How many contending seasons did Jerry West and Julius Erving each have?

[f4p]

How many contending seasons did Jerry West and Julius Erving each have?

I would like to have threads for most of the Top 30-ish guys like a mini-project or something, so hopefully there is some response to this. Picked a few guys from the 60's/70's. It would be interesting to see what people say on West. Made the finals a bunch but was often overmatched early on.

Barkley and Karl Malone Thread
Garnett and Nowitzki Thread

This is relative: If a team wins 57 games and no one else wins more than 52, they're probably a contender. If a team wins 57 games and 3 teams win 65+ and they have to beat all of them on the road, they're probably not a contender.

This is not a supporting cast question: If Bill Russell plus 4 guys from the Y win the title, that's a contender. If Charles Barkley and 4 guys from the Y win 30 games, that's not a contender. Of course, if it's Barkley and 4 all-stars and they only win 30 games, you could still say they were a contender and just underperformed.

This is dynamic: It's really a "Did a team have a chance to win it all?" question. If things outside of a team's control help/hurt, take that into account. This includes injuries. The 2000 Spurs might have been contenders, but not once Tim Duncan missed the playoffs. However, if it's new information in a team's control, like if they're the 8th seed and upset the 1st seed, that's just a great series by a non-contender, not the birth of a new contender. The 2007 Cavs aren't necessarily contenders even while making the Finals, the 2007 Mavs are even though they lost in the 1st round.

Optional (but not optional): Apply weights to contending seasons. This isn't championship odds so the numbers aren't supposed to add up to 1.0 for each season. I would say something like below, but choose whatever you want:

1.0 - Favorite / Co-Favorite ('85 Lakers and Celtics?)
0.75 - 2nd best team but there is a strong favorite ('97 Jazz?) / Top 3-4 team in wide open field
0.5 - 2nd best team but there is a dominant favorite ('96 Sonics / '17 Cavs?) / 3rd best team behind co-favorites / Top 4-6 team in wide open field
0.25 - Fringe contender, lots of things need to go right, but not like "once in NBA history" right (if you're the 5th or maybe even 4th seed, you probably don't qualify most years)

An example for Charles Barkley could be:

1985 - 0.5
1993 - 1.0
1994 - 0.75
1995 - 0.75
1997 - 0.25

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Owly]

Doesn't really matter but the comps thus far have all been playing mostly in a 27+ team league and so the below quotes worked.

0.5 - 2nd best team but there is a dominant favorite ('96 Sonics / '17 Cavs?) / 3rd best team behind co-favorites / Top 4-6 team in wide open field
0.25 - Fringe contender, lots of things need to go right, but not like "once in NBA history" right (if you're the 5th or maybe even 4th seed, you probably don't qualify most years)

A "top 4-6 team" in the West era ..., with initially as few as 8 teams ... would be a very different thing (not that there ever was really a wide open field in West's 8 or 9 team league days). Of course given how many made the playoffs, conference imbalance a 5th of 8 SRS Lakers could be close to making the finals (https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1961.html) so small league has it's other complications working in the other direction.

Maybe the two things counteract one another evenly and the odds remain the same. Still whilst the present labels are easier, perhaps more comfortable, maybe putting a % range on it would clarify things.

I don't know, just spitballing.

[AEnigma]

These two will likely be on the higher end of the scale for this exercise.

West
1961 — 0 or 0.25 (game 7 of semifinals but should stand no real chance against the Celtics)
1962 — 0.5
1963 — 0.5
1964 — 0
1965 — 0.25
1966 — 0.5
1967 — 0 (injured and not a top three team anyway)
1968 — 0.5
1969 — 0.75 (clear-ish path to the Finals with no true top team)
1970 — 0.75 (always was them or the Knicks, but Knicks were the dominant team that year)
1971 — 0.25 with injury
1972 — 1 (alongside Bucks)
1973 — 0.75 (top three teams reasonably comparable)

Erving
1972 — 0 or 0.25 because of seeding (no way to face both Stars and Pacers)
1973 — 0
1974 — 1
1975 — 0.75
1976 — 0.75 (still think they lose to Spurs if not for the James Silas injury)
1977 — 0.75 (Blazers were easily the best when healthy)
1978 — 0.75 (no clear top team)
1979 — 0.5
1980 — 0.75
1981 — 1 (alongside Celtics; would have Lakers and Bucks at 0.75)
1982 — 0.75
1983 — 1 (clear top team)
1984 — 0.5
1985 — 0.75 (third best team)
1986 — 0.25 (I was lazy with Barkley so apologies if this contradicts what I may have suggested there)
1987 — 0

[f4p]

Doesn't really matter but the comps thus far have all been playing mostly in a 27+ team league and so the below quotes worked.

0.5 - 2nd best team but there is a dominant favorite ('96 Sonics / '17 Cavs?) / 3rd best team behind co-favorites / Top 4-6 team in wide open field
0.25 - Fringe contender, lots of things need to go right, but not like "once in NBA history" right (if you're the 5th or maybe even 4th seed, you probably don't qualify most years)

A "top 4-6 team" in the West era ..., with initially as few as 8 teams ... would be a very different thing (not that there ever was really a wide open field in West's 8 or 9 team league days). Of course given how many made the playoffs, conference imbalance a 5th of 8 SRS Lakers could be close to making the finals (https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1961.html) so small league has it's other complications working in the other direction.

Maybe the two things counteract one another evenly and the odds remain the same. Still whilst the present labels are easier, perhaps more comfortable, maybe putting a % range on it would clarify things.

I don't know, just spitballing.

yeah it was certainly meant for the 30 team league. i may update in future threads. but it's still up to each person what it means. relatively, top 4 out of 9 teams might still be a strong contender depending on the league.

[Dr Positivity]

West

62 - 0.5
63 - 0.75: Lakers were elite with West healthy this year and no Wilt team
65 - 0.5
66 - 0.5
68 - 0.5
69 - 0.75
70 - 1.0: Yes even with the Knicks regular season the Lakers OG superteam is imposing enough to be co-favorite
(71 - 0 due to West injury)
72 - 1.0
73 - 0.75

Erving

74 - 1.0
75 - 0.75
76 - 0.75
77 - 0.75
78 - 0.75
79 - 0.5
80 - 0.75
81 - 0.75
82 - 0.75
83 - 1.0
84 - 0.5
85 - 0.75
86 - 0.25

Total points so far (all star level seasons only)

Erving - 8.25 (3 rings), NBA - 5.75 (1 ring)
Malone - 7 (0 rings)
West - 6.25 (1 ring)
Dirk - 4.5 (1 ring)
Barkley - 3.25 (0 rings)
KG - 2.75 (1 ring)

[TrueLAfan]

interesting question One thing about West; about 60% of his career was on teams that had very little in the way of interior play. Today, that’s less of an issue; in the 60s, not having a very good to dominant big man was usually the kiss of death. Russell, obviously, made the Celtics contenders and usually champions. Wilt got close plenty of times. So, earlier on, did the Bob Pettit led St. Louis Hawks. Willis Reed obviously had the Knicks chugging along in the late 60s and early 70s. Same with Wes Unseld (and Unseld/Hayes) in the early 70s. Thurmond had the Warriors in the playoffs, if not contention for titles, through most of the mid 60s and early 70s. (It took Thurmond and Barry together to get to the Finals). Bottom line: you needed a good big man to be a postseason factor in the 60s.

Except for the Lakers. They were, as Bill Libby once said, a double-barreled shotgun. They went as far as West and Baylor could carry them. That it was so far is a testament to their skill and toughness in a league that was not focused on their strengths. Rudy LaRusso was a decent PF, nothing more. And the Lakers ran a series of scrubs at C throughout the decade until Wilt came along. Didn’t matter. West and Baylor—or either of them alone on a special, given night—could get you the W more times than not, even in the playoffs.