RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #99 (Bob Davies)

[Doctor MJ]

Our system is now as follows:

1. We have a pool of Nominees you are to choose from for your Induction (main) vote to decide who next gets on the List. Choose your top vote, and if you'd like to, a second vote which will be used for runoff purposes if needed.

2. Nomination vote now works the same way.

3. You must include reasoning for each of your votes, though you may re-use your old words in a new post.

4. Post as much as they want, but when you do your official Vote make it really clear to me at the top of that post that that post is your Vote. And if you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same Vote post.

5. Anyone may post thoughts, but please only make a Vote post if you're on the Voter list. If you'd like to be added to the project, please ask in the General Thread for the project. Note that you will not be added immediately to the project now. If you express an interest during the #2 thread, for example, the earliest you'll be added to the Voter list is for the #3.

5. I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over). For this specific Vote, if people ask before the Deadline, I'll extend it.

Here's the list of the Voter Pool as it stands right now (and if I forgot anyone I approved, do let me know):

Spoiler:

AEnigma
Ambrose
ceilng raiser
ceoofkobefans
Clyde Frazier
Colbinii
cupcakesnake
Doctor MJ
Dooley
DQuinn1575
Dr Positivity
DraymondGold
Dutchball97
f4p
falcolombardi
Fundamentals21
Gibson22
HeartBreakKid
homecourtloss
iggymcfrack
LA Bird
JimmyFromNz
Joao Saraiva
lessthanjake
Lou Fan
Moonbeam
Narigo
OhayoKD
OldSchoolNoBull
penbeast0
Rishkar
rk2023
Samurai
ShaqAttac
Taj FTW
Tim Lehrbach
trelos6
trex_8063
ty 4191
WintaSoldier1
ZeppelinPage

Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):

Bob Davies


Cliff Hagan


Connie Hawkins


Chet Walker


James Worthy



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

Current List
Historical Spreadsheet

[AEnigma]

VOTE: Bob Davies
Alternate: James Worthy
Davies won a league MVP and was the common star presence on the only two “primary” champions yet to be represented. I do not have real opinions on him as a player, but I think that is a worthwhile historical achievement.

James Worthy (also) would not make my top 100 CORP list. However, he has the second-best longevity on this ballot, and I think he had the best prime of everyone here. Three titles total, two titles as the team’s second-best player, and one title which featured a Game 7 performance extraordinary enough to earn Finals MVP. I do not think there are a hundred players more important to the story of the league, and excluding him would feel like a significant misstep by that alone.

Will not be submitting a nomination this round. Passively inclined toward Zelmo but not looking to put my thumb on the scale when people feel much more strongly about other last-chance candidates. For what it is worth, biggest exclusion for me personally has been Alex English. However, I understand that his career ultimately amounted to a footnote in a way not culturally true of Wilkins or narratively true of Worthy as his contemporaries (I would like to swap him with Dantley… but so it goes).

Again assuming Davies’ inclusion, will also reiterate what I see as the best* NBA teams not to be represented (albeit for fair reasons): the 1971-75 Bulls, the 1976-79 Suns, and the 2002 Kings. Think those Kings might be the only overall 1-seed to not be represented on this project, but happy to be corrected.

* With acknowledgement to the 1951/52 Knicks and the 1955 Pistons as well.

[Samurai]

Vote for #99: Cliff Hagan. I think Doncic is the best player here but since the rules don't allow us to include this season, he's only played in 330 RS games. As great as he is now, that's just too much missing longevity to make up for. Next year when we can include the 24 season, I would definitely vote for him over Hagan. Never saw Hagan play live but he was a 6-time all star, led the league in OWS once, and was consistently in the top 20 in points, rebounds, and assists per game.

Alternate vote: Connie Hawkins. Enjoyed watching the Hawk in his prime. He was an MVP (ABA) and named to the First Team three times (once in the ABA and twice in the NBA). He was a decent passer and a solid, if underrated, defender who likely would have had a better defensive rep if blocks and steals had been recorded during his prime. Probably one of the players most negatively impacted by the era he played in as I'm sure medical advancements are much better today than they were when the Hawk was playing.

Nomination: Jerry Lucas. No I don't expect Luke to get much support as he didn't make the top 100 the last time either. But he's been a personal favorite of mine since I went to his summer camp so this is a personal bias vote for me. Outstanding shooter who shot for a very high percentage in his era, especially notable since he typically shot from farther out than most anyone else at that time. Twice led the league in TS% with eight total finishes in the top 20. A poor defender on the wing due to his lack of foot speed, he was a solid low post defender due to his strength and positioning, although at only 6-8 he could not stop taller elites like Wilt or Kareem. Seven finishes in the top 20 in DWS and eight times for OWS, he was named All NBA five times (3 first teams and 2 second teams). An elite rebounder, although he was a noted stat padder, he spent hours in the gym studying flight patterns and angles of shots to determine where a potential rebound is most likely to fall and used this uncanny positioning and strength to offset his lack of hops. Also a very good passer for a big in that era.

Alternate nomination: Walt Bellamy. While I was never a big fan of his, I also admit that I only saw him play in the latter (post-prime) half of his career. Had the impression that he was kind of an 'empty stats' guy who put up big numbers that didn't necessarily translate into big impact. His WOWY isn't too impressive and he didn't seem to raise his game in the playoffs, although he didn't have any playoff appearances during his peak years. But he was a strong scorer who shot a high percentage for his era, finishing in the top 10 in TS% nine times. Was a good (but not elite) rebounder with seven top 10 finishes in reb/game. Excellent WS numbers with seven different seasons of 10+ WS (more than any of our current nominees), including a 16 WS rookie year.

[penbeast0]

vote Bob Davies: Arguable best player in league even though that league was very limited.

alt Cliff Hagan: I feel like we old guys need to stick up for each other. Besides, I lived and died on that running hook shot back in middle and high school.


Nomination: Mel Daniels: Best player on a multiple championship team and a 2 time ABA MVP. It was a weak league but probably stronger than the one Bob Davies excelled in.

Most similar modern player would be Alonzo Mourning with better rebounding but without the great shotblocking. Both became greats through sheer aggression and a willingness to fight you every inch of every possession.

I'll throw an Alt nomination to Chris Bosh. Never impressed me that much but I do have a Bosh jersey that I wear when cycling from his first Superfriends season (I bought LeBron for my nephew and Wade for my brother when we used to get together at Christmas to play).

[trelos6]

I wanted to go Hawk, as his 2 seasons in the ABA were phenomenal. He continued to put up great stats for a few more seasons before the knee gave out.

I think I’ll give the edge to Davies though. Just a hair more longevity.

Vote: Davies
Alt: Hawkins

Nom: Bosh Bosh has the best resume left IMO.

[OhayoKD]

Vote

1. 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.




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

[trex_8063]

2. Connie Hawkins

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

Hawkins is already a candidate this round.

[trex_8063]

Induction vote: James Worthy
Very strong scorer, and decent(ish) defender to my memory, and the limited impact signals we have are decent: full career WOWY indicates avg of +7 wins added to a full season (based on win% difference), which is pretty good considering that's additive to teams that were already pretty good [usually] without him; and his WOWYR is +3.6 for prime [+2.6 for career].
Had some big playoff moments and would have to be declared a very solid playoff performer in a general sense (perhaps even a "riser"); and was a key piece of perennial contender in a quite competitive era (with nearly a handful of rings and one FMVP to show for it, fwiw).
Amid this field of candidates, that's enough for me to give him the nod.


Alternate vote: TBD
Among this group, it's between Walker and Hawkins for me. Leaning toward Walker, though I'm not sure.

Walker is my "Diet Paul Pierce", as I called him last thread. Nothing flashy, but another very solid scorer; superb mid-range touch with terrific instinct on the little hesitation moves: I recall so many plays where he'd just take a dribble or two into the 9-14' range, sort of pause (the defender would bite, and thus leave his feet), and then Walker would go up for the shot just as the defender was on his way down. So simple looking, yet it seems to have worked over and over and over for him.
Was also decent defensively, with decent(ish) longevity, too. Supporting cast piece on a title team early in his career. Good enough for 2nd here to me.

Hawkins, otoh, might be the best peak left on the table. Is a tough call.


Nomination: CHRIS BOSH (It's time!)
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 as only an All-NBA level, whereas 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. All those seasons of solid use/value add up.

I'll also paste the following:

Spoiler:

On the topic of Chris Bosh.....

I'm going to come at it from a different angle, that of sort of arbitrary (though nonetheless relevant [perhaps]) benchmarks or thresholds......and then whittle things down by adding other thresholds. Yes, again I acknowledge this is arbitrary, and even a bit cherry-picky; yet some of the thresholds have been expressly cited as important or relevant to various posters.
Additionally, I think it can scarcely be denied that, once a few are layered on top of each other, we're talking about a pretty historically relevant player.......


How many NON-inducted players ever received 11 [or more] All-Star selections?
Just one: Chris Bosh
No additional whittling necessary; he is the stand-alone among all non-inducted players in this. I realize that's just a media-awarded accolade, which is frequently mis-assigned; however, his 11 nods is not like Kobe's 9 All-Defensive Team honours, nor even like Gary Payton's 9 All-D honours: most of them are legitimately earned.


So let's use the same starter, but make it a little wider/more permissive.....
How many NON-inducted players ever received 10 [or more] All-Star selection?
Three: Hal Greer, Carmelo Anthony, and Chris Bosh.

How many of ^^^those also have an All-NBA honour? All three, so that doesn't narrow the field.
How many of them also won a chip [as a starter, no less]? Two: Hal Greer and Chris Bosh.
How many of them won TWO titles as a starter? Only Chris Bosh.

Or suppose we leave it at the threshold of ONE title [still have Bosh and Greer], but then for the other NON era-relativists ask: which of those careers occurred in the post-merger era? Again, only Chris Bosh.

fwiw, I could widen the All-Star requirement to 9, but that adds only ONE player to the starting pool [Lenny Wilkens], and he would be eliminated by any one of the follow-up categories (no All-NBA honours, no titles, did not play in post-merger league).


How many NON-inducted players scored at least 17,000 career pts and had at least 26,000 pts+reb+ast?
Ok, actually quite a few (32, to be precise), though some of the names constitute some pretty strong company:
George McGinnis, Spencer Haywood, Grant Hill, Chris Webber, Kevin Willis, Otis Thorpe, Rudy Gay, Bailey Howell, Lenny Wilkens, Dave Bing, Zach Randolph, Chet Walker, Jason Terry, Reggie Theus, Gail Goodrich, Eddie Johnson, Terry Cummings, Walter Davis, Clifford Robinson, Bernard King, Antawn Jamison, Tom Chambers, Joe Johnson, Mitch Richmond, Walt Bellamy, Hal Greer, DeMar DeRozan, LaMarcus Aldridge, Alex English, Dan Issel, Carmelo Anthony......and Chris Bosh.

Now, I could again utilize the "who has a title [as a starter]" question, and that's going to narrow the field DRAMATICALLY (I think down to just six: Chet Walker, Hal Greer [same team as Walker], Gail Goodrich, Jason Terry, Bailey Howell, and Chris Bosh). And if I stipulated TWO titles, then it's down to just Bosh and Howell (and only one of them was in the post-merger era)......

Or I could use some threshold of All-Stars or All-NBAs again, too.....

But let's instead use another statistical requirement; how about something that hones in on efficiency (since we're starting with a field based upon mass of box production)?

I could go with turnover economy; something like fewer than 2,000 career TO's [Bosh had just 1,807, btw]. That would also narrow the field substantially (Aldridge still makes the cut easily, but most do not). However, we don't have turnover data for the old guys.

So we'll use relative shooting efficiency: how many of those 32 players ALSO had a positive career TS Add (like even +0.1)?
Well, now the field's down to 22, because the following are all removed: LaMarcus Aldridge [barely, though again: TO's], George McGinnis, Chris Webber, Kevin Willis, Rudy Gay, Eddie Johnson, Terry Cummings, Clifford Robinson, Antawn Jamison, and Joe Johnson.

To whittle further, how about a more relevant positive TS Add?......How many of those 22 would still remain if we required at least 500 TS Add?
Down to a pool of just 14 [slightly more distinguished] players: Grant Hill, Otis Thorpe, Bailey Howell, Lenny Wilkens, Chet Walker, Jason Terry, Hal Greer, Walter Davis, Bernard King [very turnover-prone, however], Mitch Richmond, Walt Bellamy, Alex English, Dan Issel.....and Chris Bosh.

What about at least 1000 TS Add?
Now it's just six: Otis Thorpe, Bailey Howell, Chet Walker, Walt Bellamy, Dan Issel, and Chris Bosh.


How many of those six won a title?
Bailey Howell, Chet Walker, and Chris Bosh.

How many won TWO? Bailey Howell and Chris Bosh.
How many in the post-merger era? Or with 9+ All-Star selections, etc (you get the point)? Chris Bosh.


Was going to do more of these, but it's taking longer than I thought.
To me, he's just such an easy inclusion in the top 100. The combination of peak play, overall prime/career player quality, versatility/adaptability and spacing, longevity, individual accomplishment, team accomplishment (all in a super-competitive era), quality as a teammate, etc........his candidacy is a slam-dunk to me.

Alternate nomination: Zelmo Beaty
There are 2-3 other non-inducted guys I'd prefer over him (LaMarcus Aldridge and Dan Issel; maybe Melo, too), but that's it. Since the other guys don't have the support, I'll go with Zelmo: the player history forgot (I recall one little video bit where Shaq expressed he'd never even heard of Beaty, which I suspect is the case for most fans and players).

I'd really like to see LaMarcus Aldridge, Issel, and Melo make the list, too; but it's already too late to get all of them in, and it seems possible that NONE of them will get the support (only one other person championing Melo, and I am the only one mentioning LMA).
On LMA (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.

[f4p]

VOTE: James Worthy
Alternate: Cliff Hagan

Hard to differentiate at this level. James Worthy seems like a good enough player in enough big playoff moments, especially once Kareem had faded to a role player. Playoff stats are better than his regular season stats. Feels like a better inclusion than the rest.

Rewarding Cliff for his months of service to the project and more seriously for having a couple of high level playoffs, one of which helped win a championship.

[eminence]

Vote #1: Bob Davies
-Same ol same ol
-Strongest guard of the first era of the league
-Led plenty of team success
-Longevity is respectable despite starting late, played 10 total seasons, with none of them being complete throwaways

Vote #2: Chet Walker
-Hagan clearly doesn't have the longevity for me.
-Hawkins is also lacking, he played 9 seasons, 6 of them overlapping with Chet and outside of '70 I don't see him above Chet (overall I'd go with Chet from '70-'75). Connie of course had his best 1.5 seasons in the ABA, but I don't think it's near enough to outweigh the 7 good seasons Chet had already played in the NBA.
-Worthy vs Hawkins for 3rd/4th on my ballot is one I'd have to think on some more.

Nomination #1: Chris Bosh
-Good longevity, good skillset, good team success

Nomination #2: Hal Greer
-Once again just using it as a tip of the cap vote. Hal had a hell of a career and I'd be disappointed if he didn't pick up any nominations.
-Highlight of being the #2 on one of the best teams ever.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - James Worthy
Vote 2 - Chet Walker
Nomination 1 - Carmelo Anthony
Nomination 2 - Hal Greer

Big Game James
Worthy was quite talented offensively. Used a combination of length and speed with a great first step to make extremely quick finishes around the basket. Great finisher off the catch as well and had a nice array of post moves for a bit of a hybrid forward. Just amazing ball control taking advantage of his athleticism.

Definitely played to his strengths, which is even more important when you're helping a team make deep playoff runs every season. Elevated his play in the playoffs, which does make me question his regular season play a bit, but not going to knock a guy for playing better in the post season. Whether or not he deserved finals MVP in '88 is up for debate, but the hyper efficient 36 point triple double in the game 7 clincher is more than impressive on its own.

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. 

[Owly]

Given Bosh and Carmelo are getting votes to come on to the board and they're draft classmates I thought I'd so a surface level comp.

Carmelo has raw longevity with over 10,000 RS minutes lead.

Carmelo's latter years raise the question of whether that it contributes to an advantage in longetvity of quality ... 17-22 would account for most of that lead (10718 minutes) and amongst Reference box composites, only 2017 PER is above average.

If one shaves that off I would say Bosh and Anthony are by Reference box aggregates broadly comparable
Bosh 20.6 PER; .159 WS/48; 1.9 BPM; 31936 minutes
Carmelo (through 2016): 21.1; .135; 2.2; 32796

So maybe comparable and Carmelo's other years give him an edge? Perhaps?
For me though those marginal Carmelo years aren't high value especially in light of two context points.
1) Carmelo was mostly, perhaps always, put in a position to maximize his production. Bosh, initially and then through most of Miami probably wasn't.
1a) Bosh trends generally a little stronger by his box-peak with the best PER and WS/48 (Carmelo does have best BPM) and from age 26 and on probably wasn't box maximized.
2) Non-box factors ...

Bosh is +5.7 on-off, Carmelo through 2016 +2.4 (+1.7 for full career)

97-14 RAPM
Bosh +2.89 (32nd)
Anthony +1.48 (114th)

97-22 (this does include weaker Carmelo years ... given longevity disadvantage Bosh should do better here)
Bosh 2.4 (135th)
Anthony 0.1 (474th)

1997-2024 with playoffs, Vanilla
Bosh 5 (52nd)
Anthony 1.4 (482nd)

My personal inclination then is:

- I think Bosh could perhaps have outproduced Carmelo in a situation with greater primacy as it was he was about as meaningfully productive.
- I think Bosh was more impactful.
- I think Bosh was able to still have some substantial impact when not maximizing box production.
- I think Bosh was impactful whilst in a greater primacy role in Toronto.
- Maybe you think it shouldn't happen but my guess is Carmelo is less versatile, less able to contribute in other ways ... if so his impact numbers were probably broadly in a position where they would be maximized too as well as his box ones.
- I think Carmelo played more but mostly at a fairly marginal value (especially given he wasn't suggesting great impact in non-box areas).

[penbeast0]

Added an Alt nomination for Chris Bosh, it makes sense even if just honorary.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Davies looks like he's running away with this one, and in the Davies vs Hagan debate, I feel like I have to push back one last time. Not to say that Hagan should clearly be the choice, but that it's closer than some of you are making it out to be imo, and to think about it one more time.

Looking at how they each stack up relative to their leagues(using all of Davies' NBA years and Hagan's prime years), there is no clear gap between Davies and Hagan. Davies comes out ahead in assists, while Hagan comes out ahead in scoring volume/efficiency and rebounding.

Davies:
49: #8 PPG, #8 TS Add, #1 APG (170)
50: #15 PPG, #36 TS Add, #4 APG
51: #12 PPG, #16 TS Add, #6 APG, #81 RPG
52: #5 PPG, #23 TS Add, #4 APG, #78 RPG
53: #8 PPG,#14 TS Add, #7 APG, #75 RPG
54: #16 PPG, #19 TS Add, #5 APG, #66 RPG
55: #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

And beyond that, we have these box composites:

Career RS WS/48:
Hagan: .170
Davies: .154

Career PO WS/48:

Hagan: .167
Davies: .068

Hagan 58 PO WS/48 vs Davies 51 PO WS/48
Hagan: .312
Davies: .071

The common refrain has been that Davies was a #1 and Hagan a #2, but looking at the 1951 Royals' championship run, Davies does not necessarily look like a clear #1.

In the regular season, Arnie Risen scored on higher volume and higher efficiency while grabbing 12 boards and 2.4 assists(which is closer to Davies' 4.6 assists than Davies' 3.1 boards is to Risen's 12). Risen also led the team with 9.3 win shares over Davies' 6.9(tied with Bobby Wanzer).

For the playoff run, Risen topped Davies in scoring by nearly 4ppg and 4.5% TS, while grabbing 14 boards. Risen's 2.1 win shares topped Davies' 0.8, and Risen himself only had the third highest win shares, so four guys had more win shares than Davies during that championship run.

So we can say Davies is #1, but in the box at least, he doesn't look like a clear #1.

To further make this point, compare Davies' WOWY W/L between 1948-49 and 1954-55 to that of Arnie Risen(I looked to see if there was overlap in missed games, but there wasn't):

Davies:
11-5 without(.688), 284-176 with(.617)

Risen:
10-4 without(.714), 285-177 with(.617)

The sample sizes are small, but small sample WOWY has been used to discredit Hagan, so I think it's fair game. Setting aside that going 11-5 with Davies might call his impact into question, his absence not appearing to hurt the team any more than Arnie Risen's absence doesn't look great either.

Perhaps' Davies' biggest impact signal is that the Royals' Rel ORtg plummets when he retires. Bur the Royals also lost Risen that offseason, so is it possible the impact signal is inflated? That it's due to both of them leaving?

Someone earlier mentioned not supporting Hagan because of longevity, while simultaneously voting for Davies #1. It seems to me that Hagan has the longevity edge.

So, first off, we obviously don't have minutes for all of Davies' seasons, but we can estimate. The first season of his that we have minutes for, 51-52, he played 36.8mpg. If we give him the benefit of the doubt and use that mpg as a multiplier by the number of games played, we can estimate 6882 minutes played for his first three NBA seasons and 3938 minutes played over 107 recorded games in the NBL starting in 1945-46. Combined with his recorded minute total of 8617 for his last four NBA seasons, that totals 19,437 minutes. I know Doc said that there were more games played in those NBL seasons than what was recorded, but this is based on what was recorded.

Hague's career total is 24,074. That's over a 4,600 minute advantage.

Now, obviously there's a difference between longevity and meaningful longevity, and I think there's a perception that Hagan's numbers took a dive at a certain point, but I'm not sure that's really the case. His minutes just seem to have gotten cut when other players(like Lenny and Zelmo and others) started arriving. If you look at PER 36 numbers, he doesn't really have a significant decline.

So whether or not Hagan has a meaningful edge in longevity could be up for debate, but I think alternative is neither player having a significant edge. I don't see evidence for Davies having a big edge here.

Finally, I know I'm an era-relativist, but if Davies and Hagan aren't the same era, they're adjacent eras, so

I feel like Hagan being a #2 on a team that beat Russell's Celtics and took them to seven games two other times counts for something. To be fair, Davies' Royals were also the only team to beat Mikan's Lakers during their dynasty, but if you look at Davies' numbers in that series(what we have of them), it doesn't paint a pretty picture(26% from the field, not so good even then).

[eminence]

I use seasons as my measure of longevity.

Minutes/game for individual players has changed, number of games has changed, but a season is a season is a season. I suppose I actually use years now that I think about it

In my estimation Davies had 7-8 star level seasons ('46-'53), Hagan had 5 ('58-'62).

I rarely care about Win Shares, but especially so in this comparison because Davies (playmaker) and Hagan (efficient scorer) are exactly the type of players to be under/overrated respectively (see Nash/Amar'e). Arnie Johnson being the primary culprit for overrated by WS on the Royals (top 20 in the league every season of his career, but more on the level of a fringe starter), Risen/Wanzer were excellent players in their own rights (and Cervi before them), no problem giving them their flowers.

On Doc's comment, I think it got misread: The Royals didn't play more games in the NBL at the time, but they did barnstorm regularly.

[trex_8063]

I use seasons as my measure of longevity.

Given Bosh and Carmelo are getting votes to come on to the board and they're draft classmates I thought I'd so a surface level comp.

Carmelo has raw longevity with over 10,000 RS minutes lead.

Carmelo's latter years raise the question of whether that it contributes to an advantage in longetvity of quality ... 17-22 would account for most of that lead (10718 minutes) and amongst Reference box composites, only 2017 PER is above average.

If one shaves that off I would say Bosh and Anthony are by Reference box aggregates broadly comparable
Bosh 20.6 PER; .159 WS/48; 1.9 BPM; 31936 minutes
Carmelo (through 2016): 21.1; .135; 2.2; 32796

So maybe comparable and Carmelo's other years give him an edge? Perhaps?
For me though those marginal Carmelo years aren't high value especially in light of two context points.

For me it's about meaningful longevity, which is just about anything above a [roughly] replacement level player.

Kevin Willis played a remarkable 22 seasons.......but is there any reason I should get excited about the last 5-6 of them? Do they truly add any notable value to his career? If so, why? Because to me it just seems like he's filling a roster spot that any of potentially hundreds of other hopefuls who play for near the league-minimum could do.

Regarding Melo, I think he's relevant through '17. All the years after that (and particularly looking at some slumped playoff performances)......he's not really even a league average player at that point. I know he was given starting roles in '18 and '20, but he's basically a 15-16/6 guy who shoots well below league average TS% while having more turnovers than assists, and not playing good defense. That's not a valuable player, imo. That's a "damn, our roster is so horrendously weak at his position that we've got no one better to give the minutes too" player.

So vs Bosh, the box aggragates in which years are relevant to me looks like this:

Bosh: 20.6 PER, .159 WS/48, +1.9 (31,936 minutes)
Melo: 20.9 PER, .132 WS/48, +2.1 BPM (35,334 minutes)

Basically a dead-heat, but with Melo playing a little more. Though then [as you noted], Bosh's impact signals are FAR more impressive. He also seems to show a bit more versatility/adaptability of role, too [imo]. Arguably marginally less playoff fall-off (and he's got some hardware, fwiw; though Melo was slightly more lauded in media accolades, I guess).

Both would make the top 100, were it up to me, though (but Bosh higher).

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I use seasons as my measure of longevity.

Minutes/game for individual players has changed, number of games has changed, but a season is a season is a season. I suppose I actually use years now that I think about it

In my estimation Davies had 7-8 star level seasons ('46-'53), Hagan had 5 ('58-'62).

Going by seasons might be fine for most of NBA history, but in this case, a season is in fact NOT a season for the very reason you pointed out - number of games per season. I don't think we should be counting the 27 and 32 game NBL seasons Davies played the same as the 72+ game seasons Hagan was playing or even the same as the 60+ game seasons Davies played in the NBA, where longevity is concerned(fine to consider them for quality of play). That seems to be like tipping the scales in Davies' favor.

I rarely care about Win Shares, but especially so in this comparison because Davies (playmaker) and Hagan (efficient scorer) are exactly the type of players to be under/overrated respectively (see Nash/Amar'e). Arnie Johnson being the primary culprit for overrated by WS on the Royals (top 20 in the league every season of his career, but more on the level of a fringe starter), Risen/Wanzer were excellent players in their own rights (and Cervi before them), no problem giving them their flowers.

Well, win shares were one small part of my arguments.

On Doc's comment, I think it got misread: The Royals didn't play more games in the NBL at the time, but they did barnstorm regularly.

I'm sure that's true, but I'm not sure barnstorming falls within the scope of the project and even if it did I don't know that there is any data about it.

This is my issue. I am not really opposed to Davies making the Top 100, but all the arguments are fairly vague in nature. There are five first-place votes for Davies in this thread and not one statistical argument made by anyone.

[eminence]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on our longevity approaches. It does leave us talking past one another unfortunately, as longevity is my primary reasoning for preferring Davies over Hagan. And plenty of other players over Hagan for that matter, I like his 4 year prime a fair amount. Not sold on '62.

Sure, and I responded about not valuing winshares, particularly for these players. Not every post on a basketball forum can be a treatise. Is there something else in particular you argued that you'd like me to respond to? For one of them, I don't consider tiny sample WOWY for anyone (Davies/Risen/Hagan/etc).

Barnstorming does not count, just trying to clarify what Doc had said earlier. There is a site where you can look up some of the barnstorming stats, but I can't recall it. I remember looking at Mikan/Davies stats in their games against the Trotters/Rens. Unfortunately, Haynes/Davies missed one another.

Your own post sums up his statistical argument well, he had a strong balance of pts/asts/ts+ while leading an impressive offense/team to consistent success. I don't feel it was clearly surpassed as an overall playmaking guard performance until Oscar arrived, though Cousy of course has an argument. I'm not one to copy/paste my past posts, so my vote posts can wind up quite abbreviated, apologies for that.

[Owly]

I feel like Hagan being a #2 on a team that beat Russell's Celtics and took them to seven games two other times counts for something. To be fair, Davies' Royals were also the only team to beat Mikan's Lakers during their dynasty, but if you look at Davies' numbers in that series(what we have of them), it doesn't paint a pretty picture(26% from the field, not so good even then).

I'd be ... cautious about calling the '58 finals team "Russell's Celtics". He plays two games healthy, gets hurt in the third, misses the next two and tries to play in the final game. He's the clear regular season total minutes leader on the Celtics, but 6th in the finals. The two healthy games, both in Boston, see Boston lose by 2 and win by 24 for a net 22 point outscoring of the Hawks.

In a series anyone can win. It's a small sample. But ...
a) I don't think the team beaten should fairly be called "Russell's Celtics".
b) I don't think it likely that the Hawks win against a team that retains a healthy Russell.

Whilst (I believe) Mikan played more so it's not precisely analogous, Mikan's injury would give me some pause in invoking his name. And whilst (as I read it) it wouldn't matter to the claim the '51 Rochester title has a finals ref call that reportedly was outright wrong and which if all else were held equal would have flipped the series (though Rochester do have a fairly clear net points advantage in the series so they don't seem "lucky" in that respect).

[OldSchoolNoBull]

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

I just feel like giving Hagan the support here for reasons already stated. And while I have reservations about Davies, I do ultimately get the rationale.

Nomination Vote #1: Dan Issel
Nomination Vote #1: Chris Mullin

Giving my guys Issel and Mullin a symbolic vote here at the last opportunity of the project to nominate.

(I'm ok with Bosh too, but he seems to have the necessary votes already.)