yardbarker

Retro POY '68-69 (Voting Complete)

Moderators: tsherkin, Doctor MJ, nate33, penbeast0, rrravenred

Post#16 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:28 pm by Doctor MJ

Sedale Threatt wrote:So none of those guys could play a little bit, huh? Sam Jones, Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy and Tommy Heinsohn all made it into the Hall of Fame simply because they played next to Bill Russell? Didn't have anything to do with them? I guess Auerbach was a half-assed coach and talent evaluator as well.


I'm inclined to look at the early Celtics as stacked compared to the competition. I look at the Celtics post-Cousy though, and while I'm not saying they didn't have supporting talent, is it really clearly better than the other stars had?
In 2007
The rule is the rule. It's not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of correctness.

In 2014
People just misunderstand...You’ve got to use some common sense, too.

I,for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
Doctor MJ



Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 31,893
And1: 2,133
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for Kicks!
Top

Post#17 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:38 pm by ThaRegul8r

Sedale Threatt wrote:
ThaRegul8r wrote:Prior to 1980, only two other Celtics besides Russell were in the Hall of Fame—Bob Cousy, elected in 1970, seven years after his retirement in his second year of eligibility, and Bill Sharman, elected in 1976, 15 years after his retirement in his ninth year of eligibility. After 1980—when Russell was voted the greatest player of all time, six Celtics from those teams were inducted to the Hall: Frank Ramsey in 1981, 17 years after his retirement in his 11th year of eligibility; John Havlicek in 1984, six years after his retirement in his first year of eligibility; Sam Jones in 1984, 15 years after his retirement in his ninth year of eligibility; Tom Heinsohn in 1986, 21 years after his retirement in his 15th year of eligibility; K.C. Jones in 1989, 22 years after his retirement in his 16th year of eligibility; and Bailey Howell in 1997, 26 years after his retirement in his 20th year of eligibility. (Hall of Famer Clyde Lovellette played on Boston in 1962-63 and ’63-64, but played only 9.3 and 9.7 minutes per game—he made the Hall for his play on Minneapolis and St. Louis.)

Havlicek was a bona fide HoFer, and made it first ballot. However, look at the others. Any coincidence that the majority didn't make the hall until after Russell was named GOAT? Look at how long it took. What made them HoFers when they never were before? Some of them weren't even All-Stars during their careers. They just got in under Russell.


So none of those guys could play a little bit, huh? Sam Jones, Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy and Tommy Heinsohn all made it into the Hall of Fame simply because they played next to Bill Russell? Didn't have anything to do with them? I guess Auerbach was a half-assed coach and talent evaluator as well.


Nice strawman. And evidently you missed that Sharman and Cousy were among those who were in the Hall before 1980. You also conveniently fail to address the fact that—aside from Havlicek, who as I said, was a bona fide Hall of Famer and went in on the first ballot—the majority of the '60s Celtics in the Hall didn't make it until after Russell was named GOAT. How do you explain this? Put emotion aside, and advance a rational argument to account for why these other players weren't HoFers for a decade or more, but somehow they improved their resumes to HoF status. And why—again, I reiterate, with the exception of Havlicek, who was an obvious first ballot HoFer—did most of the players from that team who are in the Hall not enter until after Russel was officially pronounced the Greatest Player in NBA History.
THE REGULATOR
"I'm not the showstopper, I'm RUNNING the show!"

I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters
ThaRegul8r


Analyst
User avatar
Posts: 3,743
And1: 751
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
Top

Post#18 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:43 pm by Doctor MJ

Reg & other Russell proponents, thoughts on West vs Russell? That's going to be my debate.

West seems like he was just off the charts in the finals. Do you still think Russell was better?
In 2007
The rule is the rule. It's not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of correctness.

In 2014
People just misunderstand...You’ve got to use some common sense, too.

I,for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
Doctor MJ



Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 31,893
And1: 2,133
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for Kicks!
Top

Post#19 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:50 pm by bastillon

Sedale Threatt wrote:
So none of those guys could play a little bit, huh? Sam Jones, Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy and Tommy Heinsohn all made it into the Hall of Fame simply because they played next to Bill Russell? Didn't have anything to do with them? I guess Auerbach was a half-assed coach and talent evaluator as well.


Cousy no doubt was a HOFer given his status pre-Russell. I don't see any reason to believe Sharman, Jones or Heinsohn were locks for HOF though. I mean Sharman moreso, but it's because of the 50s racism rather than his actual skills... and still he was a 4-time all-star, 3-time all-NBA player before Russell came around. SGs like him are rather common - high scoring, perimeter oriented and one dimensional. do you really need to dig to find these ? pretty much the same applies to Sam Jones.

was it really that hard to find a shooting/scoring wing ? in an 8-team league almost every team had just as good or better guard: Oscar, West, Guerin, Greer, Monroe, Wilkens, Gene Shue, Dave Bing, Hudson... every single one of them played at some point in the 60s so it's not like Russell had this game-changing advantage bc of Jones. his backcourts were rather alright, but nothing to brag about (especially considering that KC Jones was a PG without a jumper so he was pretty bad).

and don't get me started on Heinsohn... poor rebounder, non existent on defense AND a chucker. seems more like a old school Jamison (only without rebounds and on worse efficiency). and again, there were numerous forwards that played at similar or higher level than Heinsohn: Pettit, Baylor, Schayes, Arizin, Barry, Bob Boozer, Cunningham, Lucas, Twyman. I don't see how Russell had any advantage here over any other team either.
Quotatious wrote: Bastillon is Hakeem. Combines style and substance.
bastillon
Head Coach
Posts: 6,545
And1: 227
Joined: Feb 13, 2009
Location: jumpin both feet on the Jeremy Lin bandwagon
Top

Post#20 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:56 pm by bastillon

Doctor MJ wrote:Reg & other Russell proponents, thoughts on West vs Russell? That's going to be my debate.

West seems like he was just off the charts in the finals. Do you still think Russell was better?


Wilt was easily more than Havlicek and Baylor was easily more than KC Jones. I don't see how this is a question. West may have been more productive player in boxscore, but it was Russell's non-boxscore impact that made the difference in the end. his defense won the championship and proved to be more than West's offense.

it'd be hard for me to put West ahead of Russell in any season simply because I think Russell was on another planet all his career, and even on the twilight he won while having a significantly worse support. seriously, it's like comparing KAJ to Bryant.
Quotatious wrote: Bastillon is Hakeem. Combines style and substance.
bastillon
Head Coach
Posts: 6,545
And1: 227
Joined: Feb 13, 2009
Location: jumpin both feet on the Jeremy Lin bandwagon
Top

Post#21 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:21 pm by Sedale Threatt

Doctor MJ wrote:
Sedale Threatt wrote:So none of those guys could play a little bit, huh? Sam Jones, Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy and Tommy Heinsohn all made it into the Hall of Fame simply because they played next to Bill Russell? Didn't have anything to do with them? I guess Auerbach was a half-assed coach and talent evaluator as well.


I'm inclined to look at the early Celtics as stacked compared to the competition. I look at the Celtics post-Cousy though, and while I'm not saying they didn't have supporting talent, is it really clearly better than the other stars had?


Not by a huge margin. But when you've got a Top 5 player of all time, two or three other Hall of Famers, plus -- the one nobody ever wants to acknowledge -- arguably the greatest coach and the greatest general manager ever, you're not dealing with a bunch of deadbeats.

Even though I'll definitely agree that Wilt should have done more over the latter half of his career. He left at least two championships on the table, with this year being one of them. Whereas Bill obviously made the most of everything he had.
JF5 wrote:Real fans don't cry about refs.


http://wtfismikewearing.tumblr.com/
Sedale Threatt
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 22,602
And1: 1,123
Joined: Feb 6, 2007
Location: Clearing space in the trophy case.
Top

Post#22 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:22 pm by penbeast0

To be fair, Cousy, Sharman, and the other Celtics who were stars when Russell arrived (even if not winners), were going to the Hall. Look at the 1950s players that made it . . . not quite the 84 Celtics lineup. 60s players are better but starting in the 50s and being the best player on your team for a year or two seems to be enough to make it.

Sure Things (Cousy, Havlicek):
George Mikan
Bob Pettit
Dolph Schayes
Elgin Baylor
Paul Arizin
Neil Johnston

Marginal (Sam Jones, Sharman, Heinsohn, Bailey Howell):
Ed MacCauley
Tom Gola
Cliff Hagan
Joe Fulks (maybe -- the Iverson of the 50s)
Jack Twyman
Clyde Lovellette
Harry Gallatin
Vern Mikkelson
George Yardley

Why did they elect this guy (Frank Ramsey, KC Jones)?
Andy Philip (9/4/5 career)
Bob Davies (14/3/5)
Chuck Cooper (7/6/2)
Jim Pollard (13/8/3)
Slater Martin (10/3/4)
Al Cervi (8/2/3)
Bobby Wanzer (12/5/3)
Bob Houbregs (9/6/2)
Dick McGuire (8/4/6)
Buddy Jeannette (7/-/2)
Arnie Risen (12/10/2)
[quote="Nivek"] This post could come only from a Wizards fan. It somehow combines delusional optimism with soul-crushing pessimism.
penbeast0
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
User avatar
Posts: 14,303
And1: 764
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: Hoping for a ride on the John Wall Bandwagon
Top

Post#23 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:23 pm by Doctor MJ

bastillon wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:Reg & other Russell proponents, thoughts on West vs Russell? That's going to be my debate.

West seems like he was just off the charts in the finals. Do you still think Russell was better?


Wilt was easily more than Havlicek and Baylor was easily more than KC Jones. I don't see how this is a question. West may have been more productive player in boxscore, but it was Russell's non-boxscore impact that made the difference in the end. his defense won the championship and proved to be more than West's offense.

it'd be hard for me to put West ahead of Russell in any season simply because I think Russell was on another planet all his career, and even on the twilight he won while having a significantly worse support. seriously, it's like comparing KAJ to Bryant.


That's a valid way to look at things.

With that said, it was pretty clear that Wilt really didn't jell with the Lakers that season - do you blame West for that when it could be argued it was completely the fault of Wilt & the coach?
In 2007
The rule is the rule. It's not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of correctness.

In 2014
People just misunderstand...You’ve got to use some common sense, too.

I,for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
Doctor MJ



Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 31,893
And1: 2,133
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for Kicks!
Top

Post#24 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:23 pm by penbeast0

Oh, and the greatest Coach is Phil Jackson -- Red is a decent choice for second though
[quote="Nivek"] This post could come only from a Wizards fan. It somehow combines delusional optimism with soul-crushing pessimism.
penbeast0
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
User avatar
Posts: 14,303
And1: 764
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: Hoping for a ride on the John Wall Bandwagon
Top

Post#25 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:47 pm by JordansBulls

Going to be tough to decide where to put Bill Russell this year. He had 2 teammates that were top 5 in Win Shares in the playoffs and he had 3 teammates that had a higher Win Share than he did in the playoffs and those same two teammates had a higher PER in the playoffs than Russell as well.

3. John Havlicek*-BOS 2.8
4. Willis Reed*-NYK 2.2
5. Don Nelson-BOS 1.8

Don Nelson this season simply had better overall numbers statistically than Russell did.

Jerry West - Finals MVP, Led in Playoff Win Shares, Win Shares PEr 48 Minutes, Led in Playoff PER. Led in Season PER as well.

Willis Reed - Led in Win Shares on the Season and Win Shares PER 48 Minutes, Was 4th in PER, 4th in Playoff Win Shares, 3rd in Win Shares Per 48 Minutes, 2nd in Playoff PER,

John Havlicek - 3rd in Playoff Win Shares

Don Nelson - 5th in Playoff Win Shares, 2nd in Win Shares PER 48 Minutes, 3rd in Playoff PER

3. John Havlicek*-BOS 2.8
4. Willis Reed*-NYK 2.2
5. Don Nelson-BOS 1.8

Image
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."
- Michael Jordan
JordansBulls
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 46,979
And1: 677
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: HCA (Homecourt Advantage)
Top

Post#26 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:47 pm by Sedale Threatt

ThaRegul8r wrote:Nice strawman. And evidently you missed that Sharman and Cousy were among those who were in the Hall before 1980. You also conveniently fail to address the fact that—aside from Havlicek, who as I said, was a bona fide Hall of Famer and went in on the first ballot—the majority of the '60s Celtics in the Hall didn't make it until after Russell was named GOAT. How do you explain this? Put emotion aside, and advance a rational argument to account for why these other players weren't HoFers for a decade or more, but somehow they improved their resumes to HoF status. And why—again, I reiterate, with the exception of Havlicek, who was an obvious first ballot HoFer—did most of the players from that team who are in the Hall not enter until after Russel was officially pronounced the Greatest Player in NBA History.


I didn't miss them, nor did I intentionally throw out a straw man. It's just that, isht, you've got three no-doubt Hall of Famers, plus a bunch of other guys who, if not first-ballot guys, were clearly top-flight players. How much more do you need? Even in an era where the talent was condensed this still stands out.

How do I explain Hall of Fame voting? Frankly, large gaps between induction and retirement don't seem all that unusual. Artis Gilmore and Dennis Rodman, both of whom are no-doubters in my mind, haven't gotten in, and Adrian Dantley only just did, 20-some years after retirement. You can make a decent case for guys like Jack Sikma and Kevin Johnson as well, and they'll probably never get in. In contrast, they seemingly bend over backwards to accommodate active coaches.

Instead of explaining that, I guess I'd counter by asking why anyone would be surprised that players like Sam Jones (five-time All-Star, 15,000 career points, hit numerous historic shots) and Tommy Heinsohn (six-time All-Star, 18.6 career ppg) would get in. In light of what they did individually and collectively, I think it's pretty obvious they deserved to get in.

And for the record, those are the guys I'm talking about, not the K.C. Joneses and Frank Ramseys of the world, although they were quality players as well. Even if you take very solid players like that out of the rotation, those teams were still awesome -- and the Celtics usually needed everything they had as they rarely steam-rolled the competition.

And then, of course, there's the one guy that I have yet to see a single pro-Russell poster acknowledge -- Arnold "Red" Auerbach, one of the great innovators, coaches and personnel managers of all time. The same guy who had the foresight not only to project Russell into the pro game but to tell him that his scoring average would never, ever be a factor in contract discussions.

Of all the blessings Bill received during his career in terms of support, that was far and away the biggest, and I never see anyone acknowledge this. In contrast, clowns like Dolph Schayes and Butch Van Breda Kolff might have had him coming off the bench, or buckled under to owners who probably would have shipped him out because he wasn't scoring enough.

I don't bring any this up to knock Russell (too much) as I consider him among the top five players ever despite having a pretty substantial hole in his game. In terms of leadership, competitiveness, defense, rebounding and shot blocking, he was about as good as it gets. I'm going to vote for him this year, and at least four or five others.

But consider this -- in their head-to-head series, regular season and postseason, Wilt outscored and out-rebounded Russell every single time. Not most of the time. Every single one, during 10 regular seasons and eight postseasons. Obviously, there's a hell of a lot more to the game than just these two areas, most of which Russell was masterful.

But what does this tell me? Russell was getting a lot of good, quality help to beat Wilt, and win championships, as often as he did. Certainly he was Reason No. 1. But there were more than enough others that I zero doubt that Bill was the most blessed player in NBA history.
JF5 wrote:Real fans don't cry about refs.


http://wtfismikewearing.tumblr.com/
Sedale Threatt
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 22,602
And1: 1,123
Joined: Feb 6, 2007
Location: Clearing space in the trophy case.
Top

Post#27 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:54 pm by Sedale Threatt

penbeast0 wrote:Oh, and the greatest Coach is Phil Jackson -- Red is a decent choice for second though


Serviceable.
JF5 wrote:Real fans don't cry about refs.


http://wtfismikewearing.tumblr.com/
Sedale Threatt
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 22,602
And1: 1,123
Joined: Feb 6, 2007
Location: Clearing space in the trophy case.
Top

Post#28 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 7:14 pm by ElGee

The Celtics won because of Russell's defensive dominance. It took me a while to realize no one since Russell -- perhaps a combination of rules changes and style and talent pool and Russell's ability -- changed the game defensive the way he did. Boston wasn't a very good offensive team. We remember and celebrate their players because they kept playing in games and having big moments and winning championships.

Russell's defensive impact from this post viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1048645#p24805153

ElGee wrote:Let's start with Bill Russell's famed Boston Celtic defense. Included is the year before he joined the team and the year after he left. The league rank also includes the number of teams (eg 1/8 is first of 8 teams).

Boston Celtics Drtg
Code: Select all
      Drtg   Rank   Diff from League Avg.    Diff from 2nd place
1956   90.4   6/8   -1.5                      -
--------------------------------------------------------
1957   82.4   1/8   4.8                      2.5
1958   82.0   1/8   5.2                      3.9
1959   83.0   1/8   5.8                      4.4
1960   83.9   1/8   6.2                      1.8
1961   83.0   1/8   8.2                      4.6
1962   84.3   1/8   8.7                      6.3
1963   86.6   1/9   9.0                      6.1
1964   82.7   1/9   11.5                     5.6
1965   83.1   1/9   9.9                      8.1
1966   87.3   1/9   7.1                      4.0
1967   90.8   1/10  4.9                      1.7
1968   92.0   2/12  4.6                      -
1969   88.4   1/14  6.8                      2.8
------------------------------------------------------------
1970   98.5   7/16  0.6                      -


(1) The Celtics led the league in defense in 12 of Russells' 13 years
(2) From 1958-1966 they dominated the league defensively like no team I can find for a 9 year period
(3) From 1961-1965 the ran off 5 consecutive historically dominant seasons. Look at those numbers.
(4) Before Russell they were a bottom defensive team and immediately jumped 6.3 relative points and 8.0 raw points to the top.
(5) After Russell they dropped to the middle of the pack, losing 6.2 relative points and 10.1 raw points.

According to Neil's method at B-R, who is slightly underestimating Boston's pace relative to the simple method (because he's assuming fewer turnovers are in play), those uber-dominant Celtics teams are the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th best defensive teams of all time, relative to competition. And there's nothing remotely comparable in NBA history for such sustained defensive dominance.


That's staggering defensive dominance. And he may not have been as good, on offense or defense as he was from 61-65, but they still won the NBA championship in 1969 with defense.

Will weigh in on how I think that compares with West later...
ElGee
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,850
And1: 754
Joined: Mar 7, 2010
Top

Post#29 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 7:21 pm by bastillon

ElGee wrote:The Celtics won because of Russell's defensive dominance. It took me a while to realize no one since Russell -- perhaps a combination of rules changes and style and talent pool and Russell's ability -- changed the game defensive the way he did. Boston wasn't a very good offensive team. We remember and celebrate their players because they kept playing in games and having big moments and winning championships.

Russell's defensive impact from this post viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1048645#p24805153

ElGee wrote:Let's start with Bill Russell's famed Boston Celtic defense. Included is the year before he joined the team and the year after he left. The league rank also includes the number of teams (eg 1/8 is first of 8 teams).

Boston Celtics Drtg
Code: Select all
      Drtg   Rank   Diff from League Avg.    Diff from 2nd place
1956   90.4   6/8   -1.5                      -
--------------------------------------------------------
1957   82.4   1/8   4.8                      2.5
1958   82.0   1/8   5.2                      3.9
1959   83.0   1/8   5.8                      4.4
1960   83.9   1/8   6.2                      1.8
1961   83.0   1/8   8.2                      4.6
1962   84.3   1/8   8.7                      6.3
1963   86.6   1/9   9.0                      6.1
1964   82.7   1/9   11.5                     5.6
1965   83.1   1/9   9.9                      8.1
1966   87.3   1/9   7.1                      4.0
1967   90.8   1/10  4.9                      1.7
1968   92.0   2/12  4.6                      -
1969   88.4   1/14  6.8                      2.8
------------------------------------------------------------
1970   98.5   7/16  0.6                      -


(1) The Celtics led the league in defense in 12 of Russells' 13 years
(2) From 1958-1966 they dominated the league defensively like no team I can find for a 9 year period
(3) From 1961-1965 the ran off 5 consecutive historically dominant seasons. Look at those numbers.
(4) Before Russell they were a bottom defensive team and immediately jumped 6.3 relative points and 8.0 raw points to the top.
(5) After Russell they dropped to the middle of the pack, losing 6.2 relative points and 10.1 raw points.

According to Neil's method at B-R, who is slightly underestimating Boston's pace relative to the simple method (because he's assuming fewer turnovers are in play), those uber-dominant Celtics teams are the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th best defensive teams of all time, relative to competition. And there's nothing remotely comparable in NBA history for such sustained defensive dominance.


That's staggering defensive dominance. And he may not have been as good, on offense or defense as he was from 61-65, but they still won the NBA championship in 1969 with defense.

Will weigh in on how I think that compares with West later...


I've been waiting for this... great stuff.
Quotatious wrote: Bastillon is Hakeem. Combines style and substance.
bastillon
Head Coach
Posts: 6,545
And1: 227
Joined: Feb 13, 2009
Location: jumpin both feet on the Jeremy Lin bandwagon
Top

Post#30 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:12 pm by Dr Positivity

IMO Cousy, Havlicek, Jones, Sharman make the HOF without Russell. With that said in an 8 team league, more talent should be expected. Oscar had Jerry Lucas, Jack Twyman, Wayne Embry, West had Baylor, Wilt had less than most early, but loaded up post 65. For the most part, stars had other stars.

I'd argue one reason for Russell's dominance is that an 8 team league was perfect for him. Stars in a 30 team league are surrounded by weak talent, and thus are expected to carry teams themselves offensively. In the 60s with more offensive all-star buildup, the guy you want is Russell cause he's such a great fit with them and because with nobody else playing defense - that impact is much harder to replicate. Whereas for example in the early 60s there was West, Baylor, Wilt, Oscar, Pettit among superstar offensive players, that's 5 for 8 teams. And that doesn't include a guy like Bellamy superstar numbers with questionable impact, or some other 20 PER guys like Howell and Heinsohn. So the ratio of star offensive players compared to teams is way, way smaller than it is today. But there was still only 1 signature defensive star. And he just happened to win the most. I think Russell had the most marginal utility of all the stars in this era because of those misshappen ratios

With that said for this particular year most of this is irrelevant - cause the Celtics did not have more talent than the Lakers or Knicks, among other players sure to make lists
Dr Positivity




RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 31,501
And1: 1,212
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
Top

Post#31 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:12 pm by TrueLAfan

1. Jerry West. The Logo again. The Lakers were an ill-fitting team with a horrible coach. Baylor liked to set up in the low post where Wilt usually played. And Wilt was asked to move...which he did. It was not a good way to set up the offense; none of the players were really happy. Van Breda Kolff was unusually poor with players (sort of the Anti Phil Jackson) and was openly insubordinate to Laker management. The one who did the most to smooth things over and make things work was Jerry West. And when he was needed in the playoffs, he came through in spades. He missed time during the season, But as I've come understand how truly wretched and unhappy this Laker team was, my respect for West has grown. His intangibles outweigh Russell's, in my book. He had more obstacles to overcome and came thisclose doing just that.

2. Bill Russell. All he did was win and get his team to win. Those intangibles are priceless. Still a great rebounder, passer, and defender--nice points by ElGee. His Finals are overrated, but you give Russell credit for the outcome here too. I truly think the Celtics wanted to win for Russell; they wanted it more than the Lakers (except for West).

3. Wes Unseld. Well, I think his year was overrated to some degree. I think that a lot of his teammates had really good years in 1969, and it coincided with one of his best (probably his best) year. But, still...the team went up by 21 games. And in the PS, Earl the Pearl got smothered by Frazier, and Unseld was awesome against Reed. So Wes goes here.

4. Wilt Chamberlain. You can't pin the Game 7 loss on Wilt. Wilt, who had come out of the game after banging his knee hard, asked to go back in less than two minutes later. The Lakers didn't win because Butch Van Breda Kolff wouldn't let him go back in. At the time, Wilt was 7-8 from the field and had 18 points and 26 boards (Russell finished with 6 points and 21 rebounds, and went 4-13 from the field.). I think Russell was really great in the run up to Finals, and more or less played Wilt dead even up to Game 7. But I think Wilt had a (much) better Game 7 and was kept out by a circumstance beyond his control. I mean, what Van Breda Kolff did is still considered one of the biggest bonehead moves in basketball history. I'm not sure how much to blame Wilt for that. Or for his postseason scoring...Wilt's scoring dropped in PS because he didn't get as many touches. He averaged less than 10 shots per game in the playoffs—if someone wants to explain how the guy who led the league in FG% during the regular season and postseason got his shots cut by 40%, I'd be interested to hear the theory. Robert Cherry noted the drastic drop in touches as well in his book. I suspect Van Breda Kolff's dislike of Wilt is behind that as well.

At the same time, why didn't Wilt demand to go back in Game 7 in 1969? (Or why didn't Wilt tell Alex Hannum that Wilt wanted/needed the ball more in Game 6 of the EC Finals in 1968?) Wilt was not a team leader in any real sense; he was an individual and an iconoclast. At the same time, he was a good worker to the point where he was willing to change his game. And I think he's got it all over Bill Russell in the RS and, really, is at least as good in the Finals...but I'm not willing to put him over Russell. I'm torn in the Unseld/Chamberlain debate.

5. Billy Cunningham. Did the most for his team compared to the others. The Sixers were unbalanced (Talk about PF and C by committee!), which meant Cunningham spend time at both SF and PF, and di well at both. The underrated Chet Walker helped, but the bottom line is this team didn't have much—if any less talent than the Royals—and they won a lot more games. Good coaching, good players. I'll give it Billy C.

HM—Lot of botched chances here. The Knicks had a young Frazier and DeBusschere and were a pretty loaded team, so their RS success isn't a shock...and Unseld kind of took it to Willis in the PS. Oscar had a good frontcourt combo and Tom Van Arsdale; even though his coach was an idiot with his rotation, the Royals should have done better. Earl Monroe was great in the RS; stunk in the PS. Elgin Baylor caused dissension, missed games, and had a lousy PS.
Image
TrueLAfan
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 7,336
And1: 106
Joined: Apr 10, 2001
Top

Post#32 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:20 pm by ElGee

Sedale, those are sound points. My take:

re: Luck. Most blessed player ever. Certainly a fair point. Auerbach. Good teammates. Heck, even the era (I don't think it's possible for any defender from the last 25-30 years to have nearly as much impact as he did.) But that still doesn't change how good he was. No one should vote for him just because he happened to win the title. They should vote for him because was the best/most valuable.

re: Coaching. I can't speak for everyone else, but I've given players boosts even if I think circumstance helped. I thought of this as the Nash Conundrum. How different was he in 2005 than 2004 (rule changes aside)? Not that different, but I think he was better utilized, and I give him that credit. Similarly, Russell won't be mentally curved down because of circumstances.

re: Teammates. I'm high on Sam Jones. Going to push for him in his prime. Cousy is a no-brainer in the HOF, but he retired in 63. Havlicek is a HOFer due to longevity, not peak (and he was 6th man for most of those years?) and his peak was post-Russell. Sharman was a great shooter, no doubt, but he retired in 61. KC Jones is solid defender, but not close to a HOF IMO. Heinsohn, I'd actually argue, was a negative. I have a very low opinion of him as a player. He never earned any Tommy Points from me. Satch can defend really well, he should get a sliver of credit there.
ElGee
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,850
And1: 754
Joined: Mar 7, 2010
Top

Post#33 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:35 pm by Sedale Threatt

Make no mistake, I'm not calling Bill "lucky."

To me, that brings a connotation of flukiness, and there was nothing fluky about what he did -- two championships in college, 11 more in the NBA, 10-0 in deciding games. While the Celtics were certainly lucky in certain spots -- what team wouldn't need to be over such a long period? -- what he and the Celtics did speaks for itself.

He was a great player, and they were a great team. Period.

That said, he came into an incredible situation, not just in terms of his team but as Dr. M pointed out in his great post, the era in general. It was a perfect storm that had almost as much impact on his career as his own immense talent and capabilities did (if that makes sense).

Interestingly, this dude Neil Payne that you just referenced from Basketball Reference came up with a formula that determined that Russell had the 10th best support in history, and 3rd best among Top 50 players behind Sam Jones and James Worthy. So I was a little off.

The same numbers he came up with show that Wilt Chamberlain, who never helped most of the teams he played on according to some, was the second-most impactful player in history.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=3543

Just food for thought.

He had another blog item that I can no longer find where he calculated that Bill's teammates were worth an average of 11 more victories per season than Wilt's. I'll keep looking for it.

EDIT: Here it is.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229
JF5 wrote:Real fans don't cry about refs.


http://wtfismikewearing.tumblr.com/
Sedale Threatt
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 22,602
And1: 1,123
Joined: Feb 6, 2007
Location: Clearing space in the trophy case.
Top

Post#34 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:43 pm by Dr Positivity

Looking it over, I think the Knicks, not the Celtics or Lakers, had the best team on paper this year after the Debusschere trade (following which they went 37-11, a 63 W pace). You've got the Frazier, Debusschere, Reed trio leading to the league's best defense and very good offense from all 3, plus 18ppg scorers Cazzie Russell and Dick Barnett, + Bill Bradley, Phil Jackson... that is STACKED. I'd venture their series against the Celtics came down to big game newbs against a 10 time champion, but nevertheless I'd give the Celtics nearly as much credit for that victory as the Lakers one and like the Bulls last two titles, a testament to their competitiveness that they could get it up for one more against younger, hungrier legs, when it'd have been easy to let the 68 comeback be their finale...
Dr Positivity




RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 31,501
And1: 1,212
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
Top

Post#35 Re: Retro POY '68-69 (ends Mon morning)
Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:50 pm by Doctor MJ

Sedale Threatt wrote:Interestingly, this dude Neil Payne that you just referenced from Basketball Reference came up with a formula that determined that Russell had the 10th best support in history, and 3rd best among Top 50 players behind Sam Jones and James Worthy. So I was a little off.

The same numbers he came up with show that Wilt Chamberlain, who never helped most of the teams he played on according to some, was the second-most impactful player in history.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=3543

Just food for thought.

He had another blog item that I can no longer find where he calculated that Bill's teammates were worth an average of 11 more victories per season than Wilt's. I'll keep looking for it.


I just skimmed the link, can't claim to know exactly what all he's done. However, any "most impactful" list, that starts with Neil Johnston and Wilt Chamberlain, seems to me like it's really assuming quite a bit.

Johnston's a guy who I really hope we get a chance to analyze. Box score statistics argue for him to be the premier player of his era - but in terms of correlations with actually helping with the W/L, he looks like he might have Adrian Dantley with brain damage.
In 2007
The rule is the rule. It's not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of correctness.

In 2014
People just misunderstand...You’ve got to use some common sense, too.

I,for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
Doctor MJ



Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 31,893
And1: 2,133
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Treys are for Kicks!
Top

Next

Return to Player Comparisons


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chuck Texas, colts18, Jim Naismith, KD35Brah, lilroddyb