to commit to an assessment on something with vast unknowns.

Are you arguing RWOWY should be given similar or as much weight as raw WOWY? Becuase generally I'd give the latter more weight in 99 percent of scenarios(even acknowledging i respect moonbeam's methodology the most of wowy-regressions).

I also think, you should look season by season rather than relying on the averages in a vacuum, namely looking at where the off is coming from, and how it flocculates year by year(as well as specific team context), so you can minimize the simpson paradoxiness of your numerical appraisal. Teammate adjustments amplify that issue, so looking at where the best teammates are missing games is also a nice step.

[eminence]

Vote #1: Bob Davies
-7 to 8 seasons as one of the best guards in the league
-Strong team success as the lead guy
-Semi aside, but I find playmakers the players most commonly underrated by the box score all in ones (Arnie Johnson above Bob Davies in WSs a couple of times is goofy)

Vote #2: Bob McAdoo
-I think I prefer Worthy, but McAdoo is the one in contention
-Led some respectable teams in Buffalo, and fit in okay in a lesser role later
-Obviously plenty respected in his time

Nomination #1: Chris Bosh
-Great #2/3 guy, actualized in Miami
-I really appreciate the bit of everything game he had
-Between maturing pretty quickly and being forced into an early retirement nearly all of his ~32k career minutes were at prime level

Don't have a strong enough opinion to choose a 2nd nomination, don't think any of them would rank above Worthy for me.

[ShaqAttac]

Imma go

LUKA

Best player here easy tbh. should have an mvp

Gonna nom

GASOL

won a chip anchoring great d and led good teams ig

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Induction Vote #1: Bob McAdoo
Induction Vote #2: Cliff Hagan

McAdoo is an MVP who had a damn near transcendent albiet very brief peak, even if it didn't yield much in the way of team success. The Braves were better with him than without, he led the Knicks to a series win in 1978 despite the loss of Frazier and Holzman, and he played a significant 20mpg bench role on the Showtime dynasty from 1981-1985.

Tough choice for my second vote, but I think Hagan has the best era-relative case besides Luka(for whom I feel the combination of lack of longevity and lack of playoff accomplishment is a hindrance).

Nomination Vote #1: Chet Walker
Nomination Vote #2: Chris Bosh

Giving my guy Chet Walker my first nomination vote.

This nomination seems to be coming down to Bosh and Marc Gasol, and I just think Bosh was the more well-rounded two-way player.

[Owly]

I notice that Bob Davies has four second place votes this round, and I just wanted to look at him vs Hagan a bit. I can understand arguments either way, but I do not think there is a big gap between them. I showed Hagan's league ranks in his prime, and I will show them again now vs Davies' league ranks during his NBA years:

Davies:
1949: #8 PPG, #8 TS Add, #1 APG, RPG unavailable
1950: #15 PPG, #36 TS Add, #4 APG, RPG unavailable
1951: #12 PPG, #16 TS Add, #6 APG, #81 RPG
1952: #5 PPG, #23 TS Add, #4 APG, #78 RPG
1953: #8 PPG,#14 TS Add, #7 APG, #75 RPG
1954: #16 PPG, #19 TS Add, #5 APG, #66 RPG
1955: #23 PPG, #20 TS Add, #7 APG, #70 RPG

Hagan:
1958 - #7 PPG, #5 TS Add, #20 RPG, #20 APG
1959 - #5 PPG, #4 TS Add, #9 RPG, #12 APG
1960 - #5 PPG, #2 TS Add, #10 RPG, #12 APG
1961 - #11 PPG, #9 TS Add, #17 RPG, #9 APG
1962 - #8 PPG, #9 TS Add, #19 RPG, #8 APG

So it looks to me like Hagan has marginal edge in scoring volume and a more significant edge in scoring efficiency and rebounding, while Davies has the clear edge in assists/playmaking.

I also look at how they ranked on their teams during their championship seasons(1951 Royals and 1958 Hawks):

Davies 1950-51(RS / PO)
#1 assists / #1 assists
#2 points / #2 points
#5 rebounds / #5 rebounds
#3 WS / #5 WS
#5 TS% / #8 TS

Hagan 1957-58(RS / PO)
#3 assists / #3 assists
#2 points / #1 points
#3 rebounds / #2 rebounds
#2 WS / #1 WS
#1 TS% / #1 TS

Again, Davies has the clear advantage as a playmaker, but Hagan looks competitive or better elsewhere, especially in the playoffs. And I would add, for context, that Davies wasn't playing next to anyone as good as Bob Pettit, either.

Career playoff composites:

Davies
.148 WS/48 RS, vs .066 WS/48 PO
-3.2% TS playoffs

Hagan
.170 WS/48 RS, .167 WS/48 PO
+0.1% TS playoffs

Last thing, Hagan's WOWY W/L has been a topic of conversation, but in his NBA years, Davies' doesn't look much better.

Hawks were 17-8(.680) without Hagan during his ten years there.
Royals were 11-5(.688) without Davies during his seven years there.

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

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

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

I'm not that into bitty WoWY stuff but I think
1) "with" is an important component you seem to be missing (and I suspect Royals with Davies looks better)
2) Hagan's larger (though still small) sample at a high level without him would give (relatively) greater confidence in it being "real"
3) binary W/L variants mean even less information from an already tiny sample.

Box aggregates in the early era tend to be topped by bigger players (cf: https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_top_10.html ; https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_top_10.html). It's possible that all the best players were bigs and teams should have went bigger (or something else with greater spread ... I'm not sure if this would stand up) or it's possible smaller players performed useful non-box based functions . If depending on how one comes out on this, one might curve for position and see Davies in better light.

[Doctor MJ]

My Personal Vote:

Induction 1: Bob Davies
Induction 2: Bob McAdoo

Continuing with Davies at #1. McAdoo gets my second vote as the stronger of the two candidates challenging for the spot.

Nomination 1: Chet Walker
Nomination 2: Connie Hawkins

So y'know, I am feeling the Chet arguments relative to the other top candidates right now. Came down to him and Bosh for me, and I've had Bosh ahead generally, but just pitting the two against each other, at this moment, siding with Chet.

Shouting out Hawkins because others are giving him 2nd votes and he was far better at basketball than all the other unnominated candidates.

[Doctor MJ]

Tallies:

Induction 1:

Luka - 6 (beast, AEnigma, falco, f4p, Ohayo, ShaqA)
McAdoo - 5 (Samurai, trelos, Clyde, trex, OSNB)
Davies - 2 (eminence, Doc)

Continuing between Luka & McAdoo:

Luka - 0 (none)
McAdoo - 2 (eminence, Doc)

Bob McAdoo 7, Luka Doncic 6
Bob McAdoo is Inducted at #97.


Nomination 1:

Daniels - 1 (beast)
Chet - 3 (AEnigma, OSNB, Doc)
Gasol - 3 (falsco, Ohayo, ShaqA)
Lucas - 1 (Samurai)
Bosh - 3 (trelos, trex, eminence)
none - 1 (f4p)

This leaves us with a 3-way tie that cannot be broken by 2nd place votes.

As we talked about previously, adding too many Nominees causes problems with the Induction vote, particularly this late into the project, so we will have...

No New Nominees this round.

[trex_8063]

Nomination 1:

Daniels - 1 (beast)
Chet - 3 (AEnigma, OSNB, Doc)
Gasol - 3 (falsco, Ohayo, ShaqA)
Lucas - 1 (Samurai)
Bosh - 3 (trelos, trex, eminence)
none - 1 (f4p)

This leaves us with a 3-way tie that cannot be broken by 2nd place votes.

As we talked about previously, adding too many Nominees causes problems with the Induction vote, particularly this late into the project, so we will have...

No New Nominees this round.

Can I log a small protest to this decision?

It feels disenfranchising to those who nominated one of these three; they obviously rate highly with some posters, yet are being denied candidacy on a technicality. We've had 6 candidates multiple times previously, and a few of us suggesting we actually broaden the field of candidates.......so what would be so bad about having 7 just ONE time?

Otherwise there are a number of us saddled with a narrow field, NONE of whom we particularly like. Seems like it's curving the result, fwiw.

[trex_8063]

Nomination 1:

Daniels - 1 (beast)
Chet - 3 (AEnigma, OSNB, Doc)
Gasol - 3 (falsco, Ohayo, ShaqA)
Lucas - 1 (Samurai)
Bosh - 3 (trelos, trex, eminence)
none - 1 (f4p)

This leaves us with a 3-way tie that cannot be broken by 2nd place votes.

As we talked about previously, adding too many Nominees causes problems with the Induction vote, particularly this late into the project, so we will have...

No New Nominees this round.

Can I log a small protest to this decision?

It feels disenfranchising to those who nominated one of these three; they obviously rate highly with some posters, yet are being denied candidacy on a technicality. We've had 6 candidates multiple times previously, and a few of us suggesting we actually broaden the field of candidates.......so what would be so bad about having 7 just ONE time?

Otherwise there are a number of us saddled with a narrow field, NONE of whom we particularly like. Seems like it's curving the result, fwiw.

Or alternately, would you allow me to change my 2nd-place nomination?.....changing it back to whom I had the previous couple of threads: LaMarcus Aldridge? That would allow a means of reducing the tie to a tie among just TWO players (Bosh and Gasol), and we could have six nominees for #98 (which again: we've had six a number of times).
I only switched because LMA had no support; yet in changing it, I seem to have ultimately lampooned by preferred nominee, Chris Bosh [which again: feels sort of disenfranchising].

[AEnigma]

I favour that decision because at the tail end of the project I would rather have the field be narrowed than widened; there is a lot of variation among players at this spot, and I think it works better when inductions require a certain degree of consensus, and that degree of consensus is less likely with a larger number of players added to the field.

That said, a fair compromise may be to say if this happens at #99, all tied nominations should be listed as options for #100, because unlike with now, there will be no second chance at a nomination.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Nomination 1:

Daniels - 1 (beast)
Chet - 3 (AEnigma, OSNB, Doc)
Gasol - 3 (falsco, Ohayo, ShaqA)
Lucas - 1 (Samurai)
Bosh - 3 (trelos, trex, eminence)
none - 1 (f4p)

This leaves us with a 3-way tie that cannot be broken by 2nd place votes.

As we talked about previously, adding too many Nominees causes problems with the Induction vote, particularly this late into the project, so we will have...

No New Nominees this round.

Actually, the tie CAN be broken. Clyde's secondary nomination vote was for Chet, and as he voted for neither Gasol nor Bosh for first place, his vote gives Chet the win:

Vote 1 - Bob McAdoo
Vote 2 - James Worthy
Nomination 1 - Carmelo Anthony
Nomination 2 - Chet Walker

Chet won the nomination fair and square and should be added to the ballot.

[Doctor MJ]

Nomination 1:

Daniels - 1 (beast)
Chet - 3 (AEnigma, OSNB, Doc)
Gasol - 3 (falsco, Ohayo, ShaqA)
Lucas - 1 (Samurai)
Bosh - 3 (trelos, trex, eminence)
none - 1 (f4p)

This leaves us with a 3-way tie that cannot be broken by 2nd place votes.

As we talked about previously, adding too many Nominees causes problems with the Induction vote, particularly this late into the project, so we will have...

No New Nominees this round.

Actually, the tie CAN be broken. Clyde's secondary nomination vote was for Chet, and as he voted for neither Gasol nor Bosh for first place, his vote gives Chet the win:

Vote 1 - Bob McAdoo
Vote 2 - James Worthy
Nomination 1 - Carmelo Anthony
Nomination 2 - Chet Walker

Chet won the nomination fair and square and should be added to the ballot.

Looks like you're right. My apologies to Clyde for somehow skipping him.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

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

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

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

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

I'm not that into bitty WoWY stuff but I think
1) "with" is an important component you seem to be missing (and I suspect Royals with Davies looks better)
2) Hagan's larger (though still small) sample at a high level without him would give (relatively) greater confidence in it being "real"
3) binary W/L variants mean even less information from an already tiny sample.

Box aggregates in the early era tend to be topped by bigger players (cf: https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_top_10.html ; https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_top_10.html). It's possible that all the best players were bigs and teams should have went bigger (or something else with greater spread ... I'm not sure if this would stand up) or it's possible smaller players performed useful non-box based functions . If depending on how one comes out on this, one might curve for position and see Davies in better light.

Fair point about about the "with":

Davies with: 284-176(.617)
Hagan with: 408-337(.548)

As for the size of the samples, they are not dramatically different. 25 games vs 16. I don't see that making a notable difference.

[Doctor MJ]

Nomination 1:

Daniels - 1 (beast)
Chet - 3 (AEnigma, OSNB, Doc)
Gasol - 3 (falsco, Ohayo, ShaqA)
Lucas - 1 (Samurai)
Bosh - 3 (trelos, trex, eminence)
none - 1 (f4p)

This leaves us with a 3-way tie that cannot be broken by 2nd place votes.

As we talked about previously, adding too many Nominees causes problems with the Induction vote, particularly this late into the project, so we will have...

No New Nominees this round.

Can I log a small protest to this decision?

It feels disenfranchising to those who nominated one of these three; they obviously rate highly with some posters, yet are being denied candidacy on a technicality. We've had 6 candidates multiple times previously, and a few of us suggesting we actually broaden the field of candidates.......so what would be so bad about having 7 just ONE time?

Otherwise there are a number of us saddled with a narrow field, NONE of whom we particularly like. Seems like it's curving the result, fwiw.

So, to some degree I believe this is moot because of my miscount, but philosophically it's a reasonable objection.

First thing I should say: We have done 7 Nominees before, so me not allowing it to go to 7 was a contradiction of previous policy. However there was talk about limiting Nominees after that especially once we got close to the end of the project.

And so in terms of what I was seeing: A 3-way tie at #97 would have ended all further Nominations in the project, and the idea of doing that based on guys who each got less than 1/3rd of the total voting pool seemed to me like exactly the situation we want to avoid.

Re: otherwise saddled with a narrow field. I don't see this as a con at this stage in the game. I believe that expanding the pool to 7 at this time is a recipe for a bunch of guys getting 1 or 2 votes and just hoping that we don't get stuck in tiebreakers.

Feel free to speak to this more either on this threat or the project thread.

[Owly]

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

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

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

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

It's acknowledged that they exist ...

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

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

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

I'm not that into bitty WoWY stuff but I think
1) "with" is an important component you seem to be missing (and I suspect Royals with Davies looks better)
2) Hagan's larger (though still small) sample at a high level without him would give (relatively) greater confidence in it being "real"
3) binary W/L variants mean even less information from an already tiny sample.

Box aggregates in the early era tend to be topped by bigger players (cf: https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_top_10.html ; https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_top_10.html). It's possible that all the best players were bigs and teams should have went bigger (or something else with greater spread ... I'm not sure if this would stand up) or it's possible smaller players performed useful non-box based functions . If depending on how one comes out on this, one might curve for position and see Davies in better light.

Fair point about about the "with":

Davies with: 284-176(.617)
Hagan with: 408-337(.548)

As for the size of the samples, they are not dramatically different. 25 games vs 16. I don't see that making a notable difference.

Well it's more than half as many again. And the growth may not be linear. I think they're both small enough to be low value. Maybe small enough that there can't a significant difference because they're both close to 0 meaningful data? But at what point would a versus 16 game sample be a notable difference? I think the point stands 'Hagan's larger (though still small) sample at a high level without him would give (relatively) greater confidence in it being "real."'


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