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

Post #1 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Apr 7, 2024 5:28 pm

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:

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

Billy Cunningham

Bob Davies

Horace Grant

Cliff Hagan

Bill Walton

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

Current List
Historical Spreadsheet

AEnigma · Post #2 » by **AEnigma** » Sun Apr 7, 2024 5:53 pm

VOTE: Billy Cunningham Horace Grant
Alternate: Horace Grant Billy Cunningham
NOMINATE: Gus Williams
AltNom: Dominique Wilkins

AEnigma wrote:Hold Gus in high regard for his excellent postseason elevation, his strong impact profile, and his general trend of success. On one of the old projects, Ronnymac mentioned that the 1976 Warriors had an outlier opponent turnover percentage coinciding with rookie Gus’s emergence as a McMillan-esque bench disrupter. Couple that with the Warriors losing narrowly once Gus was unable to play, and although that rookie season ends up not worth much in a CORP sense, I appreciate the signal of his ability to affect the game early on and at reduced minutes.

To me he was at his peak the fifth best (not most accomplished) guard before the playmaker boom of the late 1980s. Dynamic in transition, flexible as either a lead creator or a dedicated scorer, and defensively feisty without being irresponsible. Lack of longevity will be a non-starter for many, but I encourage those more forgiving of that to give him serious consideration.

Post #3 » by **penbeast0** » Sun Apr 7, 2024 6:55 pm

Vote Horace Grant Low scoring dirty work player but every team he played for improved significantly with him.

Alt Vote: Cliff Hagan #2 player on the 2nd best team of his time with a resume of strong playoff performances.

Nominate: Jayon Tatum Short prime but consistent two way performer. Have him slightly above Luke for defense and ability to fit into team mold though Luka is more spectacular and heliocentric.

Alt Nomination: Mel Daniels: Could also say Luka Doncic here but Mel is getting ignored despite being the 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.

eminence · Post #4 » by **eminence** » Sun Apr 7, 2024 9:52 pm

Mr Davies will be moving to the top of my ballot, didn’t get a crack at Sharman, but I think he convincingly wins that comparison.

Nomination will be more up in the air for me.

Post #5 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Apr 7, 2024 10:18 pm

eminence wrote:Mr Davies will be moving to the top of my ballot, didn’t get a crack at Sharman, but I think he convincingly wins that comparison.

Nomination will be more up in the air for me.

Yup, I'll be with ya.

Owly · Post #6 » by **Owly** » Sun Apr 7, 2024 11:00 pm

penbeast0 wrote: Vote Horace Grant Low scoring dirty work player but every team he played for improved significantly with him.

Alt Vote: Cliff Hagan #2 player on the 2nd best team of his time with a resume of strong playoff performances.

Nominate: Jayon Tatum Short prime but consistent two way performer. Have him slightly above Luke for defense and ability to fit into team mold though Luka is more spectacular and heliocentric.

Alt Nomination: Mel Daniels: Could also say Luka Doncic here but Mel is getting ignored despite being the 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.

Probably doesn't matter but against Daniels ...

If one goes with Mourning as the comp (and I'll give my mental association and why that doesn't help him) ... Mourning's offensive impact signal ... iirc off RAPM ... I think .. at least at peak ... does better than one might expect off the archetype of non-passing big men. Mourning is competing against the time's elite at his position ... Daniels simply isn't. Fwiw, Mourning's box seemingly peaks a bit higher though eyeballing only his best year shows real separation. I think Mourning is a passable outside shooter (FT% is at the margin of acceptable for a big, but from memory a little better, viable from the field) I don''t know if Daniels offers the same spacing ... maybe he does (FT% is further below 70% to the point where I get queasy but at the same time the gap from Mourning isn't huge). I think 1 (and more so the related general impact certainty) and 2 are important, perhaps especially 2. Whilst people can get hyperbolic in the comparison of the leagues ... it is still mostly the younger end of the league where Daniels is most effective, rather than when it got more talent and more concentrated. Spencer Haywood came in as a 20 year old and looked significantly more statistically dominant, and wasn't close to that in the NBA ...

And that leads me to my comp. I don't know if I'd be looking for Beaty here ... probably not, but I'd listen. But he was a good NBA center. Has to sit out a year (maybe that keeps him fresh, I don't know) and at 31 looks ... by Reference box aggregates ... not inconsiderably better than a peaking Daniels. Without the ABA, and granting all players will tend to look better with expansion of the major league pro jobs ... I worry in the NBA Daniels might look fairly unremarkable.

trelos6 · Post #7 » by **trelos6** » Mon Apr 8, 2024 1:40 am

Billy, Bob, Horace, Cliff and Bill.

Vote: Bob Davies

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

Alt Vote: Bill Walton

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

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

Nomination: Jerry Lucas

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

Alt nomination: Gus Williams

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

Post #8 » by **penbeast0** » Mon Apr 8, 2024 2:21 am

Owly wrote:Probably doesn't matter but against Daniels ...

If one goes with Mourning as the comp (and I'll give my mental association and why that doesn't help him) ... Mourning's offensive impact signal ... iirc off RAPM ... I think .. at least at peak ... does better than one might expect off the archetype of non-passing big men. Mourning is competing against the time's elite at his position ... Daniels simply isn't. Fwiw, Mourning's box seemingly peaks a bit higher though eyeballing only his best year shows real separation. I think Mourning is a passable outside shooter (FT% is at the margin of acceptable for a big, but from memory a little better, viable from the field) I don''t know if Daniels offers the same spacing ... maybe he does (FT% is further below 70% to the point where I get queasy but at the same time the gap from Mourning isn't huge). I think 1 (and more so the related general impact certainty) and 2 are important, perhaps especially 2. Whilst people can get hyperbolic in the comparison of the leagues ... it is still mostly the younger end of the league where Daniels is most effective, rather than when it got more talent and more concentrated. Spencer Haywood came in as a 20 year old and looked significantly more statistically dominant, and wasn't close to that in the NBA ...

And that leads me to my comp. I don't know if I'd be looking for Beaty here ... probably not, but I'd listen. But he was a good NBA center. Has to sit out a year (maybe that keeps him fresh, I don't know) and at 31 looks ... by Reference box aggregates ... not inconsiderably better than a peaking Daniels. Without the ABA, and granting all players will tend to look better with expansion of the major league pro jobs ... I worry in the NBA Daniels might look fairly unremarkable.

He might look unremarkable, he might look as strong as he does in the ABA but with the likes of Jabbar, Unseld, Reed, etc. around, he might not be even All-NBA. But you can only face the situation you are in and Daniels excelled in the situation he was in. His stats might also be better if he wasn't on a team with three other players who thought of themselves mainly as scorers (Roger Brown, Netolicky or McGinnis, Freddie Lewis). But they were good enough to win multiple titles as the best player on at least 2 of them.

There are a lot of names I'd want to give a look at here, but Daniels is at least one of them.

AEnigma · Post #9 » by **AEnigma** » Mon Apr 8, 2024 5:21 am

Will reiterate this:

AEnigma wrote: I do not see an especially good case for [Mel Daniels] over Roger Brown in 1970 given the substantial minutes advantage and Brown’s elevation in the playoffs. George McGinnis looks like the team’s lead in 1973 for similar reasons (less of a minutes gap, more a case of Mel fading in the postseason than McGinnis rising). That leaves maybe 1972 for Mel… except there it is again not something that actually carries over to the playoffs, where Brown characteristically elevates and Mel characteristically fades, and then Freddie Lewis is the one taking home Playoff MVP.

I do not see him as any sort of dominating force. For all three titles, other players on his team were recognised as being better in the postseason. He has two MVPs, yes… but 1971 was undeserved on its face and 1969 was a product of the only two real superstars in a nascent league getting injured. To whatever extent you care to sincerely advocate him as a merited MVP in the early ABA, he never carried over his level of play to the postseason anyway. Then he was also finished as a player by the time he turned 30, giving him worse longevity than Connie Hawkins! And Connie peaked much higher and even post-injury managed to maintain relevance in a better league.

Being traded for nothing to a garbage team that barely used him while his old team once again returned to the Finals should be the ultimate symbol of how Mel could not keep pace with an actually talented league. Contrast with Zelmo Beaty or Billy Cunningham, two more champions with higher peaks, longer careers, and clear translation across leagues. Speaking of that 1975 Pacers run, add George McGinnis to the list of players with better longevity, a higher peak, and successful translation to a better league.

Owly · Post #10 » by **Owly** » Mon Apr 8, 2024 8:36 am

penbeast0 wrote: ... he might look as strong as he does in the ABA ...

He might ... it is technichally possible.

Looking at bigs transitioning league not at the tail-end of the ABA.

Hawkins(?): huge drop
Haywood: huge drop
McDaniels: huge drop
Beaty (NBA to ABA): very large rise

You have Red Robbins who couldn't get into the NBA looking dominant in the very early ABA....

I think if you projected the average of the differences across to Daniels ... unremarkable might end up being on the generous side.

I could be missing some guys, the above certainly isn't an exact science, the ABA changes over time (and these transitions are relatively early), my sense is you like Daniels better than his boxscore so hustle, intangibles would still be there ... I can't be sure but I can't see that he's separating himself enough from early to mid ABA bigs that I'd be confident he's separating himself from middle of the road centers for any length of time in the NBA.

Owly · Post #11 » by **Owly** » Mon Apr 8, 2024 8:47 am

trelos6 wrote:Billy, Bob, Horace, Cliff and Bill.

Vote: Bob Davies

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

Alt Vote: Bill Walton

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

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

Nomination: Jerry Lucas

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

Alt nomination: Gus Williams

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

On Lucas ...

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

Post #12 » by **penbeast0** » Mon Apr 8, 2024 12:28 pm

Hawkins and Haywood were still All-Pros in the NBA though Hawkins had a second surgery and was never as explosive and Haywood had serious maturity issues. McDaniels was indeed a complete bust and Zelmo did indeed step up in the ABA. Daniels was an NBA 1st round pick, unlike the likes of Robbins, so the NBA clearly thought he was physically capable. But yes, early ABA was a much weaker league and centers were traditionally harder to find top talent than other positions.

Owly · Post #13 » by **Owly** » Mon Apr 8, 2024 2:46 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Hawkins and Haywood were still All-Pros in the NBA though Hawkins had a second surgery and was never as explosive and Haywood had serious maturity issues. McDaniels was indeed a complete bust and Zelmo did indeed step up in the ABA. Daniels was an NBA 1st round pick, unlike the likes of Robbins, so the NBA clearly thought he was physically capable. But yes, early ABA was a much weaker league and centers were traditionally harder to find top talent than other positions.

It's not that they necessarily weren't good ... (though McDaniels wasn't) or that they are direct analogies (Robbins as I say wasn't reckoned to be NBA standard) ...

It's the difference in production NBA to ABA
Player: Last ABA Season PER; First NBA Season PER; Last ABA Season WS/48; First NBA Season WS/48; PER difference; WS/48 difference
Hawkins: 29.7; 19.7; 0.293; 0.147; 10; 0.146
Haywood: 28; 18; 0.216; 0.091; 10; 0.125
McDaniels: 24.1; 12; 0.171; 0.001; 12.1; 0.17
to keep the same format
player: first ABA Season PER; Last NBA Season PER; First ABA Season WS/48; Last NBA Season WS/48; PER difference; WS/48 difference
Beaty: 25.2 19.1 0.264 0.156 6.1 0.108
(used the next full season for McDaniels rather than 12 games of the same season, using the 12 games would make his NBA PER a little better and his NBA WS/48 a little worse)

Without doing a minutes weighting, just the average of those differences we get a 9.55 difference in PER and 0.13725 difference in WS/48.

fwiw Robbins in goes from perceived unworthy of an NBA job to 25.7 PER and .208 WS/48.
I could look at the differences for McGill but that last (partial) NBA year is probably playing with injury issues (and granting that he was productive earlier) ... but then I think that's why he couldn't get an NBA job for a number of years... then he plays in the ABA and he goes to 19.7 and .193.

As I say, this isn't perfect, these changes are early on in the ABA ... I'm not saying you can definitely put those exact drops across Daniels' whole career ... if you did though, as I said "unremarkable" would be generous ... but it is a red flag. Seeing those gaps it gets hard for me to envision Daniels as a notably good big in the stronger league for any significant length of time.

Samurai · Post #14 » by **Samurai** » Mon Apr 8, 2024 8:36 pm

Vote for #91: Billy Cunningham. Excellent peak but injuries cut his career short. But his peak was outstanding: MVP (ABA), three-time All NBA First Team, one All ABA First Team, and one All NBA Second Team. Very good rebounder with elite hops (hence his nickname of the Kangaroo Kid), very good passer and solid defender with excellent bbIQ. Career 21.2 point/game scorer. Biggest knock outside of longevity is that he wasn't a good dribbler. But he always played with heart and tenacity with a non-stop motor.

Alternate vote: Cliff Hagan. This is more a process of elimination than a ringing endorsement of Hagan. Others either had too short a peak (Walton) or not quite a high enough peak (Grant). I know next to nothing about Davies and never saw him play, so I could be swayed to lean in his direction with good arguments. Hagan seemed to be fairly impactful as a 6-time All Star and 2 All NBA Second Team awards and his longevity is decent considering his era.

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.

Post #15 » by **Doctor MJ** » Mon Apr 8, 2024 8:56 pm

Owly wrote:Looking at bigs transitioning league not at the tail-end of the ABA.

Hawkins(?): huge drop

So, trying not to be a Hawk fanboy in this project, but I will hit some things here:

First, while I realize it's common to use injuries as an excuse, sometimes they really are massive.

Here's Hawk's pre & post all-star in his last (second) year in the ABA when he had the catastrophic injury that I don't think he was ever the same again afterward:

Pre: 33.4 PPG
Post: 19.9 PPG

And now here are his month by month scoring splits in his first year in the NBA, adjusting not simply to a new league but to a new team which had a guy named Gail Goodrich that didn't exactly give up control to start the season:

Oct: 19.4 PPG
Nov: 22.9 PPG
Dec: 23.9 PPG
Jan: 25.2 PPG
Feb: 27.0 PPG
Mar: 27.0 PPG

I think it's pretty clear the drop off after the injury and the gradual taking control of the new team makes year totals problematically coarse.

I also think it's important to recognize that while Hawk's efficiency dropped in the NBA, he was still posting a Top 5 TS Add. I think in general if he was capable of that level of efficiency in the NBA there's not a reason to be that skeptical of his capability for impact in the league.

And since I really do believe that the Hawk we saw in the NBA was already something of a grounded-Hawk, I really don't have doubt that he was better before the injury. The cycle of his career is fascinating because he really does seem to begin as a pure overwhelming athlete more than anything else, but he then merges that with all sorts of savvy based on what he learns with the Globetrotters and applies in NYC schoolyards. When he hits the ABA, you're seeing a guy who still has prime (though not peak) overwhelming hops to go with extreme length, but you're seeing a guy who is like the ultimate competition trickster using those giant hands probably more cleverly than any of us have witnessed in the modern NBA.

Of course as I say all of this, Hawk decays relatively rapidly after his rookie year in the NBA despite the fact that he's not that old. Injuries are a key part of the equation, but so is the fact that the guy had played insane amounts of basketball in his young life in situations where there wasn't good medical support. The NBA back then was primitive compared to now, but it was far better than what Hawk was dealing with on the schoolyards and Globetrotters.

Owly wrote:Beaty (NBA to ABA): very large rise

So, there's no doubt that part of that statistical rise is about lessening competition, but I'm still very impressed by what I see.

First, I don't think we should blow off his NBA career. He was an all-star center when making All-NBA meant topping Russell & Wilt which basically put a cap on what accolades he could get. And even there I think he was underrated.

Then over in the ABA, yeah it was somewhat easier, but it's not like all the guys who came over from the NBA led the league in TS Add - that was just Zelmo - and it's not like all the guys who came over from the NBA led their team to a title - that was just Zelmo too. (Note that Rick Barry could have done this if not for injury in his first year, but he didn't, and Barry was in the ABA at age 26 in the year where the 31 year old Zelmo was doing this stuff.)

Zooming out, here are the ABA guys (not already in) who I think about when thinking about this project:

Connie Hawkins - GOAT ABA peak, limited by longevity
Spencer Haywood - dominant in the ABA for a year before leving
Roger Brown - arguably GOAT ABA playoff career, similarly limited by longevity, and for similar reasons (Brooklyn Represent!)
Mel Daniels - arguably GOAT ABA overall career, limited by longevity to slightly less of a degree.
Zelmo Beaty - best season from an NBA to ABA player
Billy Cunningham - won MVP as an NBA to ABA player
Dan Issel - sidekick to a title winner in the ABA, long NBA career
Louie Dampier - actually a more important player to the title winner that included Issel
George McGinnis - ABA MVP and in some ways the closest thing we ever saw to LeBron before LeBron
David Thompson - incredible start to his career in the ABA as a proto-Jordan

Of the group:

- I think Hawk was the best at basketball by a good margin, but longevity issues hold him back.
- I think Zelmo looked like the best of the rest when he was in the ABA.
- I can see the argument for Cunningham over Zelmo on that front, plus he had a more noteworthy NBA career.
- Daniels is generally the guy I'd champion over the other non-NBA guys.
- Issel is a guy with a Top 100 case, but it bothers me that it actually seems like his primacy got in the way of his team.
- McGinnis is a guy who really impressed me at first glance, but I've concluded that his early heliocentrism had a pretty limited ceiling.

OldSchoolNoBull · Post #16 » by **OldSchoolNoBull** » Mon Apr 8, 2024 9:52 pm

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

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

OldSchoolNoBull · Post #17 » by **OldSchoolNoBull** » Mon Apr 8, 2024 9:53 pm

James Worthy

Copying and pasting my argument from the last thread.

If you look at all of the not-yet-nominated players we've been talking about, you're not going to find many that have shown up as often or as big in the playoffs as James Worthy. You're just not. They didn't call him "Big Game James" for nothing. These are his series-by-series breakdowns during his best years:

1984 WCQF - 16.7, 6.7r, 3a, 1.7b on 59.5% TS
1984 WCSF - 12.4, 3.4r, 2.6a on 62.7% TS
1984 WCF - 17.3, 6.2r, 3a, 2s on 55.4% TS
1984 Finals - 22.1, 4.4r, 2.3a, 1.4s on 65.1% TS

1985 WCQF - 18.7, 3.3r on 70.9% TS
1985 WCSF - 19.4, 5r, 2a on 60.9% TS
1985 WCF - 22.6, 6.8r, 2a, 1.8s, 1.4b on 72.3% TS
1985 Finals - 23.7, 4.5r, 3.2a on 59.9% TS

1986 WCQF - 16.3, 3r, 4a, 2.3s on 63.4% TS
1986 WCSF - 20.7, 5.3r, 2.5a on 58.1% TS
1986 WCF - 20.2, 4.8r, 3.6a, 1.4s on 54.7% TS

1987 WCQF - 23, 4.7r, 5.3a, 2.3b on 77.8% TS
1987 WCSF - 22, 6.4a, 2.8a, 1.4s, 1.4b on 65.7% TS
1987 WCF - 30.5, 5.8r, 2.3a, 2.3s on 64.1% TS
1987 Finals - 20.7, 5.3r, 4a, 1.7s on 52.8% TS

1988 WCQF - 18.7, 5.3r, 6a, 1.3s on 60.5% TS
1988 WCSF - 18.9, 4.4r, 3.1a, 1.7s on 54% TS
1988 WCF - 23.4, 5.7r, 5a, 1.7s on 60.2% TS
1988 Finals - 22, 7.4r, 4.4a on 54.4% TS

1989 WCQF - 19.7p, 6.3r, 2a, 2.3s on 61.7% TS
1989 WCSF - 27.8, 8r, 1.3a, 1.5s on 70.7% TS
1989 WCF - 25, 8.3r, 4.3a, 1b on 59.4% TS
1989 Finals - 25.5, 4.3r, 3.5a, 1.5b on 53.9% TS

In 14/23 series in those years, he averaged 20+. In 9 of those, he did so on 58% TS or higher.

Out of all 23 of those series, only once did he fall below that season's league TS average(87 Finals).

His 1988 Game 7 was legendary - 36 points, 16 rebounds, 10 assists, 2 steals on 68.2% FG in a three point win. That won him the Finals MVP.

I also think the 1989 Finals are notable because he did that while missing Magic and Scott for most of the series. That 53.9% TS is only a hair above the league average that year, but I think it's impressive he shot that efficiently on that volume against the 89 Pistons defense while pretty much playing alone out there for much of the series.

You can chalk his consistency and excellence in the playoffs up to 'he played with Magic and Kareem', but as far as #2/#3 options go, if Grant is on the ballot, and if Parish got in, and if Parker got in, and if Marion got in, there is really no reason Worthy shouldn't get in unless his longevity bothers you that much(and he still narrowly passed the 30k mark).

OldSchoolNoBull · Post #18 » by **OldSchoolNoBull** » Mon Apr 8, 2024 9:55 pm

Bob McAdoo
1. By the box, he's got to be one of the highest peaks left from his early years - six seasons of 28+/10+ with 1+ steal and 1-3 blocks on high efficiency. Just monster box numbers.

2. Not only won an MVP(the only NBA MVP not yet nominated), but has the most total career MVP votes of any of the likely potential nominees remaining, at 1,392.

3. Was an important 20mpg role player on two Showtime champions and four Finalists in his later years. Accepted the bench role without complaint, despite being surprised by it. Had injury issues in both the 1983 and 1984 playoffs, prompting Pat Riley to suggest that the Lakers might've had a chance against the 83 Sixers if McAdoo had been healthy(though it seems more likely that McAdoo's absence from 1984 Game 7 - a 9 point loss on the road - might've been more of a difference maker).

4. His Buffalo teams didn't have much playoff success at all, but that they were in the playoffs at all is a testament to McAdoo - this is a team that had only existed for two seasons prior to his arrival, they were still very much an expansion team at that point, and when you look at those rosters for 74, 75, and 76, they really didn't have much business being in the playoffs at all - his best teammates were Jim McMillian, Gar Heard, and Randy Smith. Now, that's not nothing, and I respect McMillan's role on the 1972 Lakers and Heard's years in Phoenix, but I don't know that that's a playoff core without McAdoo.

5. We can see an impact signal when McAdoo gets traded away from the Braves.

In 1975-76, his final full season in Buffalo, the team won 46 games with a 0.86 SRS and +0.8 Net Rtg, winning the first round vs the 1976 Sixers(featuring a handful of players that would go to the Finals the following year - Doug Collins, George McGinnis, World B. Free, Steve Mix, Jellybean, etc) and taking two games off the eventual champion 1976 Celtics before falling in the second round.

In 76-77, in which McAdoo was traded to the Knicks 20 games into the season, the Braves won 30 games with a -4.28 SRS and a -4.1 Net Rtg, failing to make the playoffs. That is a 16 game drop in W/L and a significant SRS/Net drop too.

Now, there were other things at play. The team was struggling financially, and was sold to new ownership who were looking to blow it up and save money wherever possible. So I cannot sit here and say the drop was all McAdoo.

They had also traded Gar Heard away midway through 75-76 and let Jim McMillian walk in the 1976 offseason.

But Heard was traded for John Shumate, who by the box, replaced Heard's production averaging 15.1 points and 9.5 rebounds on above average efficiency.

And they drafted Adrian Dantley in 1976, who took McMillian's place in the starting lineup and put up 20.3ppg/7.6rpg on +9.0 rTS.

So the other two guys they lost seem like they were adequately replaced; as such, I'm not sure how much blame you can lay at the loss of McMillian and Heard.

I should also mention they lost coach Jack Ramsay, who didn't want to be part of rebuilding and went to Portland, and they went through three different coaches in 76-77, so I'm sure that didn't help.

So there probably were systemic issues between new players being added and the coaching situation and the team sort of in disarray - and that is perhaps reflected in the fact that McAdoo himself posted a -5.6 TS Add in his 20 games in Buffalo, but a 158.7 TS Add in his 52 games in New York that same season.

Still, if you look at Buffalo W vs W/O McAdoo that season, it looks like this:

With: 8-12(.400), -3.20 MOV
Without: 22-40(.355), -4.68 MOV

There's a marginal drop in winning percentage and a more noticeable drop in MOV. And as I pointed out with McAdoo's TS Add discrepancy between Buffalo and New York that season, that's with a McAdoo that wasn't playing that well in those 20 games.

6. I would also briefly point out that in McAdoo's lone full season in New York - 1977-78 - despite the loss of Walt Frazier and coach Red Holzman, he still led the Knicks to 43 wins and a second round appearance with his best teammates being a late-career Earl Monroe, Spencer Haywood during his addiction, and Lonnie Shelton.

And then the following season the Knicks got much worse when McAdoo only played 40 games before being traded. They won just 30 games on the season, and 19 of those wins came with McAdoo. In other words, they were 19-21 with him, and 11-31 without him that season.

So dominant box numbers in his prime, some decent impact signals, an MVP, and a couple of rings as a rotation piece.

OldSchoolNoBull · Post #19 » by **OldSchoolNoBull** » Mon Apr 8, 2024 9:58 pm

Gus Williams

AEnigma wrote:Nominate: Gus Williams

I don't know if I will nominate him this round, but I do believe he has a very solid case.

There's always been fair amount of debate over who was really the most important player on those late 70s/early 80s Sonics teams between Gus, DJ, and Sikma. I tend to side with Gus.

Given his lack of longevity, the lack of impact metrics for him(all we have is tiny sample RAPM from Squared's 1980 and 1985 datasets), and the fact that his box numbers are solid but not great in the regular season, I think probably the best argument in his favor is impact signals, and him changing teams twice and having a contract holdout year in his prime gives us those signals.

There are other factors involved in some of these, and I've tried to be transparent about that, but I think you can see him as a clear common factor in all of these signals.

Arriving in Golden State

AEnigma mentioned his rookie year with the Warriors. It is odd to look at impact coming to a championship team where he wasn't even starting, but nonetheless, it's there.

The 1975 Warriors won 48 games, with a 2.86 SRS and +3.0 Net Rtg.
The 1976 Warriors won 59 games, with a 6.23 SRS and a +6.1 Net Rtg.

The only other significant change I can see besides Williams replacing Butch Beard is that Phil Smith, who had come off the bench in 1975, was given the starting position and a big increase in minutes.

Leaving Golden State

In 1976-77, the Warriors won 46 games with a 3.10 SRS and a +3.0 Net Rtg.
In 1977-78, the Warriors won 43 games with a 0.41 SRS and a +0.3 Net Rtg.

Not a big drop in wins, but a more substantial drop in SRS/Net. Of course, that was also when Jamaal Wilkes left for LA, so you might chalk it up more to that. Still worth mentioning.

Arriving in Seattle w/Sikma

In 1976-77, the Sonics won 40 games with a -1.43 SRS and -1.4 Net Rtg.
In 1977-78, the Sonics won 47 games with a 1.48 SRS and a +1.5 Net Rtg.

So DJ was a rookie on 77 Sonics, and Bill Russell was still coaching, and it was a pretty different team from 78. Along with Gus, Sikma also arrived in Seattle in 77-78, as well as Paul Silas and John Johnson.

I also take notice of the coaching situation in 77-78. Bob Hopkins coached the first 22 games, going 5-17, after which Lenny Wilkins took over and went 42-18. That is wild. It looks like all Lenny did was insert Sikma and DJ into the starting lineup and give John Johnson and Paul Silas bigger roles. So I can't help but think the impact signal from 77 to 78 would look bigger if Wilkins had coached the whole season.

The 1981 contract holdout

Williams missed the entirety of 1980-81 due to a contract holdout. Here's how it looks in comparison to the seasons immediately before and after it:

In 1979-80, the Sonics won 56 games with a 4.24 SRS and a +4.5 Net Rtg.
In 1980-81, the Sonics won 34 games with a -1.84 SRS and a -1.6 Net Rtg.
In 1981-82, the Sonics won 52 games with a 3.69 SRS and a +4.1 Net Rtg.

A couple of things to consider.

The Sonics also traded DJ to Boston in 1980, getting Paul Westphal in return. So the Gus/DJ backcourt was replaced with Westphal(who had an decent season - 16.7ppg on average-ish efficiency) and pre-Detroit Vinnie Johnson(who had come off the bench as a rookie). So make of that what you will.

Lonnie Shelton, their starting PF, also only played 14 games in 1980-81 due to a wrist injury but was healthy again in 1981-82.

Leaving Seattle

In 1983-84, the Sonics won 42 games with a -0.34 SRS and a -0.2 Net Rtg.
In 1984-85, the Sonics won 31 games with a -5.44 SRS and a -5.5 Net Rtg.

Significant drop after Williams was traded to Washington for Sobers. Gerald Henderson takes his place in the starting lineup. No other significant losses that I can see.

Arriving in Washington

In 1983-84, the Bullets won 35 games with a -2.36 SRS and a -2.9 Net Rtg.
In 1984-85, the Bullets won 40 games with a 0.15 SRS and a -0.3 Net Rtg.

A measurable, if not huge, improvement, and there are no other significant roster changes that I can see besides that Jeff Malone got a promotion to the starting lineup after Ricky Sobers was traded for Williams.

He declined pretty quickly after that - his second year in Washington was not as good, he played fewer minutes, they didn't offer him a new contract in the 1986 offseason, he played one year as reserve on Dominique's Hawks, and that was it.

OldSchoolNoBull · Post #20 » by **OldSchoolNoBull** » Mon Apr 8, 2024 9:59 pm

Dan Issel

Doctor MJ wrote:Dan Issel - sidekick to a title winner in the ABA, long NBA career

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

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

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

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

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

I just thought this was an interesting signal to go along with his box numbers(one of the most efficient and consistent volume scorers left and amazingly consistent for 15 years), longevity/durability(he was more total career minutes than anyone else being discussed right now), and hardware.

trex_8063 wrote:
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:Also, Dan Issel hasn't gotten much discussion yet, so here's my pitch:

I'll join you. Only reason I hadn't is because I suspected he would not have been well-received previously. But I absolutely think he should be drawing discussion by now.

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:1. He's got the highest career RS WS/48 - .181 - of any of the yet-to-be-inducted players we've been discussing and/or who made the 2020 list. I looked at 29 such players(including the five currently on the ballot), and Issel is tops, and that's over fifteen seasons where he never really had a big fall-off.

That career .181 WS/48 is while averaging of 34.3 mpg for his 15-year career, too; and as you later pointed out, he was extraordinarily durable over that span, missing just 24 games total in his career (only 13 in his first 13 seasons).

The guy played nearly 42k rs minutes (only five non-inducted players have ever played more).

He's consequently got more career rs WS than any non-inducted player (he's 25th all-time; one has to walk 16 places further down the list to find the next non-inducted player, and another 10 places after that to find the next one after that).

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:I don't necessarily think this is the be-all, end-all, by any means, but I do think being #1 on that list at the very least indicates he should be discussed more than he has been.

Agree.

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:2. He recorded 11 100+ TS Add seasons(and 2 200+ TS Add seasons) in his 15 year career. Between this and the WS/48 factor, it just seems like he was remarkably consistent.

Yeah well, one sort of ties right into the other (WS loving shooting efficiency so much).

Though I'll also point out he was very efficient in terms of ball control. His career [minus '77] mTOV% is 7.71%, which is very elite among big men. Basically the only ones better in this regard are those that are often referred to as the "GOAT tier" of big-man turnover economies (e.g. LMA, Dirk, Horace Grant, AD, Al Horford).

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:3. He went to four ABA Finals and won an ABA ring. I know he wasn't #1 on any of those teams(and maybe not even #2 on some), and that the ABA Nuggets were already good when he got there, and that he never got to a single Finals in the NBA, but he still had a fair bit of team success in the ABA, and unless you just think he was consistently in the right place at the right time, you can't ignore it. He did have two additional WCF appearances in the NBA too, winning 6MOY on the second of those teams in his last season.

Overall the Nuggets were reasonably successful in the NBA during his stint. In the nine NBA seasons he was there, they had a winning record and positive SRS six times, AVERAGED 43.7 wins per season [.533 win%] collectively, and made it into the playoffs 7 of 9 years, FOUR times making it past the 1st round (once by automatic berth to the semifinals, by winning at least one series the other years), and [as you said] twice getting to the WCF (not getting swept in either instance, fwiw).

Overall, I view him much like Amare Stoudemire......except with FAR better durability and longevity, and better ball-control. If we're considering someone like Cliff Hagan here, I see absolutely no reason why Dan Issel should not also be considered.