Retro POY '68-69 (Voting Complete)

[TrueLAfan]

We've been having terrific, well-thought out debate on here, guys--and points have been made with respect and courtesy. Let's not change that now.

[Sedale Threatt]

now, getting back to Celtics offense. it's a mistruth that Russell had all-world offensive support. first of all, Celtics were most years below average on offense, sometimes just downright league's bottom IIRC. (that's if you look at their ORTG, not PPG inflated by pace) if those stars were really as good as advertised then Celtics would be at least above average, and more likely, one of the league leaders in that regard. that was just... not what happened.

If the Celtics had been as good as they were on offense as defense, than neither the Sixers nor the Lakers would have been able to even challenge them. So I'm not saying the offensive support was all-world. I am saying it was, at the very least, more good enough to offset Russell's one flaw.

As I just stated, had they had to rely on him for volume scoring, as every other franchise center in the game was expected to bring, the Celtics wouldn't have had nearly as much success. They probably still would have won numerous titles, but they wouldn't have won any 11 in 13 seasons. Absolutely no way in hell.

Besides -- and I'm asking this with complete respect -- how much can those poor rankings be attributed to Bill, at least partially?

[Sedale Threatt]

Apropos of nothing --

I'm finally reading, and enjoying, Simmons' Book of Basketball. I read his case for Russell over Wilt, and thought it was good, although I've also seen it picked apart pretty decisively elsewhere.

But one thing that confused me -- later in the book, when he picked his all-time team, he went with Jordan, Frazier, Bird, DeBusschere and...Wilt Chamberlain!?!?!

[semi-sentient]

Regular Season

Code: Select all

Player          GP  MIN   PTS   TS%   REB   AST   PER   WS
============================================================
West            61  39.2  25.9  .557   4.3  6.9   22.3  10.8
Wilt            81  45.3  20.5  .564  21.1  4.5   21.9  14.7
Unseld          82  36.2  13.8  .515  18.2  2.6   18.1  10.7
Russell         77  42.7   9.9  .467  19.3  4.9   15.2  10.9
Reed            82  37.9  21.1  .562  14.5  2.3   21.4  14.7
Frazier         80  36.9  17.5  .560   6.2  7.9   20.2  12.7
Robertson       79  43.8  24.7  .579   6.4  9.8   21.8  12.9

Post Season

Code: Select all

Player          GP  MIN   PTS   TS%   REB   AST   PER   WS
============================================================
West            18  42.1  30.9  .542   3.9  7.5   25.2  4.3
Wilt            18  46.2  13.9  .518  24.7  2.6   18.5  3.1
Unseld           4  41.3  18.8  .574  18.5  1.3   20.7  0.5
Russell         18  46.1  10.8  .448  20.5  5.4   15.3  1.4
Reed            10  42.9  25.7  .562  14.1  1.9   22.0  2.2
Frazier         10  41.5  21.2  .525   7.4  9.1   21.3  1.7
Robertson       -------------------------------------------

Awards Recognition / Misc

Code: Select all

Player          MVP     All-NBA   All-Defense    Team Record
============================================================
West            ---     2nd       2nd            55-27
Wilt            ---     ---       ---            55-27
Unseld          1st     1st       ---            57-25
Russell         4th     ---       1st            48-34
Reed            2nd     2nd       ---            54-28
Frazier         ---     ---       1st            54-28
Robertson       ---     1st       ---            41-41

The top 3 seem pretty clear cut to me -- West, Russell, and Reed. After that it's looking like Unseld who was the regular season MVP (although I'm a little skeptical of that). He did step his game up big time in the playoffs against Reed while his teammates kind of sucked (Frazier deserves credit here for his defense). The final spot is between Robertson, Wilt, and Frazier at the moment. I'd like to hear more about some of the other candidates as it seems thus far a good chunk of the discussions have been about Wilt. Robertson might be a hard sell because he wasn't in the post-season, and I'm not sure if he was dominating enough to really get the nod here. Frazier, as mentioned in an earlier article, was voted the best defensive player this season so that should be considered. His numbers are definitely good enough to deserve a ranking. Wilt, with his relatively poor post-season, is looking like a long shot to make it in my list.

BTW, pretty interesting that the only Laker player to receive any MVP consideration was Elgin Baylor. His was kind of horrible in the post-season though so that kind of takes him out of the picture. I'm not sure what to do with Havlicek. He had a nice post-season run, but his RS numbers are kind of poopie. I don't feel comfortable leaving him off, but I don't feel right having him over some of these other guys either.

Final Rankings:

1) Jerry West
2) Bill Russell
3) Willis Reed
4) Wes Unseld
5) Walt Frazier

HM: Wilt, Oscar, Havlicek, Baylor, Cunningham

[bastillon]

now, getting back to Celtics offense. it's a mistruth that Russell had all-world offensive support. first of all, Celtics were most years below average on offense, sometimes just downright league's bottom IIRC. (that's if you look at their ORTG, not PPG inflated by pace) if those stars were really as good as advertised then Celtics would be at least above average, and more likely, one of the league leaders in that regard. that was just... not what happened.

If the Celtics had been as good as they were on offense as defense, than neither the Sixers nor the Lakers would have been able to even challenge them. So I'm not saying the offensive support was all-world. I am saying it was, at the very least, more good enough to offset Russell's one flaw.

As I just stated, had they had to rely on him for volume scoring, as every other franchise center in the game was expected to bring, the Celtics wouldn't have had nearly as much success. They probably still would have won numerous titles, but they wouldn't have won any 11 in 13 seasons. Absolutely no way in hell.

Besides -- and I'm asking this with complete respect -- how much can those poor rankings be attributed to Bill, at least partially?

so that's why I like +/-. let's simplify this and think of it as two sides of the court seperately. now Russell makes a decent group of defenders a dominating force that is like 2 ballparks above everyone else. that literally means he has much more defensive impact than, say, Steve Nash (who orchestrated the best offenses ever) on offense. now Nash is obviously nowhere near his level, but try to imagine that Nash's adjusted plus minus which accounts for his defense, puts him in conversation with guys like Bryant (a little below, but nvm). so what we have is someone like Nash whose defense significantly affected in a bad way his ratings, is a legit TOP5-7 player the last couple of years. try to envision that Russell's defensive impact is WELL beyond Nash's according to Elgee's numbers and assuming that Celtics w/o Russell are just average on D. so Russell dominates one side of the ball more than any player ever (more than MJ or Magic on offense alone)... and it's not even close.

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.

now remember that Nash's value was significantly poor by his poor defensive APM ratings and Russell's offense rather adds to his value and I'd say that it's not that little (shooting high % for his era, offensive rebounding, fastbreaks, assists, relatively low TOVs from what I've seen). combine his all-time #1 by far defensive impact and his somewhat limited, but still positive offensive contributions and you have a beast.

now aside from that APM thinking and back to the supporting cast argument. how do you think Russell's star teammates corresponded to lg avg in comparison to Magic's star teammates to their lg avg ? don't you think that Pippen '96 vs avg 2nd option '96 was much more than, say, Sam Jones '65 vs avg 2nd best '65 ? or Worthy for Magic in late 80s, or Magic for Kareem in '80, or Oscar for Kareem in '71... I mean it's not like other TOP10 players didn't have the same luxury Russell had. and it's not like Wilt didn't have uber-talented teams '65-'73 when he won only 2 titles as opposed to NOT WINNING 2 in 13 years.

don't you think that this impact of Celtics so-called stars was overrated by contemporary observers just to justify the way Boston is tearing the league apart ? I mean if all of these support was responsible for offense and had little-to-nothing to do with their defense, then how come are they below average ? you'd think that so many stars would at least make your team decent on offense and yet they weren't ? or do you think Russell was the reason they were below average because he contributed negatively ?

the way I see it is that Russell was responsible for their defense and that's the only reason why they won. think of Magic, but he did have above average team defense bc his defensive support was easily better than Russell's offensive. so that's how I perceive it, I'm hoping it's somewhat clear.

[semi-sentient]

I'm not sure if I'm buying that Russell had a bigger impact on defense than Magic had on offense, at least not by a significant margin. Russell was responsible for the most dominating defenses of the 60's, but Magic was responsible for the most dominating offenses during the 80's. 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 respect. That's a whole different argument and I don't want to side track things, but that's my view.

[JordansBulls]

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

[bastillon]

I'm not sure if I'm buying that Russell had a bigger impact on defense than Magic had on offense, at least not by a significant margin. Russell was responsible for the most dominating defenses of the 60's, but Magic was responsible for the most dominating offenses during the 80's. 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 respect. That's a whole different argument and I don't want to side track things, but that's my view.

okay, let's put it this way:
80s Lakers have one of the most dominating offenses ever relative to lg average
60s Celtics have 5 (?Elgee help me here?) the most dominating defenses ever rel to lg avg

so while the Lakers dominated their era, just like 60s were dominated by Russ, it wasn't in the same fashion. I think the differences are really huge. Lakers were like 112 instead of 106 (lg avg) on offense. Celtics were ~90 for 98-99 on defense. not really that close, especially if you go by the percentages here.

[bastillon]

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.

[Sedale Threatt]

so that's why I like +/-. let's simplify this and think of it as two sides of the court seperately. now Russell makes a decent group of defenders a dominating force that is like 2 ballparks above everyone else. that literally means he has much more defensive impact than, say, Steve Nash (who orchestrated the best offenses ever) on offense. now Nash is obviously nowhere near his level, but try to imagine that Nash's adjusted plus minus which accounts for his defense, puts him in conversation with guys like Bryant (a little below, but nvm). so what we have is someone like Nash whose defense significantly affected in a bad way his ratings, is a legit TOP5-7 player the last couple of years. try to envision that Russell's defensive impact is WELL beyond Nash's according to Elgee's numbers and assuming that Celtics w/o Russell are just average on D. so Russell dominates one side of the ball more than any player ever (more than MJ or Magic on offense alone)... and it's not even close.

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.

now remember that Nash's value was significantly poor by his poor defensive APM ratings and Russell's offense rather adds to his value and I'd say that it's not that little (shooting high % for his era, offensive rebounding, fastbreaks, assists, relatively low TOVs from what I've seen). combine his all-time #1 by far defensive impact and his somewhat limited, but still positive offensive contributions and you have a beast.

now aside from that APM thinking and back to the supporting cast argument. how do you think Russell's star teammates corresponded to lg avg in comparison to Magic's star teammates to their lg avg ? don't you think that Pippen '96 vs avg 2nd option '96 was much more than, say, Sam Jones '65 vs avg 2nd best '65 ? or Worthy for Magic in late 80s, or Magic for Kareem in '80, or Oscar for Kareem in '71... I mean it's not like other TOP10 players didn't have the same luxury Russell had. and it's not like Wilt didn't have uber-talented teams '65-'73 when he won only 2 titles as opposed to NOT WINNING 2 in 13 years.

don't you think that this impact of Celtics so-called stars was overrated by contemporary observers just to justify the way Boston is tearing the league apart ? I mean if all of these support was responsible for offense and had little-to-nothing to do with their defense, then how come are they below average ? you'd think that so many stars would at least make your team decent on offense and yet they weren't ? or do you think Russell was the reason they were below average because he contributed negatively ?

the way I see it is that Russell was responsible for their defense and that's the only reason why they won. think of Magic, but he did have above average team defense bc his defensive support was easily better than Russell's offensive. so that's how I perceive it, I'm hoping it's somewhat clear.

This basically discounts any and all contributions from the other players, then. He might as well have been out there with four warm bodies.

As opposed to:

Bob Cousy, widely regarded as the first modern point guard, and a player won won an MVP award and finished in the top five in voting nine other times. Yeah, his shooting sucked, but that was the era. He had two seasons where he finished first in assists and second in scoring, and led the league in assists six other times. He had one of the epic playoff games of all time, scoring 50 points in a quadruple OT victory over Syracuse.

Conservative conclusion -- he was good.

Bill Sharman, widely regarded as the league's best shooter during his career. He retired with the best shooting percentage of any guard with more than 500 games played. He was named to the NBA's silver anniversary team selected in 1971 (along with Cousy). He went on to become one of the league's best coaches, which speaks to his head for the game. And he was also recognized as one of the better, more physical defenders of his era.

Conservative conclusion -- he was good.

Sam Jones, widely regarded as one of the more clutch performers in playoff history. Averaged 30 ppg in eight games as a starter in deciding playoff games. He hit numerous game winners, including Game 7 against Philly in 62 and Game 4 against L.A. in '69. Outscored Oscar Robertson 47-43 in Game 7 in 1963. Had 37 in the "Havlicek steals the ball" game. Said Russell, "In a seventh game of a championship series, I'll take Sam over anyone who's ever walked on a court."

Conservative conclusion -- he was good.

Tommy Heinsohn, whom Bill Simmons (a noted Celtics homer, but still knowledgeable) described as "probably the best all-around forward other then Pettit and Baylor from '57 to '64." Was regularly giving the Celtics 20/9 in the playoffs as their third- or fourth-best player. Had an epic playoff performance while matched up against Pettit in Game 7 of the '57 Finals with 37 points and 23 rebounds -- as a rookie.

Conservative conclusion -- he was good.

And then there's Havlicek, who needs no description here. He was better than all of them, a legitimate Top 20 player on both ends of the court.

This doesn't include the guys like Bailey Howell and Frank Ramsey that he played with for a couple of seasons, or were past their prime, and who were probably overrated for their affiliation with the Celtics. This is the core, which Russell for much or all of their prime, throughout his career.

At no point did he ever set foot on the court without at least two of them. In some instances, he had more than that. At one point, the Celtics had seven -- seven!!! -- Hall of Famers at varying stages of their career, not including Auerbach on the bench. Which is what makes the Pippen or Worthy comparisons useless. This wasn't about No. 2 guys. This was about the teams, which were deep even for the era.

So you'll have to forgive me when I see those guys downplayed, or we rely on formulas and statistical analysis to conclude that they weren't important. That makes zero intuitive sense.

I'm sorry, but while Bill Russell was the reason those Celtics teams won, he was not the only reason. Like I said, if they'd had to rely on him for volume scoring, that team's fortunes would have been substantially different.

[bastillon]

This doesn't include the guys like Bailey Howell and Frank Ramsey that he played with for a couple of seasons, or were past their prime. This is the core, which Russell for most or all of their prime, throughout his career. At no point did he ever set foot on the court without at least two of them. In some instances, he had more than that.

and yet, even with Russell's help, they couldn't form together an average offensive unit. that tells you about their impact vs conservative conclusions. once upon a time there was a conservative conclusion that the earth was flat. just saying.

[Sedale Threatt]

If it all came down to that, there would be no point in having these discussions. Just cram it all into a calculation, or rely on the one that best supports our argument, refuse to acknowledge any other factors, and live with the results. We've all been wasting our time, then.

EDIT -- Hell, I even busted my ass to come up with a formula that supported the notion that Russell had better teammates, and that was dismissed as well.

[JordansBulls]

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.

[bastillon]

If it all came down to that, there would be no point in having these discussions. Just cram it all into a calculation, or rely on the one that best supports our argument, refuse to acknowledge any other factors, and live with the results. We've all been wasting our time, then.

EDIT -- Hell, I even busted my ass to come up with a formula that supported the notion that Russell had better teammates, and that was dismissed as well.

now tell me who is guilty of commiting this. perhaps you're doing just that ?

think about it, if Russell's offensive support was so great then why were there only below average ? basically you've got 2 viable explanations:
1) Russell is so bad on offense that he's hurting his team
2) his teammates have always been overrated

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

no, because this game wasn't played 1 by 1. it was all the time 5 vs 5 and Russell didn't lower one's average, he drastically lowered opp team average. that's how he impacted the game and can be seen in Celts' #1 defensive rating (by a significant margin, make no mistake).

[Sedale Threatt]

now tell me who is guilty of commiting this. perhaps you're doing just that ?

think about it, if Russell's offensive support was so great then why were there only below average ? basically you've got 2 viable explanations:
1) Russell is so bad on offense that he's hurting his team
2) his teammates have always been overrated

What, cramming things through a formula and living with the results? I don't think I've ever done that. I'm also pretty sure that I'm going to be a bit more flexible in this particular comparison than some others, regardless of their position.

And regarding the choices, I think I'd go with 1 before 2. Or better yet, 3 -- that these ratings, like any other, are imperfect and should be taken with a grain of salt.

[bastillon]

so you believe that Celtics offense was in fact above average ?

[Dr Positivity]

Apropos of nothing --

I'm finally reading, and enjoying, Simmons' Book of Basketball. I read his case for Russell over Wilt, and thought it was good, although I've also seen it picked apart pretty decisively elsewhere.

But one thing that confused me -- later in the book, when he picked his all-time team, he went with Jordan, Frazier, Bird, DeBusschere and...Wilt Chamberlain!?!?!

Wasn't his list. That interlude was written by William Goldman.

If I remember correctly Simmons goes with the standard Magic, Jordan, Bird, Duncan, Kareem for the all-time starting 5, later in the book

[Dr Positivity]

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Willis Reed
5. Jerry West

With a full season West tops this list. But not 61 games. So it goes to Russell who still anchored the league's best d, coached his team, and had enough leadership and competitiveness for the Celtics to get up for one last title against hungry Knicks and Lakers teams. I can't put Oscar and Wilt over Russell this year. Better at basketball maybe, but I don't trust them. If I could choose a player between the 3 to try and win with, I'd take Russell

Oscar and Wilt are as potent as West in skillset and stats - they are as good at basketball per se - But I like West more cause of his demeanour. Nevertheless the gap is close enough for Oscar and Wilt to get the edge with the huge GP difference. Between the two I chose the dominant big Wilt. Wilt had the Game 7 injury, but had played very well in the game up to that point. I think Wilt gets a tough rap for this season cause Russell beat him again, the Game 7 exit, not making the Lakers any better... all of which arguably is not his fault. He is still a dominant player.

As for Oscar the 41 Ws doesn't look good but Cinci's league's best ORTG made me think twice about degrading his impact. Certainly that ORTG makes more sense for a 25ppg, 10apg PG. However perhaps if Oscar had "pulling together" leadership, his teammates put more effort in defensively... Sometimes I feel the same way about Chris Paul. The last two years his Hornet teammates have floated and collected paycheques, leading to underwhelming results compared to talent level IMO. While it's not Paul's fault they're losers, I wonder if he's not at least a little to blame. You look at the Spurs and Thunder's culture around Duncan/Durant, their supporting casts completley buy into effort and winning. So is it purely the roster makeup, or is Paul missing a leading my team to bonding element, or doing too much himself which lets others tune out? Maybe a bit of both. I feel the same way about Oscar here. Certainly one of the league's best players still and the Royals problems were always defense, not the great offenses he produced. But his help certainly didn't carry itself like Russell's - and a portion of it is likely his fault for being Oscar the grouch

And after thinking it over, I had to put Reed above West too. Again much like Kareem's 65 G '75 (which he got slammed for), the 61 games just makes it difficult to pick West over all these guys. Reed is still relatively close to the league's best player putting up 21, 14 with good defense and floor spacing and anchored an elite team clearly as the man this time. So if West is slightly better, it's not enough to make up for the regular season GP difference.

HM: Cunningham - Fantastic work anchoring a 55 W team without Wilt, just a tough year to crack the top 5. Unseld - MVP, turned his team around, but again not at that level. Havlicek - Big role on title team, not big enough. Baylor - Good RS stats

[Sedale Threatt]

Apropos of nothing --

I'm finally reading, and enjoying, Simmons' Book of Basketball. I read his case for Russell over Wilt, and thought it was good, although I've also seen it picked apart pretty decisively elsewhere.

But one thing that confused me -- later in the book, when he picked his all-time team, he went with Jordan, Frazier, Bird, DeBusschere and...Wilt Chamberlain!?!?!

Wasn't his list. That interlude was written by William Goldman.

If I remember correctly Simmons goes with the standard Magic, Jordan, Bird, Duncan, Kareem for the all-time starting 5, later in the book

Yeah, you're right. Good catch. This is my toilet tome for the next six months, so that and the format lends itself to skipping around. But I still should have figured something was up.

[Sedale Threatt]

so you believe that Celtics offense was in fact above average ?

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.