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

[Owly]

Not really bothered about where Hagan goes and he probably came on to the board too early so I wouldn't let that alter any assessment of him ... but some thoughts

I did not then, and I do not now, find those W/L records especially compelling in light of their (lack of) size, and remain surprised that that argument was taken as gospel from then on.

I added to that Taylor's WOWYR (which factors in before/after he left, as well as some other weightings which [frequently enough] results in WOWYR often looking very different from raw WOWY. Hagan still looks exceedingly pedestrian in WOWYR (+1.3 for prime, +1.1 for career).

Granting that you're listing it as one factor ...

The WoWYR numbers if not exactly compelling (and they aren't) aren't, iirc, particularly close to as bad as as the numbers from your WoWY numbers.

And the framing them of "exceedingly pedestrian" ... and it not just being you trusting your own numbers ... I think your numbers may have been more front and center ... and I think you've cast doubt on the WOWYR ones ... and advocated for a guy with a slightly worse career number quite some time ago seeming to trust your own numbers more ... like Hagan off iirc, mostly very small samples. I don't know, I just don't get a good sense of your process/methodology in terms of using/trusting/aggregating these numbers.

My recollection was we had a quote from an owner, not a coach, though we may be thinking of different things. And if we aren't that quote had "don't take this at face value [/I am wrong/I am not thinking straight]" telegraphed in the Pettit comment.

It's fair to say he wasn't thought of as 1b as a player. In terms of "on a championship team" - with the assumed playoff focus, honestly I think BullsFan gave too much ground on this. By the boxscore Hagan was the best player on the team in those playoffs and there's not a lot of margin for him to be worse (without ... strategically dropping him in larger wins and holding him constant in close ones) even in the "easier" series who think that way.

Regarding appearing in NBA MVP voting ... we are talking about a 3 man ballot era. The criticism, then, is that he was not ranked by people above Russell, Chamberlain, Robertson (Pettit, Baylor, West) ... which ... he mostly wasn't ... that would have been wrong. Does that matter at this point? We don't have full ballot data but we have put in people that I don't think were getting much top 3 love many years.


Johnston is interesting. If one trusts the production he's a guy with a case as the best player in the game for a spell. Team results can cause some concern regarding impact. The playoff numbers do fall in a small sample. There's some notion that Russell somehow ended him though I think versions differ. In terms of the production side the leaders of the time tended to be bigs so separation from positional peers may be less than it seems. He's still playing in quite an early league. Depending on how one believes/trusts/weights these things I can see quite a large viable range for Johnston.


Some of the criticisms (re Hagan) maybe make more sense against an argument that Hagan was on the shortlist and should have been off the board long ago or was perceived in a particular way ... in any case some inspired some thoughts ... so there they are.

[OhayoKD]

Not really bothered about where Hagan goes and he probably came on to the board too early so I wouldn't let that alter any assessment of him ... but some thoughts

I did not then, and I do not now, find those W/L records especially compelling in light of their (lack of) size, and remain surprised that that argument was taken as gospel from then on.

I added to that Taylor's WOWYR (which factors in before/after he left, as well as some other weightings which [frequently enough] results in WOWYR often looking very different from raw WOWY. Hagan still looks exceedingly pedestrian in WOWYR (+1.3 for prime, +1.1 for career).

Granting that you're listing it as one factor ...

The WoWYR numbers if not exactly compelling (and they aren't) aren't, iirc, particularly close to as bad as as the numbers from your WoWY numbers.

And the framing them of "exceedingly pedestrian" ... and it not just being you trusting your own numbers ... I think your numbers may have been more front and center ... and I think you've cast doubt on the WOWYR ones ... and advocated for a guy with a slightly worse career number quite some time ago seeming to trust your own numbers more ... like Hagan off iirc, mostly very small samples. I don't know, I just don't get a good sense of your process/methodology in terms of using/trusting/aggregating these numbers.

I think this is worth repeating so, WOWYR does not factor in what happens before or after player leaves, it simply applies adjustments to a wowy mark based on a black box of adjustments based on teammate wowy across, typically, smaller and even more simpson paradoxy samples (ex: 88 and 89 play an outsized role in the prime adjustments for anyone who played with Pippen since he didn't miss many games after).

If you want to use before and after(the primary purpose here would be to increase sample size), a good alternative might be Moonbeam's wowy regression:



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

[trex_8063]

WRT the perception of him at the time not being so hot...you're mentioning lack of all-NBA teams and lack of MVP consideration, yet you recently supported Shawn Marion(only 2x 3rd team, highest MVP finish #10) and Horace Grant(never made any all-NBA teams[though he did have 4x Defensive Second team], never any MVP consideration), who don't meet that criteria. You also, at the end of this post, mention possibly supporting Laimbeer or Holiday, neither of whom ever made an All-NBA team.

We're getting into "whataboutism" territory here.
I'm not NOT supporting Hagan because he doesn't meet some benchmark requirement in accolades or MVP shares. I brought those things up primarily as a direct response to the suggestion that perhaps he was a "1B" on that title team; because those things illustrate that literally almost no one perceived him that way at the time (he was almost universally perceived as a clear #2).

First, "utterly trounce" seems a bit dramatic, but point taken.

I don't necessarily want to dwell on semantics, but.......

In APG, Hagan holds the edge, ranking somewhere between t#8 and t#20 in the league in his best five years; Johnston between t#15 and t#27. But then in all others....
PPG - Hagan between #5 [twice] and #11 in the league......Johnston never worse than #3 [three times #1].
TS Add - Hagan between #2 and #9 [twice]......Johnston #1 in league all five years.
RPG - Hagan between #9 and #20......Johnston never worse than #6 [twice], and was once #1.

So there's some cross-over in APG, with Johnston having two seasons that are better than Hagan's worst in terms of league-rank (and two others that are barely below Hagan's worst).
Meanwhile, in ALL THREE of the other categories: Hagan's BEST league rank is below that of Johnston's WORST (for most years in the sample, Hagan's rank is comfortably behind Johnston's single-worst rank).

EDIT: fwiw, this while Johnston played in what was usually a marginally larger league (avg 8.8 teams in that span, vs average 8.2 in Hagan's sample).

idk......I don't think "trouncing" is much overstating things. It's not at all close by the box measures we have for the time period.

I would in turn point out, as Doc has in the past, that Johnston looks like a playoff faller(as does Jrue in certain ways), whereas Hagan looks like a riser in his short prime. It is subjective whether this matters to each voter, but it's worth considering.

Agree that it's worth considering. I guess I simply disagree on the extent to which that is the deciding factor for some. Looking at the Warriors' title run in '56: in the playoffs Johnston averaged 20.3 ppg @ +2.7% rTS, with 14.3 rpg [league-best] and 5.1 apg. In other words, still very effective.
He kinda stunk it up [relatively] in the Finals, though it must be wondered if they'd have won the first series against Dolph Schayes and the Nats if he hadn't played so well in that series (they won 3-2): 27.0 ppg @ +7.93% rTS, with a series-best 17.6 rpg and team-best 6.4 apg.
And notably, in game 5 [a narrow 4-pt victory] Johnston had 25 pts @ +1.34% rTS, with a game-high 18 rebounds and a team-high 8 assists. He showed up. Not as much as Paul Arizin, but then.......that's a guy y'all voted in almost 40 places ago.

EDIT: So I guess I'm just questioning how that ONE factor [based on pretty limited sample sizes] of Johnston being a playoff faller while Hagan's a riser---especially noting [as per above] that Johnston is falling from a HIGHER starting point than Hagan, while Hagan is rising from a LOWER starting point than Johnston---is enough of a factor that he gets a push in the early 60s (you guys had him on the ballot by the #63 thread), while you won't even give Johnston a mention at the tail-end of the list.

To me, that's placing FAR too much weight on that factor.

Also, I don't get the multiple uses of [you]. It's not just me, or even just me and Doc. Samurai and Clyde have shown some support in recent rounds too.

I worried that would seem too targeted, and thought about using "you all" or similar instead. Although you were the one attempting to resurrect his case (and again: the one suggesting he might have been a "1B"). I apologize if it made it seem personal.

Ben's WOWY and WOWYR do not factor in games "before/after" a player leaves. Per his own WOWYR write-up, that is distinct from "WOWY" and is instead dubbed an "indirect" signal

That's my bad; you caught me being lazy.
There are notable instances where his WOWYR gives results that are frankly radically different than what raw WOWY tells us. And I had it in my head that one of the potential sources of that was the above-stated factor [which apparently is incorrect].

Just to illustrate some of the radically different results I speak of.......
Some that come to mind are Sidney Moncrief, particularly in comparison to others whose WOWY I've tracked, such as Dominique Wilkins, Isiah Thomas, Kevin Johnson, and Allen Iverson.

For both his full career and his 5-year prime ['82-'86], Sidney Moncrief's raw WOWY suggests the nudge to their win% amounts to barely +4 wins added in a full season [+4.0 for career, +3.8 for prime], though admittedly that's to teams that were already [without him] winning ~60% of the time.
I tracked '84-'86 more closely, and found he corresponds to about a +2.4 to +2.5 SRS boost (though this is his best 3-year period in terms of SRS).


Compare that to Isiah Thomas......
In his first six seasons---though admittedly starting from the basement: a team that is a .222 win% and -4.26 SRS without him---his presence corresponds to +27.6 wins added and +6.22 boost to their SRS.
In his final 7 seasons [the baseline "without" team is no longer awful in that sample; averages out to merely mediocre], his presence corresponds to +11.0 wins added.
For his full career, averages +12.5 wins added (based on win% change).


Or to Dominique Wilkins....
I noted previously that in his 9-year prime ['86-'94], his presence corresponds with +14.7 wins added, based on win% change, and in the vicinity of a +3 boost on their SRS.
For his full career only amounts to +5.3 wins added, however.


Or Kevin Johnson.....
For his career, his presence corresponds to +7.6 wins added based on win% change (that's in addition to teams that already had a .568 win% without him), and an average +4.0 SRS boost.


Or Allen Iverson....
Between '99-'06 [8 seasons], his presence corresponds to +13.7 wins added (.398 win% goes up to .565), and around a +4 SRS boost......and that's where the largest chunk of missed time comes from '04 [injury year], where he was playing much below his usual standard when he did play. Take '04 out of the picture and utilize only the other SEVEN years.....his presence results in +16.0 wins added [.391 win% goes up to .586] and an approximate +5 SRS boost.
His FULL career average comes to +8.9 wins added


.......and yet all four of these guys fall behind [often by huge margins] Moncrief in WOWYR.
So, just pointing out, it's puzzling results like that that have shaken my confidence in WOWYR, at least to the extent that I will NOT utilize it to the exclusion of raw WOWY.

The WoWYR numbers if not exactly compelling (and they aren't) aren't, iirc, particularly close to as bad as as the numbers from your WoWY numbers.

And the framing them of "exceedingly pedestrian" ... and it not just being you trusting your own numbers ... I think your numbers may have been more front and center ... and I think you've cast doubt on the WOWYR ones ... and advocated for a guy with a slightly worse career number quite some time ago seeming to trust your own numbers more ... like Hagan off iirc, mostly very small samples. I don't know, I just don't get a good sense of your process/methodology in terms of using/trusting/aggregating these numbers.

With older players, I've often espoused the philosophy of "any port in a storm": I'm not willing to turn away any information/data, when I have such limited means by which to judge players from some earlier eras.
WOWYR does not factor largely into my own criteria or methodology, in part for reasons I just elaborated upon above. But nor do I ignore it.

Beyond that, there is a broader intent in these discussions than to ONLY relay one's own methodology, no?
Part of the intent is often to persuade others. As such, I recognize that OTHER posters may place higher stock in WOWYR than I do, nor do I want to be accused of cherry-picking this metric over that [at least without reason], either. So I presented everything I had collected on the matter.
The point was: NONE of the available impact signals we have paints Hagan as a particularly high-impact player.

Does that necessarily remove him from valid consideration here? Probably not; it all depends on how your criteria works.
Though it's perhaps a tiny bit ironic that I, probably more than most participants in this project, posit that there's a degree of value or "basketball goodness" simply in being capable of producing impressive box composites (see my arguments for Nique last thread), while others beat the impact drum to a greater degree than I do........and yet still I'm not backing Hagan here, nor likely will in any remaining thread.

My recollection was we had a quote from an owner, not a coach, though we may be thinking of different things.

No, I suspect we're thinking of the same quote. I remembered it being the coach, and didn't bother to look it up and verify; but if you say it was the owner, I'll take your word for it. You've caught me being lazy again.

It's fair to say he wasn't thought of as 1b as a player. In terms of "on a championship team" - with the assumed playoff focus, honestly I think BullsFan gave too much ground on this. By the boxscore Hagan was the best player on the team in those playoffs and there's not a lot of margin for him to be worse (without ... strategically dropping him in larger wins and holding him constant in close ones) even in the "easier" series who think that way.

I'm reluctant to pull that hard toward that, based upon an 11-game sample (for which we don't even have any direct impact indicators).
Similar reasoning might lead one to conclude that Frank Ramsey was perhaps a "#1B/#2" on the '58 and '59 Celtics, that Sam Jones was a "1B" on the '64 Celtics, that John Havlicek was perhaps even the "1A" on the '68 Celtics and CLEARLY the best player on the '69 Celtics, and that Manu Ginobili was maybe even the "1A" on the '05 Spurs, etc.

Regarding appearing in NBA MVP voting ... we are talking about a 3 man ballot era. The criticism, then, is that he was not ranked by people above Russell, Chamberlain, Robertson (Pettit, Baylor, West) ... which ... he mostly wasn't ... that would have been wrong. Does that matter at this point?

You're misunderstanding why that information was included. It's not presented as a reason to not vote for him; it's presented for two reasons:
1) to point out that the perception [at the time] of the quality of player that he was appears to lag slightly behind where his box-based aggragates posit him. Which, as I noted, the few impact signals we have appear to be supportive of this notion.
2) In direct challenge to the suggestion that he was a "1B".....whereas the media voted him behind his teammate [and Dolph Schayes, fwiw]; and by the players [even in a 3-man ballot system], his teammate got .243 shares while Hagan got .005 shares.

Johnston is interesting. If one trusts the production he's a guy with a case as the best player in the game for a spell. Team results can cause some concern regarding impact. The playoff numbers do fall in a small sample. There's some notion that Russell somehow ended him though I think versions differ. In terms of the production side the leaders of the time tended to be bigs so separation from positional peers may be less than it seems. He's still playing in quite an early league. Depending on how one believes/trusts/weights these things I can see quite a large viable range for Johnston.

I looked into this suggestion that Johnston essentially died inside after one specific bad game against Russell and was never the same again. I'll have to see if I logged and saved what I found. Suffice to say, I found the suggestion to be full of you-know-what. Johnston still had a number of good games after that, including even against Russell and the Celtics. His numbers are down overall in the year in question ('58, iirc), as it appears to be on the edge of his prime (questionable to include it as his prime).

Not sure why he began to decline relatively young; and perhaps this is one of those suggestions of how rapidly the league was improving (and he couldn't keep up). I'm not sure.

I am not an era relativist, so the era his career came in is definitely a factor that works against him somewhat in my criteria. otoh, as noted above, I probably place MORE value in the box aggragates as well as the rs than most posters......that might be seen to work in his favour.
His longevity is not too good (which hurts him in my criteria).
Overall, he is not in my top 100.

But neither is Hagan (and I do have Johnston a little higher).

[eminence]

Johnston blew out his knee.

[OhayoKD]

\Vote

1. Luka Donicic

Best player left, strong impact profile over larger samples, paticularly with playoff elevation, best era. on the shortlist of most talented players ever

2. Bob Davies

Second best player of Mikan's era, probably should have gone ahead of other 50's stars.


Nomination

1. Marc Gasol

He seems to have some legitimate prospects now, so I'll start a more concentrated push. First some data:

2010-18: +1.2 net rating / 47-win pace with,

-5.3 net rating / 31-win pace without

[/quote]

As a lead, Gasol led good teams, and even an arguable contender with the 2015 Grizzlies posting impact significantly better than multiple players who have been voted ahead of him peaking as the best paint-protector and, at least arguably, defender in the league.

As a supplementary piece, Gasol anchored one of the best playoff defenses en route to a title and a great 2-season defense that contended even without a certain Kawhi Leonard(#35). When he left, so did the concept of Toronto as a strong defense, and consequently, as a relevant team. 

To put it simply, he was more proven as a lead than Bosh or Worthy, and as a supplementary figure he excelled post-prime with minimal opportunity.

I also think it's notable that Toronto never really showed the ability to withstand Gasol's absence in a playoff setting being way worse before and way worse after. The Lakers were able to win 2 conference final games and make the finals with worthy as a non-factor. Similarly, the Heat won a series against a decent opponent without Bosh and won in spite of him missing half the playoffs.

All considered, I think he's the best candidate left.


2. Connie Hawkins

Would prefer to vote for gasol but may swap depending on who gets support.

[Owly]

The WoWYR numbers if not exactly compelling (and they aren't) aren't, iirc, particularly close to as bad as as the numbers from your WoWY numbers.

And the framing them of "exceedingly pedestrian" ... and it not just being you trusting your own numbers ... I think your numbers may have been more front and center ... and I think you've cast doubt on the WOWYR ones ... and advocated for a guy with a slightly worse career number quite some time ago seeming to trust your own numbers more ... like Hagan off iirc, mostly very small samples. I don't know, I just don't get a good sense of your process/methodology in terms of using/trusting/aggregating these numbers.

With older players, I've often espoused the philosophy of "any port in a storm": I'm not willing to turn away any information/data, when I have such limited means by which to judge players from some earlier eras.
WOWYR does not factor largely into my own criteria or methodology, in part for reasons I just elaborated upon above. But nor do I ignore it.

Beyond that, there is a broader intent in these discussions than to ONLY relay one's own methodology, no?
Part of the intent is often to persuade others. As such, I recognize that OTHER posters may place higher stock in WOWYR than I do, nor do I want to be accused of cherry-picking this metric over that [at least without reason], either. So I presented everything I had collected on the matter.
The point was: NONE of the available impact signals we have paints Hagan as a particularly high-impact player.

Does that necessarily remove him from valid consideration here? Probably not; it all depends on how your criteria works.
Though it's perhaps a tiny bit ironic that I, probably more than most participants in this project, posit that there's a degree of value or "basketball goodness" simply in being capable of producing impressive box composites (see my arguments for Nique last thread), while others beat the impact drum to a greater degree than I do........and yet still I'm not backing Hagan here, nor likely will in any remaining thread.

My recollection was we had a quote from an owner, not a coach, though we may be thinking of different things.

No, I suspect we're thinking of the same quote. I remembered it being the coach, and didn't bother to look it up and verify; but if you say it was the owner, I'll take your word for it. You've caught me being lazy again.

It's fair to say he wasn't thought of as 1b as a player. In terms of "on a championship team" - with the assumed playoff focus, honestly I think BullsFan gave too much ground on this. By the boxscore Hagan was the best player on the team in those playoffs and there's not a lot of margin for him to be worse (without ... strategically dropping him in larger wins and holding him constant in close ones) even in the "easier" series who think that way.

I'm reluctant to pull that hard toward that, based upon an 11-game sample (for which we don't even have any direct impact indicators).
Similar reasoning might lead one to conclude that Frank Ramsey was perhaps a "#1B/#2" on the '58 and '59 Celtics, that Sam Jones was a "1B" on the '64 Celtics, that John Havlicek was perhaps even the "1A" on the '68 Celtics and CLEARLY the best player on the '69 Celtics, and that Manu Ginobili was maybe even the "1A" on the '05 Spurs, etc.

Regarding appearing in NBA MVP voting ... we are talking about a 3 man ballot era. The criticism, then, is that he was not ranked by people above Russell, Chamberlain, Robertson (Pettit, Baylor, West) ... which ... he mostly wasn't ... that would have been wrong. Does that matter at this point?

You're misunderstanding why that information was included. It's not presented as a reason to not vote for him; it's presented for two reasons:
1) to point out that the perception [at the time] of the quality of player that he was appears to lag slightly behind where his box-based aggragates posit him. Which, as I noted, the few impact signals we have appear to be supportive of this notion.
2) In direct challenge to the suggestion that he was a "1B".....whereas the media voted him behind his teammate [and Dolph Schayes, fwiw]; and by the players [even in a 3-man ballot system], his teammate got .243 shares while Hagan got .005 shares.

Johnston is interesting. If one trusts the production he's a guy with a case as the best player in the game for a spell. Team results can cause some concern regarding impact. The playoff numbers do fall in a small sample. There's some notion that Russell somehow ended him though I think versions differ. In terms of the production side the leaders of the time tended to be bigs so separation from positional peers may be less than it seems. He's still playing in quite an early league. Depending on how one believes/trusts/weights these things I can see quite a large viable range for Johnston.

I looked into this suggestion that Johnston essentially died inside after one specific bad game against Russell and was never the same again. I'll have to see if I logged and saved what I found. Suffice to say, I found the suggestion to be full of you-know-what. Johnston still had a number of good games after that, including even against Russell and the Celtics. His numbers are down overall in the year in question ('58, iirc), as it appears to be on the edge of his prime (questionable to include it as his prime).

Not sure why he began to decline relatively young; and perhaps this is one of those suggestions of how rapidly the league was improving (and he couldn't keep up). I'm not sure.

I am not an era relativist, so the era his career came in is definitely a factor that works against him somewhat in my criteria. otoh, as noted above, I probably place MORE value in the box aggragates as well as the rs than most posters......that might be seen to work in his favour.
His longevity is not too good (which hurts him in my criteria).
Overall, he is not in my top 100.

But neither is Hagan (and I do have Johnston a little higher).

Just offering thoughts here...

Stuff outside ones own criteria: ... I guess many will, I probably do. It's natural to want to promote your candidate or to have the conversation anyway. As far as possible I think it's best that such stuff is demarcated or gestured to (e.g. "for those who place greater emphasis on such factors ...". I get the impression your own studies maybe carry more weight for you and are what have forced you to be "anti-Hagan" voice ... if so one could understand that position prefer a different methodology, find the impact signal ... well, yes, pedestrian off a small sample, few games around apex (2 home games versus below average teams in '58) and not disagree so much as prioritize different information. Regarding the post you're explaining what info you gave, it's certainly not wrong. As I said it felt like your numbers were more the more negative ones, what may have turned off Hagan supporters earlier and ... IDK I just felt that it could be clearer that (say if this is the case) "whilst less influential to me, I cited a range of impact indicators ... none of which give a case for him here" it's not wildly different but ... I don't know something clanged with me ... maybe just a little aggressively stated "exceedingly pedestrian" (I'd start circling back and note for career it's not so bad that it stopped other guys).


On Hagan as 1B ... it doesn't matter to me. But if one is saying "on a championship team" I assume that it being in that title year matters to them. And so I assume the title and therefore the playoffs are a particular point of focus.

Regarding Russell versus (other Celtic) I suspect that there are generally (very?) large non-box factor gaps between he and and someone perhaps about as productive. Perhaps some see that for the Hawks? I can't say that I do.

Regarding Manu ... it depends what measure one trusts but ... yeah maybe. He wasn't considered Duncan's equal of course. But noisy as it is the playoff wins are racked up in his time on the court far more than Duncan's as well as the box production (not just rate, but WS and VORP) advantage that it's plausible that he was more important to that title.

I (too) wouldn't evaluate players so much on that smaller sample but I have trouble with the logic of "on a championship team" and then really regarding the regular season ... I don't really understand the internal logic of such a method.


Regarding MVP shares: they would reflect RS perceived status. That isn't where I'd be going with this (see above regarding "on a champ"). In those terms it's clear he's not at Pettit's level. But then if that was the reason I don't know why his finishes in other years would be pertinent. I suppose the distinction between box and reputation ... which I'm not sure was quite explicit (may just me be) ... in any case the three man ballot again raises its head, you aren't going to get good information on perceptions [never mind reality] of 4 through however deep you want to go. Finally he's not helped by being on the same team as Pettit. Maybe you feel that proves your point but ... as I've said I would have to perceive a "championship team" statement focuses on that window - more broadly if he were as good as Pettit he'd have been in long ago with Pettit.


On Johnston ...without looking it up

- think I recall it as Russell's rookie year. Could be wrong.

- tended to agree at first glance the Russell renders him obsolete angle didn't really work, for me at least. Johnston starts with a few very poor games then after about 3 gets back to solid production ... against an elite center. [again going otoh. Maybe some think this was Russell's mind games allowing "unimportant" early baskets as some sort of trap in such games ...].

- think the decline is injury related. This was often given as part of the Russell story ... that he collapsed in heap ... and somehow was obsolete and mentally beaten and physically hurt as well ... the amalgamated version in my head doesn't make much sense, I can't speak to specific tellings. But I'm pretty sure a knee injury was a factor in his decline and retirement.

[trex_8063]

Johnston blew out his knee.

I seem to recall having heard about a major injury; but that was in '59 [I think]. I was more referring to the notable dip that begins in '58 while still in his late 20s.
Don't get me wrong: he was still very good in '58: #6 in the league in PER [barely behind #5 peakish Cliff Hagan] and #3 in the league in WS/48 [just AHEAD of #4 peak Hagan]---all while playing marginally more mpg than Hagan, too----was an All-Star, and tied for 12th in the MVP vote........but it's still a notable drop from where he was in '57.

It's that little dip that I was curious about.

[eminence]

Johnston blew out his knee.

I seem to recall having heard about a major injury; but that was in '59 [I think]. I was more referring to the notable dip that begins in '58 while still in his late 20s.
Don't get me wrong: he was still very good in '58: #6 in the league in PER [barely behind #5 peakish Cliff Hagan] and #3 in the league in WS/48 [just AHEAD of #4 peak Hagan]---all while playing marginally more mpg than Hagan, too----was an All-Star, and tied for 12th in the MVP vote........but it's still a notable drop from where he was in '57.

It's that little dip that I was curious about.

Yeah, the major injury was reported in the '59 preseason.

I tend to think there was something wrong with him in the '58 POs at least (maybe it bothered him some of the season leading up to the playoffs). Have never found any reporting on it. If it'd just been the bad series against the Celtics I could entertain chalking it up to Russell, but his stats were terrible against Syracuse and Kerr the round prior after a respectable (though declined) regular season. Coaches don't decide to limit their 34 mpg Allstar to 24 mpg for no reason.

Johnston against the Nationals in '56/'57/'58, Red Kerr at center
'56: 27.0 pts/g, 17.6 reb/g, 6.4 ast/g, 45.5 fg%
'57: 19.0 pts/g, 17.5 reb/g, 4.5 ast/g, 32.1 fg% (Arizin missed these games)
'58: 7.0 pts/g, 7.7 reb/g, 1.0 ast/g, 24.1 fg%

vs Russell in '58: 13.2 pts/g, 9.6 reb/g, 2.4 ast/g, 46.9 fg%

I would even go so far as to say he played well against Russell in the '58 POs in limited minutes (/36 numbers in line with career averages).

[Doctor MJ]

Johnston blew out his knee.

I seem to recall having heard about a major injury; but that was in '59 [I think]. I was more referring to the notable dip that begins in '58 while still in his late 20s.
Don't get me wrong: he was still very good in '58: #6 in the league in PER [barely behind #5 peakish Cliff Hagan] and #3 in the league in WS/48 [just AHEAD of #4 peak Hagan]---all while playing marginally more mpg than Hagan, too----was an All-Star, and tied for 12th in the MVP vote........but it's still a notable drop from where he was in '57.

It's that little dip that I was curious about.

Yeah, the major injury was reported in the '59 preseason.

I tend to think there was something wrong with him in the '58 POs at least (maybe it bothered him some of the season leading up to the playoffs). Have never found any reporting on it. If it'd just been the bad series against the Celtics I could entertain chalking it up to Russell, but his stats were terrible against Syracuse and Kerr the round prior after a respectable (though declined) regular season. Coaches don't decide to limit their 34 mpg Allstar to 24 mpg for no reason.

Johnston against the Nationals in '56/'57/'58, Red Kerr at center
'56: 27.0 pts/g, 17.6 reb/g, 6.4 ast/g, 45.5 fg%
'57: 19.0 pts/g, 17.5 reb/g, 4.5 ast/g, 32.1 fg% (Arizin missed these games)
'58: 7.0 pts/g, 7.7 reb/g, 1.0 ast/g, 24.1 fg%

vs Russell in '58: 13.2 pts/g, 9.6 reb/g, 2.4 ast/g, 46.9 fg%

I would even go so far as to say he played well against Russell in the '58 POs in limited minutes (/36 numbers in line with career averages).

This is true, but this points to the larger trend of prime Johnston always looking worse in the playoffs. Yes it seemed extra dramatic in '58 and was followed by his broader falloff, but it really seems like whenever the opposition got more serious, Johnston struggled to do his thing.

The same can said to be generally about many players of course, but Johnston's playoff fall-off was really stark.

[Owly]

I seem to recall having heard about a major injury; but that was in '59 [I think]. I was more referring to the notable dip that begins in '58 while still in his late 20s.
Don't get me wrong: he was still very good in '58: #6 in the league in PER [barely behind #5 peakish Cliff Hagan] and #3 in the league in WS/48 [just AHEAD of #4 peak Hagan]---all while playing marginally more mpg than Hagan, too----was an All-Star, and tied for 12th in the MVP vote........but it's still a notable drop from where he was in '57.

It's that little dip that I was curious about.

Yeah, the major injury was reported in the '59 preseason.

I tend to think there was something wrong with him in the '58 POs at least (maybe it bothered him some of the season leading up to the playoffs). Have never found any reporting on it. If it'd just been the bad series against the Celtics I could entertain chalking it up to Russell, but his stats were terrible against Syracuse and Kerr the round prior after a respectable (though declined) regular season. Coaches don't decide to limit their 34 mpg Allstar to 24 mpg for no reason.

Johnston against the Nationals in '56/'57/'58, Red Kerr at center
'56: 27.0 pts/g, 17.6 reb/g, 6.4 ast/g, 45.5 fg%
'57: 19.0 pts/g, 17.5 reb/g, 4.5 ast/g, 32.1 fg% (Arizin missed these games)
'58: 7.0 pts/g, 7.7 reb/g, 1.0 ast/g, 24.1 fg%

vs Russell in '58: 13.2 pts/g, 9.6 reb/g, 2.4 ast/g, 46.9 fg%

I would even go so far as to say he played well against Russell in the '58 POs in limited minutes (/36 numbers in line with career averages).

This is true, but this points to the larger trend of prime Johnston always looking worse in the playoffs. Yes it seemed extra dramatic in '58 and was followed by his broader falloff, but it really seems like whenever the opposition got more serious, Johnston struggled to do his thing.

The same can said to be generally about many players of course, but Johnston's playoff fall-off was really stark.

In terms of career numbers Johnston is a notable faller - that said when talking about this in strong terms as though it is intrinsic e.g. if talking about it as a feature of his game rather than what happened to happen ... we're talking a 702 minute sample here, 4 playoffs, 2 of which exceed 100 minutes. There is a big shooting efficiency dropoff, mostly from the field but also from the line ... whether one thinks that's intrinsic ... shooting isn't that stable ... but as it was it's fairly costly, even if his playoff production isn't bad in absolute terms.

[eminence]

I seem to recall having heard about a major injury; but that was in '59 [I think]. I was more referring to the notable dip that begins in '58 while still in his late 20s.
Don't get me wrong: he was still very good in '58: #6 in the league in PER [barely behind #5 peakish Cliff Hagan] and #3 in the league in WS/48 [just AHEAD of #4 peak Hagan]---all while playing marginally more mpg than Hagan, too----was an All-Star, and tied for 12th in the MVP vote........but it's still a notable drop from where he was in '57.

It's that little dip that I was curious about.

Yeah, the major injury was reported in the '59 preseason.

I tend to think there was something wrong with him in the '58 POs at least (maybe it bothered him some of the season leading up to the playoffs). Have never found any reporting on it. If it'd just been the bad series against the Celtics I could entertain chalking it up to Russell, but his stats were terrible against Syracuse and Kerr the round prior after a respectable (though declined) regular season. Coaches don't decide to limit their 34 mpg Allstar to 24 mpg for no reason.

Johnston against the Nationals in '56/'57/'58, Red Kerr at center
'56: 27.0 pts/g, 17.6 reb/g, 6.4 ast/g, 45.5 fg%
'57: 19.0 pts/g, 17.5 reb/g, 4.5 ast/g, 32.1 fg% (Arizin missed these games)
'58: 7.0 pts/g, 7.7 reb/g, 1.0 ast/g, 24.1 fg%

vs Russell in '58: 13.2 pts/g, 9.6 reb/g, 2.4 ast/g, 46.9 fg%

I would even go so far as to say he played well against Russell in the '58 POs in limited minutes (/36 numbers in line with career averages).

This is true, but this points to the larger trend of prime Johnston always looking worse in the playoffs. Yes it seemed extra dramatic in '58 and was followed by his broader falloff, but it really seems like whenever the opposition got more serious, Johnston struggled to do his thing.

The same can said to be generally about many players of course, but Johnston's playoff fall-off was really stark.

I mean, he played 3 prime playoff series, 12 games. The sample is lacking at best. Included in those 3 series is a series where he pretty arguably played on par with both Schayes and Arizin.

Edit: I won't be supporting Johnston for longevity concerns, and a lack of proven PO play, but to say he's a notable faller feels harsh off such a small sample.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah, the major injury was reported in the '59 preseason.

I tend to think there was something wrong with him in the '58 POs at least (maybe it bothered him some of the season leading up to the playoffs). Have never found any reporting on it. If it'd just been the bad series against the Celtics I could entertain chalking it up to Russell, but his stats were terrible against Syracuse and Kerr the round prior after a respectable (though declined) regular season. Coaches don't decide to limit their 34 mpg Allstar to 24 mpg for no reason.

Johnston against the Nationals in '56/'57/'58, Red Kerr at center
'56: 27.0 pts/g, 17.6 reb/g, 6.4 ast/g, 45.5 fg%
'57: 19.0 pts/g, 17.5 reb/g, 4.5 ast/g, 32.1 fg% (Arizin missed these games)
'58: 7.0 pts/g, 7.7 reb/g, 1.0 ast/g, 24.1 fg%

vs Russell in '58: 13.2 pts/g, 9.6 reb/g, 2.4 ast/g, 46.9 fg%

I would even go so far as to say he played well against Russell in the '58 POs in limited minutes (/36 numbers in line with career averages).

This is true, but this points to the larger trend of prime Johnston always looking worse in the playoffs. Yes it seemed extra dramatic in '58 and was followed by his broader falloff, but it really seems like whenever the opposition got more serious, Johnston struggled to do his thing.

The same can said to be generally about many players of course, but Johnston's playoff fall-off was really stark.

I mean, he played 3 prime playoff series, 12 games. The sample is lacking at best. Included in those 3 series is a series where he pretty arguably played on par with both Schayes and Arizin.

Edit: I won't be supporting Johnston for longevity concerns, and a lack of proven PO play, but to say he's a notable faller feels harsh off such a small sample.

So the thing is, when you say "Sure, Johnston looks like someone who gets a lot worse in the playoffs, but it's hard to know with a certainty because he played for such a short time", it may be true, I don't think it really helps his cause

[eminence]

I think you're reading your opinions into others writing.

I have said 'the sample is lacking' and 'to say he's a notable faller feels harsh'.

I have not said that I feel he was a notable faller. There's no 'but', I do not make those calls on such small samples.

Similarly, I wouldn't say Anthony Edwards is a notable PO riser and would object to folks pushing that.

[Clyde Frazier]

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

McAdoo
McAdoo's MVP season in '75 was quite impressive posting 34.5 PPG, 14.1 RPG, 2.2 APG, 1.1 SPG, 2.1 BPG on 56.9% TS (+6.7 rTS). The Braves would lose in 7 games to the #1 SRS ranked Bullets that year, with a valiant effort by McAdoo: 37.4 PPG, 13.4 RPG, 1.4 APG, .9 SPG, 2.7 BPG, 52.8% TS. He was an efficiency darling in general during his prime with rTS ranging from +3 to +9.

I think at this point in the project every player will have their flaws, and his defense comes off more as knocking him down a peg as opposed to a major liability. The contributions to the lakers '82 and '85 championship teams are also worth noting. In the '82 run he put up 16.7 PPG, 6.8 RPG, 1.6 APG, .7 SPG, 1.5 BPG on 58.7% TS.

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: Bob McAdoo
I view Bob McAdoo as sort of similar to Chris Bosh (or at least see him as McAdoo's most similar(ish) modern comp): similar in length, build, and athleticism; both solid big-man shooters, primarily scorers on offense [very limited passers]; decent(ish) defensively for stretches within their careers (Bosh more so), though in somewhat different ways (McAdoo a slightly better rim protector, Bosh better pnr defender, more switchable).
I view McAdoo's peak as higher (just such a dominant scorer), but Bosh's effective longevity better.

Incidentally, I ended up crediting them with the nearly same amount of raw CORP shares (McAdoo slightly ahead in raw, though Bosh gets nudged ahead in my era-calibrated version):
Bosh I credit with peaking at only an All-NBA level, McAdoo as about halfway between MVP/weak MVP.......but then I only credit McAdoo with 6 seasons where he's even above average ["Sub All-Star"] or better; whereas Bosh I credit with TWELVE seasons above average.


Alternate vote: James Worthy
Very nice scorer, and decent(ish) defender to my memory, with some big playoff moments and a key piece of perennial contender in a competitive era. Amid this field of candidates, that's enough for me to give him the nod as my alternate.


Nomination: CHRIS BOSH! (see above; for me he'd be the most glaring omission if he doesn't make the list)
Alternate nomination: Chet Walker
I view Chet as sort of like "Diet Paul Pierce": scoring SF, didn't do a ton that looked super-flashy or astounding, yet very effective for quite a long time. Respectable defensively (not as good as Pierce), and a lesser passer/playmaker, though also a more efficient scorer, albeit in a weaker league environment. Longevity perhaps marginally behind too.

I'd really like to see LaMarcus Aldridge and Carmelo Anthony make the list, too; but it's seems they just won't get the support (only one other person championing Melo, and I am the only one mentioning LMA).
On the latter (copy/paste in brief):

GOAT-tier big-man turnover economy (might be THE GOAT in this), which generally leverages his all-around offensive efficiency and production to be very similar to someone like prime Chris Bosh.
He's top 60 all-time in career rs Win Shares, despite this being a stat that doesn't really "like" his play style or box profile (because it doesn't like the very thing he's often [here] criticized for; yet still.......).
Aldridge was fairly consistently pegged somewhere between All-NBA level and fringe All-Star by impact metrics throughout his [decent length] prime. All of this in a very competitive era, fwiw.

Could also get behind Zelmo Beaty, though right now Walker appears to have more favour.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

[Doctor MJ]

I think you're reading your opinions into others writing.

I have said 'the sample is lacking' and 'to say he's a notable faller feels harsh'.

I have not said that I feel he was a notable faller. There's no 'but', I do not make those calls on such small samples.

Similarly, I wouldn't say Anthony Edwards is a notable PO riser and would object to folks pushing that.

Okay, but from my perspective, the content of your post here isn't incompatible with what I said in my post despite your tone implying so.

[trex_8063]

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.

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.

So he's more or less middle-of-the-pack among this group that includes one inductee (in the 30s) and one other guy who might [barely] make the list, and three other guys who will not even get mentions.
And this is by what is BY FAR the most flattering of three WOWY-based resources.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

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.

So he's more or less middle-of-the-pack among this group that includes one inductee (in the 30s) and one other guy who might [barely] make the list, and three other guys who will not even get mentions.
And this is by what is BY FAR the most flattering of three WOWY-based resources.

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.

Now, aside from the fact that we know all this is generally oversimplistic, what else can we focus on? I think the big things for me are:

1. Who has extremely positive numbers are the start or end of their career when they weren't at their best? In this case, I'd say that's Hudson. Knock off the last bit and he drops below Lovellette.

2. Who is rating high when the team they are on is most relevant? For the Hawks, on this graph, that was the last '50s when Pettit & Hagan led the team to a title. (Shout out Slater Martin tho.) For me that looms huge in judging the GOAT Hawks players, and it makes it hard to seriously consider anyone else over them. And of course, while I'd certainly rank Pettit ahead of Hagan, it's Hagan who looked better by this metric in that time frame.

Of course there's more to later guy's careers. For Zelmo, after possibly having the highest area-under-curve '60s of every Hawk, he went to a new team and played like a clear cut superstar, albeit in a new league. For Lenny & Lou, they continued to draw paychecks for a good amount of time.

This then to say that when I add all this together, quite honestly, I think Zelmo does have a case over Hagan, and possibly over Pettit. But the other 3 guys are not guys I'd take seriously in the Top 100 discussion.
2.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

WRT the perception of him at the time not being so hot...you're mentioning lack of all-NBA teams and lack of MVP consideration, yet you recently supported Shawn Marion(only 2x 3rd team, highest MVP finish #10) and Horace Grant(never made any all-NBA teams[though he did have 4x Defensive Second team], never any MVP consideration), who don't meet that criteria. You also, at the end of this post, mention possibly supporting Laimbeer or Holiday, neither of whom ever made an All-NBA team.

We're getting into "whataboutism" territory here.
I'm not NOT supporting Hagan because he doesn't meet some benchmark requirement in accolades or MVP shares. I brought those things up primarily as a direct response to the suggestion that perhaps he was a "1B" on that title team; because those things illustrate that literally almost no one perceived him that way at the time (he was almost universally perceived as a clear #2).

I have conceded that Hagan was never perceived as anything other than #2(though by the numbers, in the playoffs of that championship year, he was #1 in scoring volume and efficiency). But that doesn't preclude him from making the list. Plenty of #2s and even some #3s have been inducted. But fine, again, I concede your point that in his time he was never perceived as #1B.

First, "utterly trounce" seems a bit dramatic, but point taken.

I don't necessarily want to dwell on semantics, but.......

In APG, Hagan holds the edge, ranking somewhere between t#8 and t#20 in the league in his best five years; Johnston between t#15 and t#27. But then in all others....
PPG - Hagan between #5 [twice] and #11 in the league......Johnston never worse than #3 [three times #1].
TS Add - Hagan between #2 and #9 [twice]......Johnston #1 in league all five years.
RPG - Hagan between #9 and #20......Johnston never worse than #6 [twice], and was once #1.

So there's some cross-over in APG, with Johnston having two seasons that are better than Hagan's worst in terms of league-rank (and two others that are barely below Hagan's worst).
Meanwhile, in ALL THREE of the other categories: Hagan's BEST league rank is below that of Johnston's WORST (for most years in the sample, Hagan's rank is comfortably behind Johnston's single-worst rank).

EDIT: fwiw, this while Johnston played in what was usually a marginally larger league (avg 8.8 teams in that span, vs average 8.2 in Hagan's sample).

idk......I don't think "trouncing" is much overstating things. It's not at all close by the box measures we have for the time period.

I would in turn point out, as Doc has in the past, that Johnston looks like a playoff faller(as does Jrue in certain ways), whereas Hagan looks like a riser in his short prime. It is subjective whether this matters to each voter, but it's worth considering.

Agree that it's worth considering. I guess I simply disagree on the extent to which that is the deciding factor for some. Looking at the Warriors' title run in '56: in the playoffs Johnston averaged 20.3 ppg @ +2.7% rTS, with 14.3 rpg [league-best] and 5.1 apg. In other words, still very effective.
He kinda stunk it up [relatively] in the Finals, though it must be wondered if they'd have won the first series against Dolph Schayes and the Nats if he hadn't played so well in that series (they won 3-2): 27.0 ppg @ +7.93% rTS, with a series-best 17.6 rpg and team-best 6.4 apg.
And notably, in game 5 [a narrow 4-pt victory] Johnston had 25 pts @ +1.34% rTS, with a game-high 18 rebounds and a team-high 8 assists. He showed up. Not as much as Paul Arizin, but then.......that's a guy y'all voted in almost 40 places ago.

EDIT: So I guess I'm just questioning how that ONE factor [based on pretty limited sample sizes] of Johnston being a playoff faller while Hagan's a riser---especially noting [as per above] that Johnston is falling from a HIGHER starting point than Hagan, while Hagan is rising from a LOWER starting point than Johnston---is enough of a factor that he gets a push in the early 60s (you guys had him on the ballot by the #63 thread), while you won't even give Johnston a mention at the tail-end of the list.

To me, that's placing FAR too much weight on that factor.

So, first off, in hindsight, I do agree that the early 60s was probably too high for Hagan. Some of us may have jumped the gun there.

Now, you're saying why not Johnston if one is supporting Hagan, and my answer is, because Hagan is the one that got traction, that is on the ballot, that has any chance of getting in. Very honestly, as an era-relativist, I have thought about Johnston(and George Yardley for that matter) at certain points during the project, but when I know very well that neither have any chance, why waste the time/energy pushing them, you know? Especially when there are so many other players to push who have a better shot. But again, as an era-relativist, I absolutely think you can make the case that guys like Johnston and Yardley were greater relative to their era than guys like Horford and Gobert and Marion and Parker who have made the list.

I also take note that Johnston's playoff numbers aren't particularly bad even though they fall off from his RS numbers, and that lots of great players, including many on this list, have lower numbers in the playoffs. But in this specific comparison of Johnston and Hagan, who played in the same era, the fact that Hagan was a riser, and that in his greatest playoff run, six of the eleven games came against the era's greatest team(albeit Russell missed two games), does count for something.

Also, I don't get the multiple uses of [you]. It's not just me, or even just me and Doc. Samurai and Clyde have shown some support in recent rounds too.

I worried that would seem too targeted, and thought about using "you all" or similar instead. Although you were the one attempting to resurrect his case (and again: the one suggesting he might have been a "1B"). I apologize if it made it seem personal.

No worries.