Peaks project update: #1

[Dr Positivity]

My theory is the farther you go back in pro sports the more important depth is. There is a more shallow talent pool so if you have 8 credible guys it goes a long way. In 2018 and 2019 the 8th and 9th men are still highly talented players who could dominate smaller leagues. The Celtics definitely had the deepest team and their strategy was built around enforcing it by tiring the opponent out, and having more guys than them.

[E-Balla]

While I'm not really trying to debate other people's positions on Russell and simply establishing my position on Wilt, I do disagree with many of these points.

1. Their offense didn't drop because Russell's replacement bench-warmer was better than he was offensively. The offense actually improved greatly without Russell, just as it dropped sharply after adding Russell (although not to the same extent) - The ORTG went way up DESPITE losing Sam Jones who was an elite offensive player.

Their defense did drop - because they had no starting C, effectively. Their main Center defender, in a league heavily based around rim-protection without a 3 point line, was Hank Finkel. Dave Cowens, as a rookie, brought their DRTG back to 3rd in the league.

The ORTG went way up because the league average ORTG went way up. Their relative ORTG stayed the same at a -1.7 vs league average and they went from being the 10th ranked offense to being the 12th ranked offense in a 14 team league. Dave Cowens as a rookie led them to the 3rd defense but that means a -1.9 defense. Russell led them to a damn -6.4 defense. If the gap between him and Cowens is -4.5 on that end and Cowens was so great out the gates how great was Bill Russell?

The argument Russell was hurting them offensively at that point also might be true, but Russell fell off sharply on both sides of the ball starting in 67. His PER in the playoffs every year from 59 to 66 fell between 18.8 and 22.8 with him averaging a 20.8. After 66 he had a 15.3, 16.7, and 15.3 PER in the next three postseasons while his scoring became abysmal. You can look at the boxscore and see that Russell in 69 scored at a rate and efficiency best comparable to Ben Wallace in 03 and Rodman in 96.

2. They were very good - that's a statement to be taken in context. They're very good for losing two of their best players in Bill Russell and Sam Jones. I would expect a 20 win team from a 48 win team losing it's "best player and defensive anchor" as well as it's best SG. But they only won 14 games less.

Wins isn't a good way to determine team strength. The Celtics had a 5.35 SRS with Russell which is in line with a 55 win team. Given that they won the championship beating 2 55 win teams and a 54 win team in the playoffs I'd say that SRS was much more representative of how good they were than wins.

A team going from +5.35 to -1.59, a 6.94 SRS gap, is major and totally what you'd expect of a team losing 2 HOFers.

3. Havlicek wasn't only at his peak after Russell retired - he was at his peak involvement in the offense, as he got to play point and run the offense to a larger extent. He was past his athletic and defensive peak, and was already 29 years old (in those days, without modern training, minutes restrictions, or injury prevention techniques, 29 was older than it is today. Russell was only 32 in 1967).

Havlicek made the All Star game until he was 37 and retired. All players don't age on the same curve, and Havlicek actually got more touches before Russell retired in 69 vs 70. He was just way more efficient in 70 than in 69.

4. Last point, on Dave Cowens - with Cowens still in his prime, when Havlicek declined the team dropped out of contention sharply. Jojo White, Silas, Cowens, etc. were all still in their primes. Just Havlicek declined, and the team could no longer compete.

Cowens, McAdoo, Jojo White, Cedrix Maxwell, and Chris Ford - that team won 29 games...although Cowens had declined a bit since his peak. Then they added Larry Bird and won 61 games, but nobody credits Cowens

Can't respond to any posts, so if you want to debate feel free but I can't answer

Cowens might've technically been in his prime (as in he was making ASGs) but he wasn't nearly as good as he was before. His decline hit hard in 77 (possibly because of his injury that limited him to 50 games) and he went from being a perennial top 5 player and MVP candidate to barely an All Star. That also happens to be when the Celtics stopped contending. Meanwhile Havlicek fell out of his prime in 75 and the Celtics won a ring after that. I'm not seeing this correlation you claim is there.

We can look at Cowens' whole career and the Celtics played like a +3.5 team when he was in and a -1.6 when he was out. Dude was definitely the engine of the team, I've never seen any reason to think otherwise given the numbers and reputation at the time.

[euroleague]

While I'm not really trying to debate other people's positions on Russell and simply establishing my position on Wilt, I do disagree with many of these points.

1. Their offense didn't drop because Russell's replacement bench-warmer was better than he was offensively. The offense actually improved greatly without Russell, just as it dropped sharply after adding Russell (although not to the same extent) - The ORTG went way up DESPITE losing Sam Jones who was an elite offensive player.

Their defense did drop - because they had no starting C, effectively. Their main Center defender, in a league heavily based around rim-protection without a 3 point line, was Hank Finkel. Dave Cowens, as a rookie, brought their DRTG back to 3rd in the league.

The ORTG went way up because the league average ORTG went way up. Their relative ORTG stayed the same at a -1.7 vs league average and they went from being the 10th ranked offense to being the 12th ranked offense in a 14 team league. Dave Cowens as a rookie led them to the 3rd defense but that means a -1.9 defense. Russell led them to a damn -6.4 defense. If the gap between him and Cowens is -4.5 on that end and Cowens was so great out the gates how great was Bill Russell?

The argument Russell was hurting them offensively at that point also might be true, but Russell fell off sharply on both sides of the ball starting in 67. His PER in the playoffs every year from 59 to 66 fell between 18.8 and 22.8 with him averaging a 20.8. After 66 he had a 15.3, 16.7, and 15.3 PER in the next three postseasons while his scoring became abysmal. You can look at the boxscore and see that Russell in 69 scored at a rate and efficiency best comparable to Ben Wallace in 03 and Rodman in 96.

2. They were very good - that's a statement to be taken in context. They're very good for losing two of their best players in Bill Russell and Sam Jones. I would expect a 20 win team from a 48 win team losing it's "best player and defensive anchor" as well as it's best SG. But they only won 14 games less.

Wins isn't a good way to determine team strength. The Celtics had a 5.35 SRS with Russell which is in line with a 55 win team. Given that they won the championship beating 2 55 win teams and a 54 win team in the playoffs I'd say that SRS was much more representative of how good they were than wins.

A team going from +5.35 to -1.59, a 6.94 SRS gap, is major and totally what you'd expect of a team losing 2 HOFers.

3. Havlicek wasn't only at his peak after Russell retired - he was at his peak involvement in the offense, as he got to play point and run the offense to a larger extent. He was past his athletic and defensive peak, and was already 29 years old (in those days, without modern training, minutes restrictions, or injury prevention techniques, 29 was older than it is today. Russell was only 32 in 1967).

Havlicek made the All Star game until he was 37 and retired. All players don't age on the same curve, and Havlicek actually got more touches before Russell retired in 69 vs 70. He was just way more efficient in 70 than in 69.

4. Last point, on Dave Cowens - with Cowens still in his prime, when Havlicek declined the team dropped out of contention sharply. Jojo White, Silas, Cowens, etc. were all still in their primes. Just Havlicek declined, and the team could no longer compete.

Cowens, McAdoo, Jojo White, Cedrix Maxwell, and Chris Ford - that team won 29 games...although Cowens had declined a bit since his peak. Then they added Larry Bird and won 61 games, but nobody credits Cowens

Can't respond to any posts, so if you want to debate feel free but I can't answer

Cowens might've technically been in his prime (as in he was making ASGs) but he wasn't nearly as good as he was before. His decline hit hard in 77 (possibly because of his injury that limited him to 50 games) and he went from being a perennial top 5 player and MVP candidate to barely an All Star. That also happens to be when the Celtics stopped contending. Meanwhile Havlicek fell out of his prime in 75 and the Celtics won a ring after that. I'm not seeing this correlation you claim is there.

We can look at Cowens' whole career and the Celtics played like a +3.5 team when he was in and a -1.6 when he was out. Dude was definitely the engine of the team, I've never seen any reason to think otherwise given the numbers and reputation at the time.

I’m on mobile now, and can’t address this in detail. To say on Cowens - I don’t think he was that great out the gate. Certainly an all-star, but hardly DPOY material.

Cowens injury year in 77 they went 29-21 with him, 15-17 without him. Havlicek was declining pretty sharply already, but the team wasn’t as bad as it was in 78 when Hondo declined completely and eventually retired. In 72 Hondo was still clearly the best player, and the Celtics dominated

Cowens in 73 had a good one year peak, however awards aren’t a good way to judge his impact, as awards were mostly given to perceived “best player” on teams with the best record. Cowens had declined by 76, as had Hondo, which is how Jojo ended up FMVP.

Cowens and Russell both hugely benefitted from playing with a great team and system. Havlicek went from being underrated in the 60s, to having no good supporting cast, to being underrated with Cowens.

[E-Balla]

While I'm not really trying to debate other people's positions on Russell and simply establishing my position on Wilt, I do disagree with many of these points.

1. Their offense didn't drop because Russell's replacement bench-warmer was better than he was offensively. The offense actually improved greatly without Russell, just as it dropped sharply after adding Russell (although not to the same extent) - The ORTG went way up DESPITE losing Sam Jones who was an elite offensive player.

Their defense did drop - because they had no starting C, effectively. Their main Center defender, in a league heavily based around rim-protection without a 3 point line, was Hank Finkel. Dave Cowens, as a rookie, brought their DRTG back to 3rd in the league.

The ORTG went way up because the league average ORTG went way up. Their relative ORTG stayed the same at a -1.7 vs league average and they went from being the 10th ranked offense to being the 12th ranked offense in a 14 team league. Dave Cowens as a rookie led them to the 3rd defense but that means a -1.9 defense. Russell led them to a damn -6.4 defense. If the gap between him and Cowens is -4.5 on that end and Cowens was so great out the gates how great was Bill Russell?

The argument Russell was hurting them offensively at that point also might be true, but Russell fell off sharply on both sides of the ball starting in 67. His PER in the playoffs every year from 59 to 66 fell between 18.8 and 22.8 with him averaging a 20.8. After 66 he had a 15.3, 16.7, and 15.3 PER in the next three postseasons while his scoring became abysmal. You can look at the boxscore and see that Russell in 69 scored at a rate and efficiency best comparable to Ben Wallace in 03 and Rodman in 96.

2. They were very good - that's a statement to be taken in context. They're very good for losing two of their best players in Bill Russell and Sam Jones. I would expect a 20 win team from a 48 win team losing it's "best player and defensive anchor" as well as it's best SG. But they only won 14 games less.

Wins isn't a good way to determine team strength. The Celtics had a 5.35 SRS with Russell which is in line with a 55 win team. Given that they won the championship beating 2 55 win teams and a 54 win team in the playoffs I'd say that SRS was much more representative of how good they were than wins.

A team going from +5.35 to -1.59, a 6.94 SRS gap, is major and totally what you'd expect of a team losing 2 HOFers.

3. Havlicek wasn't only at his peak after Russell retired - he was at his peak involvement in the offense, as he got to play point and run the offense to a larger extent. He was past his athletic and defensive peak, and was already 29 years old (in those days, without modern training, minutes restrictions, or injury prevention techniques, 29 was older than it is today. Russell was only 32 in 1967).

Havlicek made the All Star game until he was 37 and retired. All players don't age on the same curve, and Havlicek actually got more touches before Russell retired in 69 vs 70. He was just way more efficient in 70 than in 69.

4. Last point, on Dave Cowens - with Cowens still in his prime, when Havlicek declined the team dropped out of contention sharply. Jojo White, Silas, Cowens, etc. were all still in their primes. Just Havlicek declined, and the team could no longer compete.

Cowens, McAdoo, Jojo White, Cedrix Maxwell, and Chris Ford - that team won 29 games...although Cowens had declined a bit since his peak. Then they added Larry Bird and won 61 games, but nobody credits Cowens

Can't respond to any posts, so if you want to debate feel free but I can't answer

Cowens might've technically been in his prime (as in he was making ASGs) but he wasn't nearly as good as he was before. His decline hit hard in 77 (possibly because of his injury that limited him to 50 games) and he went from being a perennial top 5 player and MVP candidate to barely an All Star. That also happens to be when the Celtics stopped contending. Meanwhile Havlicek fell out of his prime in 75 and the Celtics won a ring after that. I'm not seeing this correlation you claim is there.

We can look at Cowens' whole career and the Celtics played like a +3.5 team when he was in and a -1.6 when he was out. Dude was definitely the engine of the team, I've never seen any reason to think otherwise given the numbers and reputation at the time.

I’m on mobile now, and can’t address this in detail. To say on Cowens - I don’t think he was that great out the gate. Certainly an all-star, but hardly DPOY material.

Cowens injury year in 77 they went 29-21 with him, 15-17 without him. Havlicek was declining pretty sharply already, but the team wasn’t as bad as it was in 78 when Hondo declined completely and eventually retired. In 72 Hondo was still clearly the best player, and the Celtics dominated

Cowens in 73 had a good one year peak, however awards aren’t a good way to judge his impact, as awards were mostly given to perceived “best player” on teams with the best record. Cowens had declined by 76, as had Hondo, which is how Jojo ended up FMVP.

Cowens and Russell both hugely benefitted from playing with a great team and system. Havlicek went from being underrated in the 60s, to having no good supporting cast, to being underrated with Cowens.

Well the reason I didn't mention 77 alone and instead mentioned his career numbers was that he got hurt after 8 games in 77 and clearly played injured (which is probably part of why he was never the same again). In the first 8 games before his injury he averaged 18/15 on ~51 TS% (missing FGA numbers for a game where he had 20/23 against the Bullets and was 4/5 from the line but he had a 51 TS% in the other 7 games). After coming back from his injury he averaged 16/14 on 49 TS% the rest of the way. I'd say his injury made a big difference in his level of play and ability to lift the team. Like I said before I think it ended his prime.

Plus Cowens didn't just have a good one year peak. He was 4th, 2nd, and 3rd in MVP voting in 74, 75, and 76. Maybe the consensus was all wrong and he wasn't a top 5 level player but I haven't seen any reason to think he wasn't a top 5 level player from 73 until his injury in 77. And I get you're on mobile now so I'll try to keep the arguments simple going forward here (if this does continue).

[trex_8063]

.

I’m on mobile now, and can’t address this in detail. To say on Cowens - I don’t think he was that great out the gate. Certainly an all-star, but hardly DPOY material.

Cowens injury year in 77 they went 29-21 with him, 15-17 without him. Havlicek was declining pretty sharply already, but the team wasn’t as bad as it was in 78 when Hondo declined completely and eventually retired. In 72 Hondo was still clearly the best player, and the Celtics dominated

Cowens in 73 had a good one year peak, however awards aren’t a good way to judge his impact, as awards were mostly given to perceived “best player” on teams with the best record. Cowens had declined by 76, as had Hondo, which is how Jojo ended up FMVP.

Cowens and Russell both hugely benefitted from playing with a great team and system. Havlicek went from being underrated in the 60s, to having no good supporting cast, to being underrated with Cowens.

Small correction wrt Cowens's '77 season: it wasn't an "injury year" as such. He was lacking in motivation and [per his own words] feeling "burnt out" in pro basketball. So in the fall of '76 [with Red Auerbach's blessing, no less] took a sabbatical for about two months (the year he was infamously selling Christmas trees in Kentucky for awhile).

Regarding the '79 Celtics: you, euroleague, had offered a to the fact that a team with Cowens, McAdoo, Jo Jo White, Chris Ford, and Cedric Maxwell only won 29 games.
I'm not clear on the narrative intent of that (given it seemed----based on my limited skimming of previous posts----that you'd previously been very complimentary to Dave Cowens). But since it was just name-dropping [some big names] and then showing the lackluster record (which would seem to imply "hey, maybe these guys aren't deserving of their reputations"), I think a few things should be made clear......

This team was undergoing some massive (in-season) overhaul, and some of the guys you mention weren't even with the team all year. The mentions of McAdoo and White are probably the most misleading to anyone not in the know: Bob McAdoo was a late-season acquisition and only played 20 games for the Celtics that year. Jo Jo White [who was 32 and clearly in decline anyway, had been since his banged up season in '78] was traded away mid-season and only played 47 games for the Celtics.

Billy Knight was also traded away mid-season and only played 40 games. Ricky Sobers was a mid-season acquisition, fwiw.

Nagging injuries (and other "personal problems") were also cutting into playing time of key players: Cowens (who yes, was in early decline) missed 14 games (though not from injury, if I'm not mistaken; I think he just declined to play further when he was fired as head-coach [had been player-coach] late in the season.....which hints at some inner turmoil within the organization).
Tiny Archibald [post-injury/post-prime] missed 13 games. Marvin Barnes missed 44 games (was limited effectiveness anyway; more drug-related, if I'm not mistaken), Curtis Rowe missed 29 games, etc. Literally the only two guys who were both a part of the team all year AND basically healthy all year were Maxwell and Ford.

They also had two different [inexperienced] coaches during the year (one the aforementioned player-coach Dave Cowens).

So it's not quite as simple as "look at all the big names that they only won 29 games with", fwiw.

[E-Balla]

Small correction wrt Cowens's '77 season: it wasn't an "injury year" as such. He was lacking in motivation and [per his own words] feeling "burnt out" in pro basketball. So in the fall of '76 [with Red Auerbach's blessing, no less] took a sabbatical for about two months (the year he was infamously selling Christmas trees in Kentucky for awhile).

Well that's interesting as hell.

Would also explain why he never got back to MVP level, I guess he just didn't care enough to keep playing at that high a level.

[euroleague]

.

I’m on mobile now, and can’t address this in detail. To say on Cowens - I don’t think he was that great out the gate. Certainly an all-star, but hardly DPOY material.

Cowens injury year in 77 they went 29-21 with him, 15-17 without him. Havlicek was declining pretty sharply already, but the team wasn’t as bad as it was in 78 when Hondo declined completely and eventually retired. In 72 Hondo was still clearly the best player, and the Celtics dominated

Cowens in 73 had a good one year peak, however awards aren’t a good way to judge his impact, as awards were mostly given to perceived “best player” on teams with the best record. Cowens had declined by 76, as had Hondo, which is how Jojo ended up FMVP.

Cowens and Russell both hugely benefitted from playing with a great team and system. Havlicek went from being underrated in the 60s, to having no good supporting cast, to being underrated with Cowens.

Small correction wrt Cowens's '77 season: it wasn't an "injury year" as such. He was lacking in motivation and [per his own words] feeling "burnt out" in pro basketball. So in the fall of '76 [with Red Auerbach's blessing, no less] took a sabbatical for about two months (the year he was infamously selling Christmas trees in Kentucky for awhile).

Regarding the '79 Celtics: you, euroleague, had offered a to the fact that a team with Cowens, McAdoo, Jo Jo White, Chris Ford, and Cedric Maxwell only won 29 games.
I'm not clear on the narrative intent of that (given it seemed----based on my limited skimming of previous posts----that you'd previously been very complimentary to Dave Cowens). But since it was just name-dropping [some big names] and then showing the lackluster record (which would seem to imply "hey, maybe these guys aren't deserving of their reputations"), I think a few things should be made clear......

This team was undergoing some massive (in-season) overhaul, and some of the guys you mention weren't even with the team all year. The mentions of McAdoo and White are probably the most misleading to anyone not in the know: Bob McAdoo was a late-season acquisition and only played 20 games for the Celtics that year. Jo Jo White [who was 32 and clearly in decline anyway, had been since his banged up season in '78] was traded away mid-season and only played 47 games for the Celtics.

Billy Knight was also traded away mid-season and only played 40 games. Ricky Sobers was a mid-season acquisition, fwiw.

Nagging injuries (and other "personal problems") were also cutting into playing time of key players: Cowens (who yes, was in early decline) missed 14 games (though not from injury, if I'm not mistaken; I think he just declined to play further when he was fired as head-coach [had been player-coach] late in the season.....which hints at some inner turmoil within the organization).
Tiny Archibald [post-injury/post-prime] missed 13 games. Marvin Barnes missed 44 games (was limited effectiveness anyway; more drug-related, if I'm not mistaken), Curtis Rowe missed 29 games, etc. Literally the only two guys who were both a part of the team all year AND basically healthy all year were Maxwell and Ford.

They also had two different [inexperienced] coaches during the year (one the aforementioned player-coach Dave Cowens).

So it's not quite as simple as "look at all the big names that they only won 29 games with", fwiw.

My laugh was just regarding the idea that Havlicek wasn't a huge aspect of the engine behind that team. It wasn't a put-down on Cowens or any of the mentioned players.

[euroleague]

Small correction wrt Cowens's '77 season: it wasn't an "injury year" as such. He was lacking in motivation and [per his own words] feeling "burnt out" in pro basketball. So in the fall of '76 [with Red Auerbach's blessing, no less] took a sabbatical for about two months (the year he was infamously selling Christmas trees in Kentucky for awhile).

Well that's interesting as hell.

Would also explain why he never got back to MVP level, I guess he just didn't care enough to keep playing at that high a level.

He supposedly had many small foot injuries throughout his career. Cowens' MVP votes were largey 'best player best team' votes, and I think that perception rose as Havlicek slowly dropped out of his prime - with 76 really being the tail end of Hondo's prime. However, I'd put Havlicek as the best player on those teams - and deserving of those MVP votes - through 74 at least.

Cowens was an all-nba level player for many years, but I definitely believe he shouldn't have been MVP over Kareem, Wilt, Frazier, or even Havlicek (and he did trail all of them in WS/PER). That award was definitely from team-success. Havlicek and a Center were clearly a recipe for success like Jerry West and a Center, Kobe and a center, Magic and a center, etc. have been throughout NBA history. I think Hondo's role tends to be under-appreciated in that.

[euroleague]

.

I’m on mobile now, and can’t address this in detail. To say on Cowens - I don’t think he was that great out the gate. Certainly an all-star, but hardly DPOY material.

Cowens injury year in 77 they went 29-21 with him, 15-17 without him. Havlicek was declining pretty sharply already, but the team wasn’t as bad as it was in 78 when Hondo declined completely and eventually retired. In 72 Hondo was still clearly the best player, and the Celtics dominated

Cowens in 73 had a good one year peak, however awards aren’t a good way to judge his impact, as awards were mostly given to perceived “best player” on teams with the best record. Cowens had declined by 76, as had Hondo, which is how Jojo ended up FMVP.

Cowens and Russell both hugely benefitted from playing with a great team and system. Havlicek went from being underrated in the 60s, to having no good supporting cast, to being underrated with Cowens.

Small correction wrt Cowens's '77 season: it wasn't an "injury year" as such. He was lacking in motivation and [per his own words] feeling "burnt out" in pro basketball. So in the fall of '76 [with Red Auerbach's blessing, no less] took a sabbatical for about two months (the year he was infamously selling Christmas trees in Kentucky for awhile).

Regarding the '79 Celtics: you, euroleague, had offered a to the fact that a team with Cowens, McAdoo, Jo Jo White, Chris Ford, and Cedric Maxwell only won 29 games.
I'm not clear on the narrative intent of that (given it seemed----based on my limited skimming of previous posts----that you'd previously been very complimentary to Dave Cowens). But since it was just name-dropping [some big names] and then showing the lackluster record (which would seem to imply "hey, maybe these guys aren't deserving of their reputations"), I think a few things should be made clear......

This team was undergoing some massive (in-season) overhaul, and some of the guys you mention weren't even with the team all year. The mentions of McAdoo and White are probably the most misleading to anyone not in the know: Bob McAdoo was a late-season acquisition and only played 20 games for the Celtics that year. Jo Jo White [who was 32 and clearly in decline anyway, had been since his banged up season in '78] was traded away mid-season and only played 47 games for the Celtics.

Billy Knight was also traded away mid-season and only played 40 games. Ricky Sobers was a mid-season acquisition, fwiw.

Nagging injuries (and other "personal problems") were also cutting into playing time of key players: Cowens (who yes, was in early decline) missed 14 games (though not from injury, if I'm not mistaken; I think he just declined to play further when he was fired as head-coach [had been player-coach] late in the season.....which hints at some inner turmoil within the organization).
Tiny Archibald [post-injury/post-prime] missed 13 games. Marvin Barnes missed 44 games (was limited effectiveness anyway; more drug-related, if I'm not mistaken), Curtis Rowe missed 29 games, etc. Literally the only two guys who were both a part of the team all year AND basically healthy all year were Maxwell and Ford.

They also had two different [inexperienced] coaches during the year (one the aforementioned player-coach Dave Cowens).

So it's not quite as simple as "look at all the big names that they only won 29 games with", fwiw.

Here's an interesting article on the decline in the Celtics - https://www.nytimes.com/1977/11/25/archives/end-of-a-love-affair-cheers-turn-to-jeers-for-celtics-cheers.html

[E-Balla]

He supposedly had many small foot injuries throughout his career. Cowens' MVP votes were largey 'best player best team' votes, and I think that perception rose as Havlicek slowly dropped out of his prime - with 76 really being the tail end of Hondo's prime. However, I'd put Havlicek as the best player on those teams - and deserving of those MVP votes - through 74 at least.

Statistically Havlicek led the team in WS and PER almost every year, and offensively he was a huge aspect of the playmaking and scoring. I think the league wide raise in ORTG is deceptive, as the pace for the Celtics remained exactly the same once Russell left - but the ORTG skyrocketed without any good replacement for him or Sam Jones.

I think attributing all the SRS drop to him, and not factoring in Sam Jones (ditto for Cowens and Jojo White) leads to Russell and Cowens being slightly overrated. Cowens was an all-nba level player for many years, but I definitely believe he shouldn't have been MVP over Kareem, Wilt, Frazier, or even Havlicek (and he did trail all of them in WS/PER). That award was definitely from team-success.

Havlicek did have the better numbers but WS and PER are largely offensive stats. Sure Hondo was the better offensive player to Cowens (not much better, but better). When adding in defense into the equation I see no way to say he was better than Cowens when Cowens was largely seen as the anchor of that defense and the offense was mediocre every year outside 75. Even when they won 68 games they ranked 8th of 17 teams offensively. I agree Cowens didn't deserve his MVP over people like Kareem, McAdoo, Clyde, etc. but he was still a top 5ish guy in the NBA (not counting ABA guys here because Gilmore, Dr. J, etc knock him out the top 5 pretty clearly).

Now to your argument the league wide rise in ORTG is deceptive I'm confused. Yeah the pace stayed the same, what relevance does that have here? The league wide ORTG jumped from +3.5 points per 100, everyone including teams that didn't have new players improved a ton. The Celtics dropped from having the 10th ranked offense (out of 14) to having the 12th ranked offense (again out of 14). How can you possibly argue they improved?

And the SRS drop is part Russell and part Jones but that's a big SRS drop and Russell's level of play plummeted the second he became a player coach (for obvious reasons). I don't think it's relevant to discussing his level of play prior to 67 when he was a player and not a coach.

As for Cowens that SRS drop I mentioned takes his whole prime and their SRS with him playing and the SRS without him and compares it. There's no way it's overrating him since it accounts for his whole prime and every game he missed during it, not just games where there might've been multiple players missing.

[euroleague]

He supposedly had many small foot injuries throughout his career. Cowens' MVP votes were largey 'best player best team' votes, and I think that perception rose as Havlicek slowly dropped out of his prime - with 76 really being the tail end of Hondo's prime. However, I'd put Havlicek as the best player on those teams - and deserving of those MVP votes - through 74 at least.

Statistically Havlicek led the team in WS and PER almost every year, and offensively he was a huge aspect of the playmaking and scoring. I think the league wide raise in ORTG is deceptive, as the pace for the Celtics remained exactly the same once Russell left - but the ORTG skyrocketed without any good replacement for him or Sam Jones.

I think attributing all the SRS drop to him, and not factoring in Sam Jones (ditto for Cowens and Jojo White) leads to Russell and Cowens being slightly overrated. Cowens was an all-nba level player for many years, but I definitely believe he shouldn't have been MVP over Kareem, Wilt, Frazier, or even Havlicek (and he did trail all of them in WS/PER). That award was definitely from team-success.

Havlicek did have the better numbers but WS and PER are largely offensive stats. Sure Hondo was the better offensive player to Cowens (not much better, but better). When adding in defense into the equation I see no way to say he was better than Cowens when Cowens was largely seen as the anchor of that defense and the offense was mediocre every year outside 75. Even when they won 68 games they ranked 8th of 17 teams offensively. I agree Cowens didn't deserve his MVP over people like Kareem, McAdoo, Clyde, etc. but he was still a top 5ish guy in the NBA (not counting ABA guys here because Gilmore, Dr. J, etc knock him out the top 5 pretty clearly).

Now to your argument the league wide rise in ORTG is deceptive I'm confused. Yeah the pace stayed the same, what relevance does that have here? The league wide ORTG jumped from +3.5 points per 100, everyone including teams that didn't have new players improved a ton. The Celtics dropped from having the 10th ranked offense (out of 14) to having the 12th ranked offense (again out of 14). How can you possibly argue they improved?

And the SRS drop is part Russell and part Jones but that's a big SRS drop and Russell's level of play plummeted the second he became a player coach (for obvious reasons). I don't think it's relevant to discussing his level of play prior to 67 when he was a player and not a coach.

As for Cowens that SRS drop I mentioned takes his whole prime and their SRS with him playing and the SRS without him and compares it. There's no way it's overrating him since it accounts for his whole prime and every game he missed during it, not just games where there might've been multiple players missing.

SRS isn't as good of a way to measure Cowens impact on his team as games won/lost, because it overvalues blowouts which aren't really productive to either team.

Every game he missed may very well include games that other stars missed - it also has a huge sample size of 77, in which Havlicek had already declined and the team was basically imploding as he left, and a very small sample size of less than 20 games before that....

Will reply to any further mentions in 3 hours or so...

[freethedevil]

...While I don't want to make this post too much about Russell, I will mention that the 6th best player on the Celtics was arguably better than the 3rd best on the Philadelphia Warriors....

The celtics had a -1.5 srs over games Russel didn't play. Using hof selections after a team wins 11 chips tells you nothing regarding the quality of the supporting cast. The celtics without russel were below average. The celtics with russel were one of the greatest teams ever.

The celtics didn't win on the basis of an average offence, they won because of what was by far, the greatest defence ever centered around one great defender.

The notion that russell won on the backs of a stacked team is a baseless one.

The Celtics before Russell OR Heinsohn OR Havlicek joined barely lost in the Conference Finals. Then they added the first pick in Heinsohn and Russell as a territorial pick. 2 sure-fire HoF players in already starting to enter their primes after 4 years of college (back then, rookies made impacts because they were 23 years old).

They also had elite defenders at many positions, notably Havlicek who was the better defender than Russell for the last few rings and arguably the best perimeter wing defender in the world at the time.

When you build your team most heavily featuring one player, and that player goes out for a bench warmer, all the rotations change. All the on-ball and off-ball responsibilities change. The defensive scheme changes. If a team has no time to practice and prepare for that, then of course they will not do well when their star player is replaced by a bench player just because their schemes are all built terribly for their talent.

The Celtics after Russell AND Sam Jones retired were still a very good team - and that's with 2 all-star spots going to 2 bench-warmers. When they replaced Jones and Russell, they were immediately the best team in the league, getting the second best W/L record in NBA history.... built-around Havlicek who was already past his prime - his prime years were mostly with Russell.

Interesting. I've never actually seen it told this way. I'd love for dr mh or t rex to address this.

[dontcalltimeout]

Here are my rambling thoughts and some questions for which i don't clear answers. Like many, I think this is between MJ (somewhere 1989 - 1991), LBJ (2009, 2013, 2017), and Shaq (2000).

MJ. I value his motor a bit more in 89 than i do for 90 and 91. I think in 1990 and 1991 he is a bit more skilled offensively, specifically in terms of decision making and not forcing shots. This is also clear in his turnover rate. Questions:

what do you think of MJ's motor in these three years?
is MJ's improved discipline in 1991 merely an issue of getting used to the triangle or was there something else about maturity? Could he have done the same thing in 1989 if he had had the coaching?

Shaq. Just an absolute problem in 2000. The main reason to like this year versus some of the surrounding ones is that this is unanimously his best defensive effort season. Shaq's defense is a big question because the Center is such a high leverage position. As it is Shaq was a beast at the rim, in man defense, and rebounding. But his lack of movement hurts his help and team defense a lot.

While Shaq could certainly amp up his D effort in the playoffs, i value the consistency of 2000 a lot. But how much does it count for really? Is he +1.5 or +2? Could we really place him at +2.5 or even +3 on defense?

The tie breaker might be about value in team building. IMO it's easier to find a center that could contribute on defense positively than a guy that sets up teammates like LeBron while still providing way above positional average on defense.

LeBron James. Might be the toughest in terms of matching up his peak impact on offense + defense, and ability to fit in a team setting.

2014 and 2017 or 2018 are his best offensive seasons. 2013 and 2014 I like because his ability to work within a team setting. I actually like his mindset here in terms of becoming a master off-the-ball, playing PF, and letting the offense and extra passing work for him.

In 2013 he was already a master conductor of the offense. A great passing season, his best turnover economy season IMP, and provided good shooting/spacing from everywhere around the court. But it was a down year for him in terms of AND1s and shots at the rim indicating he might have been putting less pressure on defenses than in the following year. But maybe the last year where he could be talked about as All-D worthy.

in 2014 he was just DANGEROUS from every where on the court. He had his highest AND1 rate of miami years, shot 80% at the rim (GODLY). And had his highest FG% from 3-10 ft (55% JESUS). but not a great year defensively (he ramped up a bit in the playoffs, but how much?).

2017 and 2018 are just dominant one-man offense season, but we know at this point it's unlikely for him to really play the same role as in miami (he left for a reason). Even though this lead to amazing team offense results, i do believe it creates more reliance on LBJ's court presence.

ITO of team building, i like the versatilty LeBron gives you. You can really load up on good decision-making finishers/defenders at the guard spots instead of spending a ton on a scoring point guard that will get exposed in the playoffs.

I know folks like 2016 a lot but LeBron's shooting from mid-range and three point was a big question that year so I'm not going to let two incredibly hot games in the finals bump up that whole season. His defensive activity was actually the most interesting part of that finals tear.

[E-Balla]

SRS isn't as good of a way to measure Cowens impact on his team as games won/lost, because it overvalues blowouts which aren't really productive to either team.

Every game he missed may very well include games that other stars missed - it also has a huge sample size of 77, in which Havlicek had already declined and the team was basically imploding as he left, and a very small sample size of less than 20 games before that....

Will reply to any further mentions in 3 hours or so...

1. That works both ways with the blowouts. They can blowout teams when he's not in the lineup too. Like seriously there's a plethora of studies that prove SRS is more accurate than wins and losses. Beyond that we can take overall wins and losses with and without Cowens from 71 to 76 and see he has a strong positive impact. In 75 for example they went 51-14 with Cowens and 9-8 without him.

2. Every game he missed didn't have someone else missing the data I got (from the illustrious ElGee) made sure to only include games where all players that played 25+ MPG for the team were healthy.

I feel like right now you've hit the point where you're more trying to justify your position instead of actually discussing what happened with the players and who was actually better and more impactful. I mean Hondo wasn't any worse in 77 than in 76 and they won 54 games and a ring in 76.

[JoeMalburg]

The Celtics before Russell OR Heinsohn OR Havlicek joined barely lost in the Conference Finals. Then they added the first pick in Heinsohn and Russell as a territorial pick. 2 sure-fire HoF players in already starting to enter their primes after 4 years of college (back then, rookies made impacts because they were 23 years old).

They also had elite defenders at many positions, notably Havlicek who was the better defender than Russell for the last few rings and arguably the best perimeter wing defender in the world at the time.

When you build your team most heavily featuring one player, and that player goes out for a bench warmer, all the rotations change. All the on-ball and off-ball responsibilities change. The defensive scheme changes. If a team has no time to practice and prepare for that, then of course they will not do well when their star player is replaced by a bench player just because their schemes are all built terribly for their talent.

The Celtics after Russell AND Sam Jones retired were still a very good team - and that's with 2 all-star spots going to 2 bench-warmers. When they replaced Jones and Russell, they were immediately the best team in the league, getting the second best W/L record in NBA history.... built-around Havlicek who was already past his prime - his prime years were mostly with Russell.

Interesting. I've never actually seen it told this way. I'd love for dr mh or t rex to address this.

There are a number of problems here.

First, Russell wasn't a territorial pick and Heinsohn wasn't the first overall pick. Heinsohn was the territorial pick, coming from near by Holy Cross. Russell grew up in the South, moved to Oakland as a teen and played college ball at San Francisco. He was the second pick in the draft and he was acquired from St. Louis in a trade for Hall of Famers Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan. Auerbach also needed to convince Royals owner Lester Harrison not to draft Russell #1 overall and did so by promising him the Icecapdes could be held in Rochester instead of Boston Garden. It was a different time to say the least. So the Celtics did add two Hall of Famer players from the draft (three if you count K.C. Jones who joined the team a few years later), but needed to give up two as well.

Second, Havlicek was never a better defender than Russell. That's just absurd. The Celtics were the best defensive team every single season under Russell (except '68 when they were second) and many of those seasons they had histrionically great defenses. After he retired they dropped to 8th, 5th, 3rd and then 1st again in 1973, but that was the only year they were at the top of the list post-Russell. Havlicek was a great player and a key cog for the Celtics for sure, but Boston had already won five Championships before he arrived and he was mostly a supporting role player for his first three-four years. Even when Havlicek took over the primary offensive role, he was still not considered to be as valuable as Russell the player (who was also the coach). Russell was the only Celtic to receive MVP votes between 1967-1969.

Third, the Celtics without Russell and Jones were not "still a very good team". They finished 11th of 14 teams in 1970 and missed the playoffs in 1971 despite having four future Hall of Famers on each roster (not a valid argument, but one often used against Russell). And no, Jones and Russell weren't replaced by bench warmers, The Celtics drafted JoJo White in 1969 and Dave Cowens in 1970 as their replacements. Hall of Famers, both of them. And no, the Celtics didn't instantly become the best team in the league, as I mentioned they missed the playoffs in Cowens rookie year, then in 1972 they won 56 games the next year and were a very good team, however not on the level of the all-time great Lakers and Bucks that season and the Celtics were handled easily in the conference Finals by the veteran Knicks. In 1973 led by Havlicek and MVP Dave Cowens, a very deep Celtics team that had also added Paul Silas, did win the most games during the regular season, but they had the third highest SRS trailing LA and Milwaukee and injuries slowed them just enough in the playoffs and they got beat by the eventual Champion Knicks again.

So at best they peaked as the fourth best team in the league from 1970-1973, worse than they were at any time during Russell's thirteen seasons.

Finally, it's not accurate to say that most of Havlicek's prime years came with Russell, not even a little bit. He made four all-NBA second teams and four all-star teams alongside Russell. He made four all-NBA first teams, three second teams and nine all-star teams (three based mostly on reputation) after Russell.

[E-Balla]

Here are my rambling thoughts and some questions for which i don't clear answers. Like many, I think this is between MJ (somewhere 1989 - 1991), LBJ (2009, 2013, 2017), and Shaq (2000).

MJ. I value his motor a bit more in 89 than i do for 90 and 91. I think in 1990 and 1991 he is a bit more skilled offensively, specifically in terms of decision making and not forcing shots. This is also clear in his turnover rate. Questions:

what do you think of MJ's motor in these three years?
is MJ's improved discipline in 1991 merely an issue of getting used to the triangle or was there something else about maturity? Could he have done the same thing in 1989 if he had had the coaching?

Probably not, he didn't have the jumper he had in 90 and 91 shooting 28% in the regular and postseason (even if on limited attempts). I think he had a very slight improvement from 89 to 90.

That said the discipline in 91 came because midway through 90 MJ decided to give the triangle a chance and it all clicked. The Bulls might've had a similar SRS in 89 and 90 but the Bulls opened the season 29-20 in 90 ending it on a 27-6 run (a 67 win pace). I would think it was a fluke but midseason they improved from being a +1 level offense like they were in basically every year from 85 to 89 to being a +7.4 offense (overall their SRS wasn't well improved only because their defense didn't improve at all during that stretch).

If the triangle hit the team earlier I'm sure by 89 Jordan could've adjusted to it but I think it's relevant that he didn't play in the triangle and had not adjusted at that point. Personally if we did partial seasons I think MJ really peak peaked at the end of the 90 season once he got clicking in the triangle, but the first half of the season he struggled with the new system which was totally natural given the complexities of the offense.

Now to your question about the motor honestly I think the motor wasn't beneficial. Like Jordan, Phil, Tex, and everyone else involved in creating the triangle offense said limiting Jordan's dominance of the ball was by far the best thing they could do for the health of the team. Actually a big point in his favor over someone like LeBron IMO was that he was able to scale down his motor offensively to let the team thrive.

Here's the Bulls' offenses each year of his career before his first retirement:

85: +0.8
86: +1.4
87: +0.3
88: +1.0
89: +1.3
90 (before they learned the Triangle well, but they already got the ball out of Jordan's hands a ton): +3.2
90 (after learning the Triangle well): +7.4
91: +6.7
92: +7.3

That's a big gap in their efficiency prior to Jordan letting others have the ball more. When MJ ran point they only had a +1.9 offense. I guess what I'm trying to say is what's the value of that motor when it weakened the team?

Shaq. Just an absolute problem in 2000. The main reason to like this year versus some of the surrounding ones is that this is unanimously his best defensive effort season. Shaq's defense is a big question because the Center is such a high leverage position. As it is Shaq was a beast at the rim, in man defense, and rebounding. But his lack of movement hurts his help and team defense a lot.

While Shaq could certainly amp up his D effort in the playoffs, i value the consistency of 2000 a lot. But how much does it count for really? Is he +1.5 or +2? Could we really place him at +2.5 or even +3 on defense?

The tie breaker might be about value in team building. IMO it's easier to find a center that could contribute on defense positively than a guy that sets up teammates like LeBron while still providing way above positional average on defense.

The other side of that statement is that Shaq was the best offensive player in the league at a position where the average player is a net negative offensively. Personally the reason I always rank Shaq first in these projects is that Shaq is the one player where you had to change how you built your team to handle him. If you didn't have one 7 foot tall, 270+ pound player you had no chance of even dreaming of stopping him.

LeBron James. Might be the toughest in terms of matching up his peak impact on offense + defense, and ability to fit in a team setting.

2014 and 2017 or 2018 are his best offensive seasons. 2013 and 2014 I like because his ability to work within a team setting. I actually like his mindset here in terms of becoming a master off-the-ball, playing PF, and letting the offense and extra passing work for him.

In 2013 he was already a master conductor of the offense. A great passing season, his best turnover economy season IMP, and provided good shooting/spacing from everywhere around the court. But it was a down year for him in terms of AND1s and shots at the rim indicating he might have been putting less pressure on defenses than in the following year. But maybe the last year where he could be talked about as All-D worthy.

in 2014 he was just DANGEROUS from every where on the court. He had his highest AND1 rate of miami years, shot 80% at the rim (GODLY). And had his highest FG% from 3-10 ft (55% JESUS). but not a great year defensively (he ramped up a bit in the playoffs, but how much?).

2017 and 2018 are just dominant one-man offense season, but we know at this point it's unlikely for him to really play the same role as in miami (he left for a reason). Even though this lead to amazing team offense results, i do believe it creates more reliance on LBJ's court presence.

ITO of team building, i like the versatilty LeBron gives you. You can really load up on good decision-making finishers/defenders at the guard spots instead of spending a ton on a scoring point guard that will get exposed in the playoffs.

I know folks like 2016 a lot but LeBron's shooting from mid-range and three point was a big question that year so I'm not going to let two incredibly hot games in the finals bump up that whole season. His defensive activity was actually the most interesting part of that finals tear.

Why no mention of 2012 (which is clearly over 2013 IMO and I remember that being the consensus after the season ended) or 2009?

[Gibson22]

1) Lebron 2013
2) Jordan 91
3) Lebron 2009.

I Will argue my votes in a minute and open the #2 thread soon. (I argued my poty vote, it's not like I'm saying Ima argue later to never do it, just don't have the time rn)

[Clyde Frazier]

-

I know I’m late to this, but what is the thinking behind being able to vote for multiple years of a player in the same vote? I personally feel like it clutters the list and disrupts the process of such a project. All that said, I understand that’s what’s been agreed on, and I don’t know how often I’ll be able to participate. So I’m just wondering at this point.

[dontcalltimeout]

Now to your question about the motor honestly I think the motor wasn't beneficial. Like Jordan, Phil, Tex, and everyone else involved in creating the triangle offense said limiting Jordan's dominance of the ball was by far the best thing they could do for the health of the team. Actually a big point in his favor over someone like LeBron IMO was that he was able to scale down his motor offensively to let the team thrive.

Here's the Bulls' offenses each year of his career before his first retirement:

85: +0.8
86: +1.4
87: +0.3
88: +1.0
89: +1.3
90 (before they learned the Triangle well, but they already got the ball out of Jordan's hands a ton): +3.2
90 (after learning the Triangle well): +7.4
91: +6.7
92: +7.3

That's a big gap in their efficiency prior to Jordan letting others have the ball more. When MJ ran point they only had a +1.9 offense. I guess what I'm trying to say is what's the value of that motor when it weakened the team?

Thanks for the response. I should have been more specific, I was thinking of the motor as something that caused him to be more involved defensively, not offensively.
I think the improved shooting is a valid point and if we see 90 and 91 as closely enough, with the latter reflecting Jordan 100% bought in, it makes sense to go with 91. Though I agree with your points about the second-half of the 90 season.

Why no mention of 2012 (which is clearly over 2013 IMO and I remember that being the consensus after the season ended) or 2009?

I personally always valued 2013 more. Part of that was LeBron’s wild efficiency (he shot over 60% from the field 26 times and over 55% another 18 times) + his quarter-backing during the 27 game win streak (which is still one of the most incredible things I’ve seen as a sports fan).

I also liked the spacing he provided in 2013. That was the first year of Ray Allen on the Heat, when Bron, Allen, and Mike Miller used to get in shooting contexts. He really had his balance right on shots (not doing as much of the slight fade back he used to do in his earlier days). I think being able to shoot like he never did before in his career really opened up his game, which is part of why I see a break between 12 and 13.

Also, my perception is 13 was a bit better of a passer (specifically in terms of passing guys open and seeing the pass before the hole even opens) and controlling his TOV.
I really think he got better on offense every year in Miami from 2011 to 2014, but in 2013 he was still an elite defender vs 2014 which was frustrating at times.

2009, I have to think more about.

Part of it has to do with how I see LeBron’s offensive BBIQ at that point versus later. I think by the later Miami years, LeBron had seen every defense that could be thrown at him and could crack the code in ways he couldn’t quite in the first Cleveland stint. I’m really confident that 2013 – 2018 LeBron will figure out how to break down any kind of defensive scheme. Shooting Consistency is part of that too. I think he’s purely a better shooter in 2013, 2014, 2017, and 2018 in ways that open up his game and leave him less susceptible to certain kinds of drop back schemes. (I’ll note that 2013 is kind of imperfect in this regard bc of how the Spurs defensive scheme threw him off the first few games. He eventually figured it out, but I think earlier versions of LeBron are susceptible to that in ways he isn’t later in his career).

So 09 Bron – way more athletic. Elite driving ability, rim pressure and drive-and-kick game. GOAT level carry job.
Later Bron – experienced, better shooting, slightly better playmaking. Less driving but the post-play adds versatility and a new kind of creation defenses have to account for.

[E-Balla]

-

I know I’m late to this, but what is the thinking behind being able to vote for multiple years of a player in the same vote? I personally feel like it clutters the list and disrupts the process of such a project. All that said, I understand that’s what’s been agreed on, and I don’t know how often I’ll be able to participate. So I’m just wondering at this point.

TL;DR: It narrows the scope of the project so everyone is voting on the same thing instead of having some posters voting for the best seasons while some vote for the best players. The only other alternative that's fair IMO is voting for a player with no years involved and that would quickly get out of hand in the discussions.