APBRmetrics

Mike G wrote:With the week more than half gone, we have had 2 people submit a total of 43 votes.
If no more votes are received, I'd be inclined to advance just the 8 players who have received 2 votes: Cassell, Cheeks, Cummings, Andre Miller, Oakley, Schrempf, Amar'e, and Strickland.

They'd be replaced by 8 others: Lever, Wilkes, Gallatin, Sprewell, Willis, Paultz, Mullin, Goodrich.
Either that, or operations will suspend until further interest is raised.

It's looking as if almost nobody is interested in debating players past the top 100 or so. That's understandable; but it also seems as though we're still looking at players who have been pretty darn good. The middling players are more fun to discuss in some ways. A few Hall of Famers in the 8 names above.

It doesn't matter what are the reasons you have come by your votes. A vote is a vote. The purpose of this exercise isn't to "prove" one player over other players, through stats or otherwise. By participating, you get to explain your thought process and see the workings of others'.

Given the decline in participation I'd be tempted to go to a tighter ordering of those already voted in next. That would probably stoke up more interest. Plus once you've got more of an order it helps put other careers in context. It might clear up for example what to make of the top guys who played best pre-shot clock (Mikkelsen, Foust, Gallatin, Davies, Macauley et al), by making clear what the criteria/standards for our rankings are.

I had hoped to get more actual 'candidates' for the 2nd iteration of voting. We've been debating whether certain players 'should be' in the top 100, etc. And I figured every voter has his own set of criteria. Arguing about that would seem like an attempt to be monolithic.

Perhaps it would be better to go back to the 'new top 50' and start from the top again. But if it's just a few participants, it will be a drag. Not only will a lot of players tie for a position, it would be a lot less meaningful than if we had 20, or even 10 voters.

On the other hand, a lot of players have been voted in without a word of discussion and debate. So there's that to look forward to. And of course one week is hardly sufficient to actually sort out a final order for 50 players. I'm still leaning toward inviting people to submit actual 1-50 rankings. Or maybe 1-25, and then 26-50, and so on.

This would be in addition to a hard vote; it would likely break up most or all ties.

Too many choices that are weeks ahead of where they should be. It might not make sense to do write-ins if there aren't any more voters, but there isn't a guy on that list I'd take over Dave Bing who I'd take over most of the last guys who made the list already. I still think Gus and Pete belong already. Pearl too. Dumars and Hawkins. Westphal and Pollard. Gallatin and Yardley. White and Love (Bob, not Kevin). Roger Brown. Goodrich. If I was to take just two write-ins, I'd go Bing and Twyman, if four then the two I put in last time (Pete and Gus).

Not sure I can agree with the whole guard talk from earlier. Wilkens is definitely a top hundred guy (for me top50), but the thing about the offensive guards from the 70's doesn't work if later similar guys (for me weaker) get a pass like Gervin and Wade. Also how can it not work both ways when a position is considered weak? Archibald is said to be during a weaker guard period (not true) while at center a historically average guy who dominates during a period when the position is almost extinct. Don't need statistical analysis to prove what the eyes can plainly see.

Sorry about the choppy lines, but figured even in a jet lagged exhausted state you needed some votes. Chose some ten to fifteen ( couldn't pick more from guys I barely think are top three hundred).
Good night. I'll check back Sunday or Monday.

Need To Argue wrote:Too many choices that are weeks ahead of where they should be. It might not make sense to do write-ins if there aren't any more voters, but there isn't a guy on that list I'd take over Dave Bing who I'd take over most of the last guys who made the list already. I still think Gus and Pete belong already. Pearl too. Dumars and Hawkins. Westphal and Pollard. Gallatin and Yardley. White and Love (Bob, not Kevin). Roger Brown. Goodrich. If I was to take just two write-ins, I'd go Bing and Twyman, if four then the two I put in last time (Pete and Gus).

Not sure I can agree with the whole guard talk from earlier. Wilkens is definitely a top hundred guy (for me top50), but the thing about the offensive guards from the 70's doesn't work if later similar guys (for me weaker) get a pass like Gervin and Wade. Also how can it not work both ways when a position is considered weak? Archibald is said to be during a weaker guard period (not true) while at center a historically average guy who dominates during a period when the position is almost extinct. Don't need statistical analysis to prove what the eyes can plainly see.

Sorry about the choppy lines, but figured even in a jet lagged exhausted state you needed some votes. Chose some ten to fifteen ( couldn't pick more from guys I barely think are top three hundred).
Good night. I'll check back Sunday or Monday.

The criticism of the 70s SGs was inefficiency and not maintaining a high peak. Wade and Gervin both shoot very strong percentages, off the top of my head are less mistake prone and were more consistent (Wade (2) and Gervin (4) have a combined six top 5 MVP finishes, Bing, Maravich, Thompson, Monroe and Goodrich have 4 between them, half from Bing; I suspect I could do this with MVP shares and All NBA teams too).

Not that I wouldn't be amenable to Gervin ranking a little lower than typically because from what I can tell he was an awful defender.

Though it was suggested that

Mike G wrote:The '70s were, in general, a weak era for guards. Oscar had stepped down from his earlier untouchable status. After he and West quit (1974), Archibald got hurt about the same time, Wilkens retired a year later. Guys like DiGregorio, Kevin Porter, Buse, Slick Watts, and Michael Ray Richardson took turns as Assist leaders. Norm Nixon was about the steadiest version of an 'elite' point guard. And the ABA was no bastion of great points.

But when all-league and all-star teams were named every year, of course guards were included. The Hall of Fame came a-calling and again went with those who had won such honors. So these guys represent some of the least deserving of Hall members, at least since the '50s.

There wasn't a suggestion they should be punished for playing in a weak era (at least not one that I saw). Merely a suggestion of concurrance with my listing of the flaws of the afforementioned guards and the suggestion that as those were the premier guards of the era it was weaker than, say, the time when the best guards were Robertson and West; or Jordan, Stockton, Drexler and Payton.

So there was no general statement that the SG position is weak. However if you are looking at competiton Wade probably fares better than Gervin. Wade has taken on Kobe, T-Mac, Iverson, Allen, Carter and Ginobilli. Whereas after the wave of 70s SGs discussed got hurt/retired/declined Gervin had very little competition at SG through the early 80s (Westphal up to '80, Moncrief once he emerged, Walter Davis who was more naturally an SF).

As for what "eyes can plainly see" each set of eyes and brain sees and recalls events differently. That's why stats are convenient. There's debate how to use/analyse them best. But the stats don't change, they're there recording what a player did.

We have one regular participant who is just certain that an average player of the '60s is better than a dominant player in the '00s. Another, who may or may not have placed votes, is fully convinced of the opposite. It's all good.

I keep putting up little tables which I think show consistently that we aren't favoring one part of history over another, either in the candidates offered or the votes made. Unless you really think 8 teams in the '60s held as much talent as 30 teams today.

Regarding the depth of guards in the '60s or other times: My point was that all-league and all-star mentions have a varying amount of significance, depending on the strength at a position. With just 2 all-NBA teams, Gilmore never made it to one in the NBA. With a 3rd Team, he likely makes several.

If your appreciation of the game comes to a dead halt in the mid '70s, that's shown by your insistence that every guy from earlier is better than every one from after. If it only begins then -- like, when we start seeing steals, blocks, turnovers -- that is also evident, if you want to state it.

The pattern isn't going to change though, regarding the candidates. All eras will continue to be represented, as fairly as can be done perhaps. It's not going to change things by anyone repeatedly denigrating either modern players or old-timers.

Oscar came along in 1960 and completely raised the bar for guards. He even raised the posts the bar would be on. Within a few years, West was about as good. Nobody else was close at the time, and there would be no 'next Oscar Robertson', nor anyone remotely close (Archibald for 2 years?) until Magic Johnson. Jordan came along just 5 years later, and Drexler, and a whole raft of tremendous point guards.

Most players are shorter than 6-6, and point guard is the most excellent thing they could hope to be. So the competition at that position will likely remain high for as long as people play basketball.

Well, I dropped the ball again. There were a few write-in candidates in the previous round who were supposed to be on the ballot again in this round, and they'd gotten lost in the shuffle.

In a most delicate operation, I've added 6 names to the ballot -- Bing, Dumars, Gus Johnson, Maravich, Ramsey, and Twyman -- write-ins in this round or the previous one; replacing 6 names which had received no votes.

You still have to go up there and register your vote, if that's your choice. They're out of alphabetical order, but I got them as close as I could.

Just so nobody is shocked or in trepidation about the next batch of nominees, the next 30 (barring additional write-ins) would be:
50s - Gallatin, Yardley
60s - Bridges, Goodrich, Monroe
70s - White, Lacey, Paultz, Wilkes, Roundfield, Mychal Thompson
80s - Lever, D Harper, Kersey, Willis, Mullin, Richmond
90s - Clifford R, Brandon, Sprewell, Horry, Kukoc, Finley, McDyess, Marbury, Ilgauskas, Bibby, Lewis
00s - KMart, DWest

A write-in vote basically amounts to submitting a nomination for the next round.
Each write-in, though, removes one of these names from the next round.
If voting participation is good enough, we can 'elect' more players each round, thus processing thru more of them.
So far, nobody has abused the write-in custom. I'd think 5 per voter per round would be a reasonable limit.

Mike G wrote:We have one regular participant who is just certain that an average player of the '60s is better than a dominant player in the '00s. Another, who may or may not have placed votes, is fully convinced of the opposite. It's all good.

.

I just like to compare great players to great players, the Bo Derek 10 theory. Karl Malone and Bob Pettit are both tens and guys like Lamar Odom aren't anywhere near them, but is put near them as a candidate. Average players from separate eras like Bill Bridges and Odom are on the list of candidates, but I wouldn't vote for them until about January at this pace. I don't get to vote for the great players of today because they are put in so soon. Example: I really like Ginobili as a player and would have him in soon, but he is already there.
The guys I've argued for have been stars not average. I only mention average guys when comparing them to where the current guy should be closer to. Exaggeration can go both ways. I know Carlos Boozer is better than Charles Smith, but he may be closer to him than to Malone and Pettit.

Mike G wrote: I keep putting up little tables which I think show consistently that we aren't favoring one part of history over another, either in the candidates offered or the votes made. Unless you really think 8 teams in the '60s held as much talent as 30 teams today.

This is the Doug Christie example. Christie was a scrub for a while and eventually went to a bad team and played regularly and made a name for himself as a decent player, but still wouldn't have played on the better teams. Geoff Huston is another example. So yes I agree there was just as much talent then. The twelfth man then was a solid player waiting for his chance and had to beat out real talent to make the team. Teams aren't that deep now except for a few top teams. Miami for some reason has players on the bench who would start on most teams. There are teams with starters who wouldn't make the Heat so yes there is a weakness in the talent pool. The league would be better off contracting a few teams to get better. I get to see a lot of Knick games and they are not very good yet they are at least a fifty win team. I don't think they are as good as previous fifty win teams in their history. There are so many bad teams that they are almost guaranteed a playoff spot. Sixteen teams make the playoffs. Are there really sixteen worthy teams? Less teams and less playoff teams would be my suggestion, but it won't happen. It also provides too many meaningless games down the stretch where teams have clinched a spot and rest.

Mike G wrote:
Regarding the depth of guards in the '60s or other times: My point was that all-league and all-star mentions have a varying amount of significance, depending on the strength at a position. With just 2 all-NBA teams, Gilmore never made it to one in the NBA. With a 3rd Team, he likely makes several.
.

Never understood the 3rd team idea, it is giving kids trophies for participating all over again or adding five more choices for best movie. Talent decreases and there are more congratulations.

Cleamon Johnson was Moses's backup when Philadelphia won a title and he would be at least a top half of the league center today. Just saying. I wouldn't anoint Dwight just yet. Centers have never been this bad. I mentioned Neal Walk recently and he had a few good years, but never considered great. He would at least be in the running for the AS team today.

Mike G wrote: If your appreciation of the game comes to a dead halt in the mid '70s, that's shown by your insistence that every guy from earlier is better than every one from after. If it only begins then -- like, when we start seeing steals, blocks, turnovers -- that is also evident, if you want to state it.

I think I have enjoyed the last few seasons more than any in the last decade and change. I thought the Celtics getting big players like KG and Allen to join Pierce was great drama against the Lakers. The Heat have become like the old Steelers where you are happy if your team can compete with them. I do see some good signs that the league is getting better again. There has been a history of down years followed by revitalizing of the game.
I just don't the rushing of guys into being better than they are, before they are. I like the kid Westbrook, but he's being considered for all-time greatness on our list when he's been in the league for a minute, what's the rush. Let him get better first.

MW00 wrote: Not that I wouldn't be amenable to Gervin ranking a little lower than typically because from what I can tell he was an awful defender.
.

I've said that before and got heat for it, but its true. It is another example of relying on statistics instead of seeing the game. Gervin would leave his man and ball chase (a little, in between basket hanging, sort of) which got him some steals, but his man usually had a less stressful night. He would just outscore them. He would get some blocks too because of size, but defensive effort wasn't a strength. So on paper he seemed like a good defensive player. I think he was Nugget on his fathers side (meaning Doug Moe would have loved him, I am not saying anything about his family or won't need to see family trees or anything of that nature).

Christie was a scrub for a while and eventually went to a bad team and played regularly and made a name for himself as a decent player, but still wouldn't have played on the better teams.

Not. Christie played a lot for one of the best teams.
For 3 years, 2001 thru '03, he led the Kings in minutes, and they were the best or 2nd best team in the league (by SRS) each year.

Average players from separate eras like Bill Bridges and Odom are on the list of candidates, but I wouldn't vote for them until about January at this pace.

The reason they're making the ballot at this time is that they were good for a fairly long time. Bridges made 3 allstar games. Odom in the '60s-70s might have made several more.

In the 8-team era, half of all NBA starters made the All Star game, so that alone doesn't mean a player was above avg.

The players who were really great for many years have been elected already. Those who have been really great for a short time are appearing with those who were merely good for a long time.
Some voters seem to prefer longevity, while others prefer brilliance. Some may have favorites that they promote for either reason. Others that they discount for either 'too short' or 'not great enough' reasons.

Since I've been doing a rather comprehensive statistical ranking for some years, I can see how a player works his way up through the ranks. Nobody appears suddenly in the top 100, nor even the top 200. The great ones come roaring through the pack, slowing down as they enter elite territory, and eventually settling in wherever. There's no perceptual lag time.

Centers have never been this bad.

Maybe you're thinking of the late '80s. Did you look at my chart of weakest allstars by position? Donaldson, Duckworth, Steve Johnson in the All Star game? We're more than 20 years past that.

Of course, if you just can't focus on numbers, nor believe they can tell you anything, then you might be overly reliant on your perceptions. It really would be nice to have perfect memory and 4-D vision, seeing how every player would have played in every other era. And even then, you wouldn't have the time to see every player on his best and worst days.

Bill Bridges -- an average player in his time? Or star player for good teams?
Skipping the advanced stats for now, let's just look at Bridges' teams and teammates, in order of minutes played:He played behind some Hall-of-Famers, and he played ahead of several.

At the end of his full-time career, 1974, Bridges ranked behind just 15 players in regular season career minutes -- those 15 are all in the Hall of Fame.
He was 9th in career RS rebounds -- again, behind 8 HOF'ers.

In playoffs, he was 13th in minutes and 5th in rebounds -- again behind only HOF members in both.
Russell, Wilt, Pettit, and Baylor had more postseason boards.

An 'average' player doesn't usually lead mostly-winning teams in minutes, for 5 years straight.
Bridges sent Cliff Hagan to the bench, kept Paul Silas on the bench, then at age 32 he helped the Lakers to the Finals.

Last call for votes.