Retro POY '68-69 (Voting Complete)

[ronnymac2]

Was there really such a thing as "carrying an offense" in the 60's?

I think Mufasa brought up a great point about Russell. He was playing dominant defense when dominant defense was rare. He was a rare commodity. Those numbers ElGee had regarding defensive dominance by Boston are mind-boggling.

Tha Dominator's post in the beginning was cool.


Contenders: Hondo, Russell, West, Wilt, Baylor, Robertson, Cunningham, Thurmond, Reed, Frazier, and Lucas.

No to Barry because of the missed games. Unseld>Hayes, but no to both. Props to their excellent rookie season though. Hayes dropping 28 and 17...Unseld winning MVP. You know what....I actually think Wes was a legit MVP contender. He was a brilliant missing piece on that Bullets team. Very good player....his VALUE to that individual team was possibly tops in the league. He's not a top five player in the league this year though.

Wes Unseld's middle name was Sissel.

[Sedale Threatt]

Was there really such a thing as "carrying an offense" in the 60's?

Wouldn't Wilt, West/Baylor, Robertson, even Mikan from the 50s qualify?

I think Mufasa brought up a great point about Russell. He was playing dominant defense when dominant defense was rare. He was a rare commodity. Those numbers ElGee had regarding defensive dominance by Boston are mind-boggling.

No question. He was an absolutely phenomenal and unique player. The first and best of his kind. I think I helped underscore that point with the anecdote about his coach at S.F. actually trying to dissuade him from blocking shots, because it was "fundamentally unsound" to leave your feet.

[ronnymac2]

I don't know. Would they?

Concentration of talent on a small amount of teams + a run and gun style of play where players took the first available shot = a superstar offensive player not having as big an impact as he would today. Somebody else can carry the volume scoring. Sometimes the ball simply doesn't find the superstar that everybody can play off of because one vs. one simply isn't the preferred method of offense.

This is why Oscar interests me this decade. I would think a point guard with the ball in his hands a lot would have the best teams in this league. I hear people say all the time that Oscar was a bit ball dominant. I personally have never seen that. I think they mean he was ball dominant for his era. Those stats I saw earlier in this thread that showed Oscar carried dominant offenses makes sense to me. HE controls the offense. Random people flinging the first available shot don't control it.

I guess I'm more interested in Oscar's teams in the playoffs then.

So I guess Oscar carried his team's offense. haha

[drza]

No question. He was an absolutely phenomenal and unique player. The first and best of his kind. I think I helped underscore that point with the anecdote about his coach at S.F. actually trying to dissuade him from blocking shots, because it was "fundamentally unsound" to leave your feet.

I thought that was a very interesting anecdote, and it really resonates with some of what I've been feeling the last few years about our current way of thinking about what constitutes "great defense". Built on the shoulders of players like Russell, we've come to consider shot-blocking as almost the defining characteristic of great big man defense. Blocks weren't even a collected stat when Russell entered the league, but now it has become something that some folks consider to be the gold standard for defense...to the point now that ironically sometimes people actually try to block shots to the detriment of good defense...which is what the old S.F. coach thought was Russell's problem back in the day.

This analogy is a stretch, so hopefully it doesn't sound completely dumb, but in some ways I liken it to "gangsta rap". Back in the late 80s/mid-90s the gangsta rap genre burst on the scene and hit it's peak with Biggie and Tupac who many consider among the best rappers of all-time. That spawned a whole generation with too many wanna-be gangsta rappers who talk about being a thug, want to prove they're thugs, and use lots of foul language...only, unlike Pac and Biggie, they forgot that they also needed to be good musicians with stories to tell as the primary enticements to their listening audience.

Back to basketball, and what I've been wrestling with lately about defense...in a lot of ways it almost seems like defense has evolved to the point that blocked shots aren't the be-all/end-all anymore, even for big guys. For example, in the 90s we had Olajuwon, Robinson and Mutombo setting the defensive pace, all of whom had years blocking more than 4 shots per game. Then in the 2000s, 2 of the 3 best defensive players have never even blocked 3 shots per game (Duncan and Garnett) and even Wallace peaked at 3.5 blocks/game. Howard is a ridiculously athletic center and is now the 2-time defending DPoY for his ability to protect the paint, and he also has yet to block 3 shots per game.

I don't tend to think that this generation is lesser defensively because of this, I just think defense has evolved again and blocked shots are becoming more obsolete as the defining characteristic of good defense. Like in Russell's time, I think some as-yet-not-in-the-boxscores stat would be needed to better evaluate good defense. The advanced stats and +/- stats are adding more flavor to recent years, and I think that's on the right track, so I think/hope that in 2035 when RealGM starts the next retro POY thread when folks get to the 2010s they'll have more tools to evaluate good defense that are considered more standard than what we have now.

That was all way off topic, but it was on my chest I guess, and after all it was inspired by a quote from this topic...gotta count for something, write?

[ThaRegul8r]

Why not Don Nelson a candidate? He had better numbers than Russell in the season and playoffs?

because we have established that Celtics won with their defense and boxscore captures NONE of that impact.

The only thing that helps Russell here is that he held Wilt to 11.7 ppg in the finals this year.

Have you read the posts in this thread? Have you read my two posts at the beginning of this thread, where I made my research available specifically for the voters to have access to information they may not have been privy to as they make their decision this year (people talk about him beating Wilt and the Lakers, but I've never seen anyone talk about what he did in the Philadelphia and New York series on the way there, which they needed to win to get there in the first place)? I did that because if people just looked at the stats, then people might not put Russell top five. You talked about Havlicek and Nelson, Russell missed five games this year, and the Celtics without Russell and WITH Havlicek, Nelson, etc., went 0-5. Happened again in '62. Russell misses a stretch of games due to injury, Celtics can't win. Russell comes back to the lineup, Celtics win again. We saw it in '58. Russell gets injured in the Finals, Celtics don't win title. With a healthy Russell, they win eight straight. This is not a coincidence.

Russell was fourth in the MVP voting, while Havlicek didn't rank. Read what Havlicek himself said about so much burden being placed on one player, and Russell being the only key. Havlicek was the Finals MVP if they awarded it to a player on the winning team, but how can you put Havlicek over Russell overall? Re-read what Russell did in the Philadelphia and New York series. Read what Havlicek himself said after the Finals was over. And don't forget that Russell was also coaching in addition to playing 46 minutes a game at 35 years old. It just baffles me that you're suggesting that he would rank behind a couple of teammates because you say they had better numbers, when Russell is the one player whose contributions to winning are unquantifiable. But even with that being the case, ElGee's numbers show an aspect of it that is quantifiable. What's your opinion on the findings ElGee presented?

I also don't understand this when in the very last year that we looked at, I pointed out—on multiple occasions—that Walt Frazier led Willis Reed in virtually every advanced metric in the regular AND postseason, but you didn't put Frazier over Reed, but now in the very next year, the advanced metrics now suddenly matter. Where's the consistency?

[JordansBulls]

I also don't understand this when in the very last year that we looked at, I pointed out—on multiple occasions—that Walt Frazier led Willis Reed in virtually every advanced metric in the regular AND postseason, but you didn't put Frazier over Reed, but now in the very next year, the advanced metrics now suddenly matter. Where's the consistency?

Reed won league and Finals MVP. I already stated that if a player won both they were the #1 player that year. I also stated that if the Finals MVP wasn't around and a player won league mvp and the title that year they are the #1 as well.

I could say the same about everyone else as well. Prior 1970 whomever won both league and finals mvp the same year won 90% of the share that year. Except this season. Where is the consistency at?

[Optimism Prime]

I also don't understand this when in the very last year that we looked at, I pointed out—on multiple occasions—that Walt Frazier led Willis Reed in virtually every advanced metric in the regular AND postseason, but you didn't put Frazier over Reed, but now in the very next year, the advanced metrics now suddenly matter. Where's the consistency?

Reed won league and Finals MVP. I already stated that if a player won both they were the #1 player that year. I also stated that if the Finals MVP wasn't around and a player won league mvp and the title that year they are the #1 as well.

I could say the same about everyone else as well. Prior 1970 whomever won both league and finals mvp the same year won 90% of the share that year. Except this season. Where is the consistency at?

Reed didn't even lead his team in WS or PER; why should he have been MVP/Finals MVP?

[ElGee]

so what we have here is a type of player whose defense is so ridiculously strong that his one-side impact is unparalleled in NBA history even if you go into TOP5. now Russell, unlike Nash on defense, for sure contributes on offense. his rebounding is there, he initiates fast breaks by his outlet passing, he's great at setting picks, he can finish pretty well and then obviously he's a great passer. so aside from volume scoring or iso scoring, or whatever you call it, Russell is a very solid offensive player. even if his +/- on this side of the court isn't all-world, it's surely a positive.

I don't think this can be overstated enough. This isn't a normal beast we're talking about here. This isn't the NBA in 2010. This isn't the NBA in 1985 with Magic, Larry and a 3-point line. This is the 60s, where the rules were different, the game dynamics were different, heck, even the racial distribution (was forced to be) different.

I see an old Russell game and I count the blocks and I can't believe what I'm watching (9 the last game I counted). You read Regulator's (great) summaries and see 13 blocks. These aren't major aberrations, they are the norm. Take that (and he tried to save all his blocks instead of swatting them), add in maybe the greatest defensive rebounder ever, note team's low FG% against Russell's teams, and even before you look at any numbers you have to be thinking "how freaking large is this guy's impact on the game," because there's really no NBA player since Russell who you can say that about.

Sedale's point about "jumping" being fundamentally unsound really should drive home how monstrous Russell was defensively. Or, maybe more fittingly, how much potential there was for someone to dominate defensively in a way they can't relative to competition anymore.

Ronnymac makes one his usual astute observations: even offensive players at that time probably had less of an individual impact than they can today.

I tend to think individuals have a bigger impact on offense than defense, so I'd say that Magic had the bigger impact in that respec

For today's game, I completely agree. But the 1960s is not the same game.

Now, that's a lot of heavy mental lifting comparing Magic's 80s offensive impact to 60s Russell's defensive impact. But I suppose it's a really good measuring stick for putting Russell's impact into perspective, and I actually thought Bastillon had some really sound points. Here's my take:

Magic's one of the greatest offensive players. We all agree on that. I think we'd also all agree that he wasn't *solely* responsible for his team's offensive excellence. He was surrounded by good offensive players. Russell, IMO has Satch Sanders helping him with defense. Hondo do a degree depending on MP. KC Jones a touch (overrated defensive impact IMO).

Here's a side-by-side of the Lakers offense vs. the Celtics defense, relative to league avg. Pre is the year before Magic/Russell. Post is the year after they left. I'm not going to note all the team changes outside of Magic/Russell (if anyone is unfamiliar they should investigate) other than year 2, when Magic misses 45 games, year 5, when Magic takes over as the primary "quarterback" of the offense and year 5, when Satch Sanders joins Boston.

Code: Select all

Year  The Lakers Offense    The Celtics Defense
Pre   2.3                          -1.5
1      4.2                          4.8**
2      2.1                          5.2
3      3.3                          5.8
4      5.8                          6.2
5      3.3                          8.2
6      6.2                          8.7
7      6.1                          9.0
8      7.3                          11.5
9      5.1                          9.9
10     6.0                          7.1
11     5.9                          4.9
12     4.2                          4.6
13     -                            6.8
Post  -0.5                         0.6


*Interesting note: from 57-64 Boston's D improves every year, peaking in 1964.

As I said, I mentally give Russell more credit for individual impacting defense at that time than Magic individually impacting the Lakers offense. With that said, even if you gave Magic *all* the credit and Russell 80% of the credit, Russell's impact still looks larger. It's almost impossible to conclude that Russell's impact wasn't at the very least comparable to Magic's on the other side of the ball. Personally, I think it exceeded Magic's impact on offense.

Coming full circle back to Neil's post at B-R, according to his all-time offense/defense estimations, Magic's peak offenses from 85-87 are the 8th, 15th and 23rd best offenses ever. Again, Russell's peak defenses ranked 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, 22nd and 23rd.

No. I believe that Bill Russell, for all his obvious greatness, and everything he achieved, was incapable of carrying a team offensively, and that he was fortunate to have played with numerous guys who could and did go off for 40 in a given playoff game. I also believe there isn't a shred of a chance that any of those main guys were overrated.

I doubt he could have carried an offense. I think there's ample evidence to show he was an above average offensive player, especially if we include rebounding, but if Bill Russell were an average defender, one wonders if he ever would have even made an all-star team based on offense. BUT -- and this is a huge but -- why does that matter? I'd understand the hangup in 1995, but not 1965.

With the pace of the game then, there were multiple players on *every team* who could "go off for 40." You've spent a lot of this thread harping on his quality teammates, and no doubt, that helped him win titles. But after 15 years it should be evident that a lot of those parts were interchangeable. What wasn't, and what the rest of the league was jealous/afraid of, was Russell's defensive impact.

Look at it from the opposite perspective. West or Oscar or even another pivot, Wilt, couldn't find one or two defensive pieces to boost their offense. It wasn't that hard for Russell/Auerbach to find, in a 9 team league, an offensive player or two to boost Russell's defense. (And they had Russell point-forwarding for the 2nd half of the decade). As I've said many times, Sam Jones is a legitimate star 2-guard. Cousy was there at the beginning. After that? How are these players any different from a bunch of other comparable guys in the league? And don't tell me Tommy "I'll shoot it from anywhere" Heinsohn and KC "I can't shoot" Jones are in the HOF.

[Dr Positivity]

Why not Don Nelson a candidate? He had better numbers than Russell in the season and playoffs?

Don Nelson put up 12 and 5 in both the regular season and playoffs and had no other impact on the game. His PER is high cause he did his work in 20mpg and got a lot of open jumpers beside better players, leading to a much higher TS% than them

Nelson deserves to make a list as much as Ariza did in 09 or Horry in 94/95. Actually probably less than that.

[Doctor MJ]

No question. He was an absolutely phenomenal and unique player. The first and best of his kind. I think I helped underscore that point with the anecdote about his coach at S.F. actually trying to dissuade him from blocking shots, because it was "fundamentally unsound" to leave your feet.

I thought that was a very interesting anecdote, and it really resonates with some of what I've been feeling the last few years about our current way of thinking about what constitutes "great defense". Built on the shoulders of players like Russell, we've come to consider shot-blocking as almost the defining characteristic of great big man defense. Blocks weren't even a collected stat when Russell entered the league, but now it has become something that some folks consider to be the gold standard for defense...to the point now that ironically sometimes people actually try to block shots to the detriment of good defense...which is what the old S.F. coach thought was Russell's problem back in the day.

This analogy is a stretch, so hopefully it doesn't sound completely dumb, but in some ways I liken it to "gangsta rap". Back in the late 80s/mid-90s the gangsta rap genre burst on the scene and hit it's peak with Biggie and Tupac who many consider among the best rappers of all-time. That spawned a whole generation with too many wanna-be gangsta rappers who talk about being a thug, want to prove they're thugs, and use lots of foul language...only, unlike Pac and Biggie, they forgot that they also needed to be good musicians with stories to tell as the primary enticements to their listening audience.

Back to basketball, and what I've been wrestling with lately about defense...in a lot of ways it almost seems like defense has evolved to the point that blocked shots aren't the be-all/end-all anymore, even for big guys. For example, in the 90s we had Olajuwon, Robinson and Mutombo setting the defensive pace, all of whom had years blocking more than 4 shots per game. Then in the 2000s, 2 of the 3 best defensive players have never even blocked 3 shots per game (Duncan and Garnett) and even Wallace peaked at 3.5 blocks/game. Howard is a ridiculously athletic center and is now the 2-time defending DPoY for his ability to protect the paint, and he also has yet to block 3 shots per game.

I don't tend to think that this generation is lesser defensively because of this, I just think defense has evolved again and blocked shots are becoming more obsolete as the defining characteristic of good defense. Like in Russell's time, I think some as-yet-not-in-the-boxscores stat would be needed to better evaluate good defense. The advanced stats and +/- stats are adding more flavor to recent years, and I think that's on the right track, so I think/hope that in 2035 when RealGM starts the next retro POY thread when folks get to the 2010s they'll have more tools to evaluate good defense that are considered more standard than what we have now.

That was all way off topic, but it was on my chest I guess, and after all it was inspired by a quote from this topic...gotta count for something, write?

A good thoughtful post. A couple points though:

-The USF coach wasn't against Russell trying to block shots. Remember, when George Mikan and the even bigger Bob Kurland came into college ball, they dominated the game so much they created the goaltending rule in 1945. More than that, the USF coach was the only college coach to offer Russell a scholarship, and he did so specifically because of his defense. What the coach was objecting to was how boldly Russell was going about trying to get blocks. Getting a defender off his feet has always been, and always will be a great strategy for offensive players. By leaving his feet so much, Russell was taking chances. Russell proved to be so agile, so explosive, and so smart that he was able to gain the huge advantages of being so bold, without getting burned very often.

And yes, I think this has led some to embrace the role of blocking tons of shots, without the talent and intuitive wisdom Russell had, which is why you'll see some shotblockers who rack up the blocks but don't seem to have that strong impact. The frustrating thing is that they seem to largely get away with it in terms of All-Defensive accolades and contracts.

-I think in terms of "evolving past the blocked shot", there's some truth to that. Centers are rarely a threat to 3 point shooters, and that's basically where perimeter role players live nowadays. There's also the matter that before Russell, it wasn't as necessary to put arch on your shot (or do a jumpshot at all for that matter) - and so I think there has been a general shift making players better able to shoot hard to block shots effectively.

I do think though that a great shot blocker is always going to be incredibly valuable.

[Sedale Threatt]

True, but more specifically, the coach was against Russell leaving his feet on defense, period -- and it's pretty hard to block many shots without doing that.

Quite literally, he didn't know what he had at first, and the way I understood it -- I can't quite remember where I read all this; I want to say "Red and Me," but I know for sure I don't own whatever book it was, so I can't double check -- he never really quite understood, not completely, even after the Dons won championships.

The anecdote stands out to me for two reasons:

1. That Russell was a special and revolutionary player.
2. That Red Auberbach knew exactly what he could be before he'd played a second of pro ball.

It's probably not a stretch to say that Russell was a genius in a way, in that he understood the game on a new and different level. And I definitely think there was genius in what Red did, on any number of levels. They were, quite literally, perfect for each other.

To underscore ElGee's post, I would add the many, many anecdotes I have been reading while going back through my stuff on just how great the intimidation factor was. Not just the many shots Bill blocked, but the sheer threat of it, and how that impacted offenses. There was one comment -- I want to say West, but it might have been DeBusschere -- about how some teams wouldn't even bother attacking the paint because challenging Russell was a lost cause.

A lot of this stuff can be exagerrated, so I tend to take any and all comments as food for thought rather than definitive proof. But it goes without saying how valuable this kind of presence would be.

Another thing that stood out are the numerous comments about how dominant Bill was on the glass, especially when it counted. The St. Louis owner was quoted in Lazenby's Finals history about how hopeless it felt in a close ball game -- you'd miss, and Russell would immediately snatch the ball, limiting you to one and done.

So, as steadfast as I am in my opinion about how Bill was in a perfect situation in terms of coaching, support and stability, and how his career would have been different -- maybe even drastically so -- had he played just about anywhere else, I hope it's very, very clear that I have immense respect for the type of player and competitor Russell was.

[ThaRegul8r]

Semi-sentient talked about wanting to hear about the other candidates, so this weekend I'm gonna try to post stuff on some of the others to better help everyone make their decision. On Frazier, Knick general manager Eddie Donovan said, “Frazier is now almost as good as Oscar Robertson.” New York Times writer Arthur Daley wrote, “He didn’t even have awe in his voice when he said it. Up to now no knowledgeable basketball man would dare mention any player as being in the same bracket as the Big O. But that’s how fast Frazier has come along” (Arthur Daley, “Baltimore Fans Suffer Again As Bullets Fail.” Apr. 1, 1969).

Eastern Division Semifinals - New York Knicks (54-28) vs. Baltimore Bullets (57-25)

Game 1 - New York 113, Baltimore 101. Frazier led the Knicks with 26 points and 11 assists; he scored 17 of his 26 in the second half, “and twice sank three consecutive baskets to thwart Baltimore rallies” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mar. 28, 1969). Dave DeBusschere had 24, Dick Barnett 21, and Bill Bradley 20.

Game 2 - New York 107, Baltimore 91. Dick Barnett led New York with 27, Frazier had 23, Dave DeBusschere 19, Willis Reed 18, and Bill Bradley 16. Monroe led Baltimore with 29, “14 of them in a torrid third quarter when he helped Baltimore assume its final lead at 70-69” (The Pittsburgh Press, Mar. 30, 1969), Kevin Loughery had 19, Wes Unseld had 18 points and a game-high 27 rebounds, and Jack Marin had 15.

Game 3: New York 119, Baltimore 116. Willis Reed had 35 points and 19 rebounds, Walt Frazier 26 points and 17 assists, and Dave DeBusschere 24 points and 15 rebounds. “The Knicks overcame a nine point deficit in the last six and a half minutes. Frazier put them ahead for good with a driving layup with a minute and a half to play” (The Milwaukee Journal, Mar. 31, 1969).

Game 4: New York 115, Baltimore 108. Willis Reed scored a team playoff record 43 points (15-29 FG, 13-13 FT) and grabbed 17 rebounds to lead New York. Dick Barnett had 22, and Dave DeBusschere 18. “Reed […] took up the slack left when Walt Frazier, the Knicks’ top scorer and floor leader in the playoffs, missed most of the first three periods because of foul trouble” (The Spokesman-Review, Apr. 3, 1969). “Reed, connecting repeatedly before a roaring sellout crowd of 19,500 partisan fans who had not seen New York in a division final since 1953, hit nine of his points in a decisive spurt early in the final quarter” (ibid). “The Knicks […] missed their first seven shots of the game and went scoreless almost four minutes while falling behind 12-0 […]” (The Palm Beach Post, Apr. 1, 1969). Wes Unseld and Earl Monroe each had 25 to lead Baltimore.

“I stopped him in the first two games,” said Baltimore's Ray Scott of Reed, “but he's a great player and he goes home and does his homework. He studies the man who's guarding him.

“In the first two games I had him going to my strength, away from the basket, but tonight he used his great strength more. He moved me closer to the basket and then, when he gets off, there's nothing you can do to stop the guy.”

Scott limited Reed to 35 points in the first two games, but was overwhelmed for 35 in the third game before Wednesday night's explosion."

“If you get the ball in the right spot at the right moment nobody can stop you,” Reed explained.

[...]

Baltimore stunned the Knicks by scoring the first 12 points. But the New Yorkers trailed by only 29-25 after one period and it was nip-and-tuck until they went ahead to stay 77-75 on Bill Bradley's basket.

Reed then took over. His bucket gave the Knicks an 86-82 lead and he added seven more points as they increased the spread to 99-87, then fought off a late Baltimore comeback.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Yi ... 917,470042

[Manuel Calavera]

Another thing that stood out are the numerous comments about how dominant Bill was on the glass, especially when it counted. The St. Louis owner was quoted in Lazenby's Finals history about how hopeless it felt in a close ball game -- you'd miss, and Russell would immediately snatch the ball, limiting you to one and done.

Except when he played Wilt, where he was outrebounded in almost every playoff game.

[penbeast0]

Wilt's numbers were silly good in any comparisom. He outdoes Russell as a rebounder, Jordan as a scorer, etc. etc. but . . . . Russell ended up winning even with lesser teammates like this year (the one year you can clearly and easily say that Wilt's team was a lot more talented).

Why? Defense.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1049439

[bastillon]

all-defensive 1968-69 NBA

1st Team
Dave DeBusschere NYK
Walt Frazier NYK
Bill Russell BOS
Jerry Sloan CHI
Nate Thurmond SFW

2nd Team
Bill Bridges ATL
John Havlicek BOS
Rudy LaRusso SFW
Tom Sanders BOS
Jerry West LAL

DRtg

Code: Select all

    1.  Boston        88.4
    4.  San Francisco 92.5
    5.  Chicago       93.0
    6.  New York      93.3
    8.  Los Angeles   95.4
    9.  Atlanta       95.6
    LEAGUE AVG.       95.2

interesting thing - Wilt not only didn't make any team, but Lakers were barely above average despite having West on the team. that's kinda damning.

Elgee, any chance you'll calculate pre/post Debuscherre trade drtg ? at least rough estimation since there is no boxscore ? (assuming they play at the same pace all season long)

my list so far:
1. Russell
2/3. West/Oscar
4/5. Reed/Unseld (might have been the best year for both)

Reed/Unseld debate:
1.Reed was more productive player according to boxscore, he was also a better shotblocker which wasn't recorded back in the day and I suppose a low TOV guy too, since he was shooting jumpshots. in the playoffs Reed averaged ridiculous 26/14/2 on 56% TS. some awesome numbers.
2.Unseld seems to have provided more intangibles. not only his team vastly improved without doing major changes except adding him, but also they were 2nd defensively behind the mighty Russell-led Celts and IIRC Penbeast always talked about how Unseld was a great defender when he was young.

significant things to know:
-Lakers record without West
-Celtics record without Russell = 0-5
-Baltimore DRtg the year before
-Lakers DRtg the year before

I hope Elgee can solve some of these problems regarding DRtg. perhaps Regulator knows the answer to the first question.

[ronnymac2]

What happened to Baylor in the playoffs? He shot 63% on free throws. He went from 25/10/5 to 15/9/4. That isn't good.

I have to say though...Baylor had immense talent. I believe it was game seven against NY the next year, in the fourth quarter, where he started the quarter hot. He made this one move I'll never forget. With some of his kneecap missing, he dribbled, elevated from the free throw line area, did the Michael Jordan one handed clutch thing, then shot and scored. It was crazy.

I think Elgin this year is a Carmelo Anthony who played worse in the playoffs than the real Melo probably ever has. He isn't making my list.

Lucas can't make my list because he would have needed tiebreaker help. This is a strong year. He needs mention though. 18/18/4 on 55% shooting. He led the league in TS%, was top five in offensive win shares, and was sixth in PER. Pretty crazy.

Nate Thurmond was second in rebounding this year and was first team all defense with Wilt, Russell, Reed, and Unseld in the league. 21/20/4 on bad efficiency with all-time defense is a dangerous **** weapon to have. Had a decent playoffs. Let's see what happens.

Reed had one hell of a year. As did Frazier. Wow. How the **** did the Celtics win the title this year? I mean, Regulator showed what happened in the series. But I mean....how??!! haha

Sucks to be Cunningham this year. Too strong a year for him.

I think John Havlicek deserves to go ahead of Reed, Frazier, and Nate this year. They are all similar level players, but Hondo put up an amazing playoffs and Finals performance. His performance gets overlooked because it is Russell's last title, West's year for Finals MVP, the game seven Wilt fiasco, the Sam Jones heroics, etc. This may have been John Havlicek's best career moment. He gets the tiebreaker. Hondo will be in my top five, alongside Oscar, West, Wilt, and Russell. The gang is all here.

Not sure about the order yet.

[bastillon]

I think Elgin this year is a Carmelo Anthony who played worse in the playoffs than the real Melo probably ever has. He isn't making my list.

then how come Wilt is on your list when in fact he regressed even more than Baylor ? 14 PPG 51% TS after 20/56 in RS ? really ? not to mention his epic choke in the finals. no impact on the game... and I'm not exaggerating all that much.

Lucas can't make my list because he would have needed tiebreaker help. This is a strong year. He needs mention though. 18/18/4 on 55% shooting. He led the league in TS%, was top five in offensive win shares, and was sixth in PER. Pretty crazy.

I think you're too much boxscore-dependant. I see Lucas as David Lee/Amare type player who has great boxscore numbers but performs poorly in +/- stats... meaning his numbers don't translate to real wins.

I think John Havlicek deserves to go ahead of Reed, Frazier, and Nate this year. They are all similar level players, but Hondo put up an amazing playoffs and Finals performance. His performance gets overlooked because it is Russell's last title, West's year for Finals MVP, the game seven Wilt fiasco, the Sam Jones heroics, etc. This may have been John Havlicek's best career moment. He gets the tiebreaker. Hondo will be in my top five, alongside Oscar, West, Wilt, and Russell. The gang is all here.

if you put a lot of emphasis on playoff performance (and I know you do), then Wilt shouldn't be included on this list. not only Hondo, but also Reed, Frazier and Thurmond outplayed him in the playoffs.

I mean Reed for example outscored him by 12 pts, playing 5 mins less, and outshot him by 5% (TS). that's a pretty significant difference.

[fatal9]

Jerry West interview after the finals:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=H_ ... 59,7404756

Wilt took a slight shot at West after the finals, saying Lakers worked "one man" ball too much. To that West replied, "I don't think Wilt made himself available to get the ball all the time." West defends Wilt from people who called Wilt a loser and a quitter, says he's better than Russell all-around, but I thought his one answer was really interesting...

"West surprised some of his listeners with his answer to which player he would choose over all others right now.
"Lew Alcindor," he said. "I've watched him play and he can do things no other center can do."
Even though Alcindor has never played a game in the NBA?
"That's right," West said.
And who would he pick for one game?
"Bill Russell," replied West. "I think Wilt Chamberlain is a better basketball player than Russell but for one game, I'd pick Russell."
Why?
"You'd have to be an athlete to know why," West said.

[ThaRegul8r]

significant things to know:
-Lakers record without West
-Celtics record without Russell = 0-5
-Baltimore DRtg the year before
-Lakers DRtg the year before

I hope Elgee can solve some of these problems regarding DRtg. perhaps Regulator knows the answer to the first question.

Here's what I've got:

West injured his right thigh in a 114-101 loss to Chicago Nov. 1, 1968.

1) 11/3/68 – 127-109 W @ Phoenix without both West, and Chamberlain, who was attending his father’s funeral. Baylor had 40 points, 14 rebounds and 12 assists (The Miami News, Nov. 4, 1968).
2) 11/5/68 – 112-109 OT W @ Chicago
3) 11/6/68 - 128-115 W over Milwaukee

West returned Nov. 8, 1968 in a 102-100 win over New York. “West had missed the last three games because of a leg injury” (New York Times, Nov. 9, 1968). Lakers went 3-0 during West's absence.

December 3, 1968, West “played his first game after sitting out three [games] with the flu” (The Milwaukee Journal, Dec. 4, 1968) in a 122-108 win over Phoenix.

1) 11/28/68 – 122-107 L @ Philadelphia. “After 11 lead changes, the host 76ers pulled away from the game's 16th tie at 71 with a 13-2 burst, and Los Angeles never recovered as Chamberlain managed only 13 points and 19 rebounds against his old mates, who he led to a world championship two years ago. The Lakers, too, were playing without Jerry West, who was sidelined with the flu” (The Owosso Argus-Press, Nov. 27, 1968). Billy Cunningham had 28, Luke Jackson 24. Baylor had a game-high 32 for LA.
2) 11/29/68 – 93-92 W @ Boston
3) 12/1/68 – 122-108 W over Milwaukee. Chamberlain with 35 points, 20 in the third quarter to set a LA Forum record for most points in a quarter (The Sumter Daily Item, Dec. 4, 1968).

Lakers went 2-1 during West's absence (5-1)

West was injured Jan. 4, 1969 in a 121-111 win at Atlanta.

1) 1/7/69 – 100-93 W @ Baltimore, Baylor with 30 points, six in the last 1½ minutes, Chamberlain with 15 points and 18 rebounds
2) 1/10/69 – 88-82 L @ Boston
3) 1/11/69 – 104-100 L @ Atlanta

Lakers went 1-2 in West's absence (6-3).

Jan. 29, 1969, West “suffered a pulled hamstring muscle late in the third quarter” of a 122-120 W @ San Diego “and will be sidelined indefinitely” (Prescott Evening Courier, Jan. 30, 1969).

1) 1/31/69 – 105-104 W over Milwaukee
2) 2/1/69 – 106-101 OT W @ SF. “It was the Lakers' fifth straight victory and. moreover, the win gave the team a psychological boost as it accomplished without the injured Jerry West” (Los Angeles Times, Feb. 2, 1969).
3) 2/2/69 – 122-117 3OT L to SF
4) 2/3/69 – 114-104 L @ Seattle

Feb. 7, West returned to the lineup “making his first appearance in a week” (The Free Lance Star, Feb 8, 1969) and scored 34 in a 109-106 loss to Philadelphia. Lakers went 2-2 in West's absence (8-5).

Feb. 8, West reinjured his left leg in a 122-104 win over Phoenix. West missed eight consecutive games from February 9, 1969 to February 23, 1969:

1) 2/9/69 – 134-116 W over Phoenix
2) 2/12/69 – 109-92 W @ Seattle
3) 2/14/69 – 115-109 W over San Diego, Johnny Egan filling in for West and scoring 28, Chamberlain and Baylor with 25 each (Ellensburg Daily Record, Feb. 12, 1969)
4) 2/16/69 – 106-97 L @ Milwaukee
5) 2/18/69 – 113-109 W @ New York
6) 2/19/69 – 110-88 L @ Baltimore
7) 2/21/69 – 124-102 L to Boston
8) 2/23/69 – 125-121 L to Philadelphia

The Lakers went 4-4 in West's absence (12-9, .571).

The Lakers' record was 12-9 over the 21 games West missed

[bastillon]

great job, we need more posters like you. would you mind doing the same for Oscar '70 and '68 just to put it all in context ?

maybe Elgee can do his +/- magic ?

sorry guys for asking you to do all of this, but honestly I have no idea how to do these things.