Retro Player of the Year 1963-64 UPDATE — Bill Russell

[Djoker]

What competition from any potential poy including 1964 Wilt are you counting on taking a weak cast(bad without him that year, the next year, and average without him with strong replacements in 1971) against two cores that combined for three titles in the next 5 years(including the next)?

By impact, statistically, 1969 Russell without any offensive numbers is a god. Why question 1964 Russell because of his offense when it isn't stopping 69 Russell from cooking a gauntlet?

1969 Russell isn't as good as claim IMO. Havlicek along with Sam Jones and Bailey Howell carried a the whole load on offense and were very important for the Celtics. The 1969 Celtics actually didn't have a very good defense in the playoffs and won with their offense. Not sure what "god like" impact numbers you're talking about.

Hondo was literally better the next year and they were bad lol. Hondo was also on the team for the 5 games in 1969 which they fell off a cliff. And he was peaking in 71 when they were average with Cowens replacing Russell.

If you want a comparative reference, feel free to use your 2ndOAT in Jordan

And regarding teams that combined for 3 titles. That ignores the obvious fact that both the Knicks and Lakers dramatically improved in their title years compared to 1969.

The Knicks quite literally posted the same m.o.v as their 1970 selves in 1969 following the DeBusschere trade. What dramatic improvement took place from 69 to 70?

The 69 Lakers were quite literally a merger between the 2nd and 3rd best team from the previous year, went 8-3 in the first two rounds, and were one win off a championship the following season despite a big srs and record regression in 1970.

What dramatic improvement took place for them?

The Celtics quite literally beat the best team and the 2nd best team of 1970 in one go and then proceeded to be bad the second Bill Russell left. Yet you are saying offensive numbers means Russell was not actually all that valuable when his team goes 8-2, posts a -10 drating, and is an even bigger rs outlier than they were in 1963? Did the Celtics supporting cast see some "massive improvement" I missed?

The offensive numbers do not matter when show, over and over again, you do not need them to have goat+ impact.

First off I think you're fixated on WOWY too much to ascertain impact. Yes the Celtics declined by 7 SRS points when Russell retired but there is more to the story. When Russell retired he was replaced by Hank Finkel (who?). The team's decline has a lot to do with losing a defensive C and replacing him with no one.

The Knicks improved significantly from a 5.48 SRS in 1969 to a 8.42 SRS in 1970. You're right that they were already better post-Debusschere trade in 1969 and that's a good point but that's still a only fragment of a season. Frazier got better in 1970 and he a was key player for the Knicks. They also had a whole year to gel with DeBusschere. And then the 1973 Knicks were a very different team with Earl Monroe and Jerry Lucas and only a hobbled Reed. Very different roster.

As for the Lakers, I meant there was a dramatic improvement from the 1969 to the 1972 Lakers. The 1969 Lakers were no all-time great team and of course nor were the 1970 Lakers.

Also saying that "X team would have Y titles if Celtics didn't exist" can be applied to any championship winning team in history. The Utah Jazz would have 2 titles if the Bulls didn't exist... Pointless!

By the way, according to Thinking Basketball's data the 1969 Celtics were +6.4 rORtg and -0.6 rDRtg in the playoffs. My statement that they were carried largely by their offense, not defense, is valid.

[AEnigma]

The Knicks improved significantly from a 5.48 SRS in 1969 to a 8.42 SRS in 1970. You're right that they were already better post-Debusschere trade in 1969 and that's a good point but that's still a only fragment of a season. Frazier got better in 1970 and he a was key player for the Knicks. They also had a whole year to gel with DeBusschere.

1969 MOV with DeBusschere: +9.32 (112.4-103.04)
1970 MOV with DeBusschere: +9.15 (114.9-105.76)

The 1969 Lakers were no all-time great team and of course nor were the 1970 Lakers.

All-time great is vague here, but back-to-back Game 7 Finals losses and +6 postseason SRSs in that era signifies pretty strong competition. For reference, the 1970 Knicks had a +5.6 postseason SRS (lower than what they had in 1969…), and roughly half the Celtics titles had a lower value than that.

[OhayoKD]

Vote.

1. Bill Russell

Fresh off a unanimous ballot in 1963, in 64, Bill Russell, still playing 12 more minutes than anyone else on his team, leads the Celtics to

-> More wins than 1963
-> Higher SRS than 1963
-> A better defense than 1963
-> A much better playoff performance than 1963

Yet, despite his team seemingly improving in every conceivable way from a unanimously voted season, some are insisting he is not the most valuable player in the league anymore due to a drop in offensive production. For this to add up. Russell's help needs to be rather good...

1. Wilt Chamberlain- this is peak Wilt. This is one of biggest carry jobs in NBA history. His supporting cast isn't very good and carries them to the finals. The Warriors wasn't good offensively sure but Wilt didn't have any offensive help from his teammates. Improves his passing along with his scoring and defense

2. Bill Russell- Anchored an exceptional defense probably one of the best in NBA history. But I think he gets too much credit as Jones, Hondo and Sanders are playing more minutes than the season before

Sure I guess (Though they're still top out at 32 mpg), but does that translate to success independent of Bill Russell? (something one typically expects from gigantic outliers like the 64 celtics)

Spoiler:

1965 - Blll-less Celtics
2 games

1-1
+2.5 net

1964 - Bill-less Celtics:
2 games

1-1
-3.5 net

1963 - Bill-less Celtics

1-1
+1 net

1962 - Bill-less Celtics

0-4
- 10 net

No.

These are all small samples though. So let's look at some other indicators

1. How do the Celtics do without Russell's best teammates?

Answer: they are still the best team in the league when Sam Jones or Hondo are out

2. What do they do when a similarly offensively inept (and worse off athletically) iteration of Bill leaves in 1969 with a close to identical roster?

Answer: They drop-off by 8-points comparing full-health lineups, are bad, and miss the playoffs over a full-season(largest possible sample)

3. What do they do when they replace this version of Russell with a good center and coach in 1971 in addition to a better version of Hondo?

Answer: They post a worse srs(in a period where the top teams have (slightly) higher srs) than the 1995 Jordan and Grant-less Chicago Bulls


In light of all this, does it really matter what Russell wasn't doing on offense on a team that was 2.5 points better than any other team in the league in the RS and easily completed a 6-peat on the back of a -10 defense?


Also, if we're going to give players who were unable to stay even neutral defensively without Russell credit for the Celtics defensive improvement due to small minute increases...maybe some bit of the 8-point defensive spike the Warriors saw should be attributed to rookie Thurmond? Someone who has actually proven they can carry teams on the back of their defensive production?

This is not to say Wilt doesn't have a case(I'll outline it below), but this habit of answering uncertainty regarding Bill by assuming all the cold data on the matter is deeply unfair to Russell's teammates is getting odd. There's very emperically to assume Russell was not still outputting goat-level impact in 1964 or to assume + offense was ever a necessary condition for that and the theory that is motivating people to disregard this has repeatedly been demonstrated to be anachronistic applied to this time period(Walton, Thurmond, ect.)


2. Wilt Chaimberlain

In 1964, treated to a season of Wilt Chamberlain, the Warriors were +4 (an outlier mark for teams that didn't have Bill Russell during this time period) and 48-32. In 1965 they went -5.49 and won 17-games in large part because of the 44 games they played without Wilt that season, they only won 4 (an 8-win pace). Taken at face value(admittedly not the cleanest sample considering other starters also missed half the season), that is the sort of large-sampled impact-data point very few players ever approach (including the likes of Jordan, Steph, Shaq, and KG). Taken at face-value but in the context of the 60's where srs and the best records were lower in a tighter league, that is the sort of data-point that could be pushed against most of the best marks ever).

A +9 30-win swing over >40 games gets you into some special company

But should it be taken at face value? Over the 38 games that year with Wilt the Warriors won 13 times (a 28-win pace). Not quite the same story.

In fairness to Wilt, that was probably a down year. Besides him missing half the season and a reported drop in defensive activity, he also shot 3 points worse from the field and saw a big tumble in terms of free-throw percentage. Wilt's impact portfolio is also among the most volatile and we know that correlates strongly with things happening off the court. Perhaps then the poor results with Wilt are themselves a signal showing just how much a team suffers when Wilt's own individual play does. Or perhaps the team in general was significantly better in 1965. 

I lean more towards the more positive interpretation and thus see 1964 Wilt's #1 case as something worth humoring. But short of tape or some other sort of granular approach demonstrating it was a big spike in the defensive performance of Russell's teammates that led to them improving (and even then, some credit surely should go to the future title-winning player-coach there), the validity of that third interpretation holds Wilt back here.


And to be clear, even fully buying the first interpretation would not give Wilt some sort of slam dunk here as Russell himself still looks like a impact king going by the cold numbers, even if we setting aside that generally, Wilt and Russell are not peers going by the data.

One could scale Wilt off 1962 (a year I was not confident enough to pick Russell), but when the argument for parity there is in large-part...the teams playing each other close...an ostensibly less "stacked" Celtics team beating you in 5 largely undermines that.

Wilt's argument just requires too many favorable assumptions for me. Thus, despite great impact numbers and an impressive win against the Hawks... I'll be voting Wilt 2nd.

3. Oscar Robertson

Disappointing postseason but as the MVP, best offensive player(on the best offense), and leader of the 2nd best team in the league (arguably if we only looked at the postseason) he's tough to place lower. I do think we may be at the point where the prior signals aren't so relevant assessing Oscar's impact. At the very least, he is no longer a gigantic minute outlier on his team. No strong opinions on Jerry Lucas but I'm guessing him turning into a 40+ minute player had something to do with the Royals jump.

4. Bob Petit

Well this is awkward. After confidently proclaiming 1963 would be his last appearance on my ballot, he appears again. Not confident putting him over West at all. a 1-win game win where he was outscored by 11 doesn't seem like a great reason to dump the guy everyone has top 4. Nonetheless if I am truly consistent here, he is the best defender and a big minute's outlier on what was, for most of the season, a better team in an era where defense is really really important. Honestly it'd be nice to hear more in depth-cases for and/or against Petit the defender because with all the success his teams seem to enjoy, even well past what should be his peak, it's weird how lowly he is regarded relative to players like West and Oscar.

He also plays 7 more minutes than any other Hawk as his team takes the player many are considering for #1 to 7. There was quite the points drop though that seems forgivable considering how much praise we're throwing towards the Warriors and Wilt's defense.

5. Jerry West

A more efficient West seems to have taken the baton as the Lakers premier star this season outdoing Baylor in every bbr countable and, over a small-sample, seeing a much better impact signal to corraborate the larger ones(minor edge) we saw from a likely worse iteration of Jerry.

That said this passing of the torch seems to be more related to Baylor's decline with the Lakers slumping to mediocrity overall.

[OhayoKD]

1969 Russell isn't as good as claim IMO. Havlicek along with Sam Jones and Bailey Howell carried a the whole load on offense and were very important for the Celtics. The 1969 Celtics actually didn't have a very good defense in the playoffs and won with their offense. Not sure what "god like" impact numbers you're talking about.

Hondo was literally better the next year and they were bad lol. Hondo was also on the team for the 5 games in 1969 which they fell off a cliff. And he was peaking in 71 when they were average with Cowens replacing Russell.

If you want a comparative reference, feel free to use your 2ndOAT in Jordan

And regarding teams that combined for 3 titles. That ignores the obvious fact that both the Knicks and Lakers dramatically improved in their title years compared to 1969.

The Knicks quite literally posted the same m.o.v as their 1970 selves in 1969 following the DeBusschere trade. What dramatic improvement took place from 69 to 70?

The 69 Lakers were quite literally a merger between the 2nd and 3rd best team from the previous year, went 8-3 in the first two rounds, and were one win off a championship the following season despite a big srs and record regression in 1970.

What dramatic improvement took place for them?

The Celtics quite literally beat the best team and the 2nd best team of 1970 in one go and then proceeded to be bad the second Bill Russell left. Yet you are saying offensive numbers means Russell was not actually all that valuable when his team goes 8-2, posts a -10 drating, and is an even bigger rs outlier than they were in 1963? Did the Celtics supporting cast see some "massive improvement" I missed?

The offensive numbers do not matter when show, over and over again, you do not need them to have goat+ impact.

First off I think you're fixated on WOWY too much to ascertain impact. Yes the Celtics declined by 7 SRS points when Russell retired but there is more to the story. When Russell retired he was replaced by Hank Finkel (who?). The team's decline has a lot to do with losing a defensive C and replacing him with no one.

And then in, 71, they did replace him. With a player and a coach I think both of us agree are good. The result? A lower-srs (in a year srs gaps were actually higher) than the (pre "im back")1995 Bulls who featured

-> No Jordan
-> No Grant
-> A disgruntled Pippen who ended up filing a trade-request

All-time great are not supposed to fall off a cliff like that when you take their best player off, let alone when you replace them well. The raptors lost kawhi...fringe contender. The Bulls lose Jordan...still a contender. The Sixers lose Wilt...still good.

The Celtics lost Russell, saw his best teammate improve(along with the offense), and then replaced him with a soon-to-win MVP center and a hof coach and...still not as good

The Knicks improved significantly from a 5.48 SRS in 1969 to a 8.42 SRS in 1970. You're right that they were already better post-Debusschere trade in 1969 and that's a good point but that's still a only fragment of a season. Frazier got better in 1970 and he a was key player for the Knicks. They also had a whole year to gel with DeBusschere.

1969 MOV with DeBusschere: +9.32 (112.4-103.04)
1970 MOV with DeBusschere: +9.15 (114.9-105.76)

The 1969 Lakers were no all-time great team and of course nor were the 1970 Lakers.

All-time great is vague here, but back-to-back Game 7 Finals losses and +6 postseason SRSs in that era signifies pretty strong competition. For reference, the 1970 Knicks had a +5.6 postseason SRS (lower than what they had in 1969…), and roughly half the Celtics titles had a lower value than that.

"Competition" somewhat implies a curve as obviously you cannot beat a team that won the title that year en-route to a championship. Probably more precise to say "all-time great non-champion" though it doesn't roll of the tongue.

Also saying that "X team would have Y titles if Celtics didn't exist" can be applied to any championship winning team in history. The Utah Jazz would have 2 titles if the Bulls didn't exist... Pointless!

It cannot. The Utah Jazz did not win in 1999 (or come close), and did not make the finals outside of the two years they lost thanks to teams not named the Chicago Bulls. Your example actually illustrates what makes the 60's/70's Knicks/Lakers such an outlier in terms of opposition(setting aside Russell ran into both in one run). Beating one would-be champion is not the same as beating 2 would-be dynasties.

By the way, according to Thinking Basketball's data the 1969 Celtics were +6.4 rORtg and -0.6 rDRtg in the playoffs. My statement that they were carried largely by their offense, not defense, is valid.

I am aware. I just don't trust that when by BBR all of the celtics opponents see their raw scoring plummet and in the regular season they are literally the opposite in terms of splits. That said, like I argued defending Wilt in the 62 thread, the splits are cool, but what matters is the overall impact.

[Owly]

Hondo was literally better the next year and they were bad lol. Hondo was also on the team for the 5 games in 1969 which they fell off a cliff. And he was peaking in 71 when they were average with Cowens replacing Russell.

If you want a comparative reference, feel free to use your 2ndOAT in Jordan


The Knicks quite literally posted the same m.o.v as their 1970 selves in 1969 following the DeBusschere trade. What dramatic improvement took place from 69 to 70?

The 69 Lakers were quite literally a merger between the 2nd and 3rd best team from the previous year, went 8-3 in the first two rounds, and were one win off a championship the following season despite a big srs and record regression in 1970.

What dramatic improvement took place for them?

The Celtics quite literally beat the best team and the 2nd best team of 1970 in one go and then proceeded to be bad the second Bill Russell left. Yet you are saying offensive numbers means Russell was not actually all that valuable when his team goes 8-2, posts a -10 drating, and is an even bigger rs outlier than they were in 1963? Did the Celtics supporting cast see some "massive improvement" I missed?

The offensive numbers do not matter when show, over and over again, you do not need them to have goat+ impact.

First off I think you're fixated on WOWY too much to ascertain impact. Yes the Celtics declined by 7 SRS points when Russell retired but there is more to the story. When Russell retired he was replaced by Hank Finkel (who?). The team's decline has a lot to do with losing a defensive C and replacing him with no one.

And then in, 71, they did replace him. With a player and a coach I think both of us agree are good. The result? A lower-srs (in a year srs gaps were actually higher) than the (pre "im back")1995 Bulls who featured

-> No Jordan
-> No Grant
-> A disgruntled Pippen who ended up filing a trade-request

All-time great are not supposed to fall off a cliff like that when you take their best player off, let alone when you replace them well. The raptors lost kawhi...fringe contender. The Bulls lose Jordan...still a contender. The Sixers lose Wilt...still good.

The Celtics lost Russell, saw his best teammate improve(along with the offense), and then replaced him with a soon-to-win MVP center and a hof coach and...still not as good

The Knicks improved significantly from a 5.48 SRS in 1969 to a 8.42 SRS in 1970. You're right that they were already better post-Debusschere trade in 1969 and that's a good point but that's still a only fragment of a season. Frazier got better in 1970 and he a was key player for the Knicks. They also had a whole year to gel with DeBusschere.

1969 MOV with DeBusschere: +9.32 (112.4-103.04)
1970 MOV with DeBusschere: +9.15 (114.9-105.76)

The 1969 Lakers were no all-time great team and of course nor were the 1970 Lakers.

All-time great is vague here, but back-to-back Game 7 Finals losses and +6 postseason SRSs in that era signifies pretty strong competition. For reference, the 1970 Knicks had a +5.6 postseason SRS (lower than what they had in 1969…), and roughly half the Celtics titles had a lower value than that.

"Competition" somewhat implies a curve as obviously you cannot beat a team that won the title that year en-route to a championship. Probably more precise to say "all-time great non-champion" though it doesn't roll of the tongue.

Also saying that "X team would have Y titles if Celtics didn't exist" can be applied to any championship winning team in history. The Utah Jazz would have 2 titles if the Bulls didn't exist... Pointless!

It cannot. The Utah Jazz did not win in 1999 (or come close), and did not make the finals outside of the two years they lost thanks to teams not named the Chicago Bulls. Your example actually illustrates what makes the 60's/70's Knicks/Lakers such an outlier in terms of opposition(setting aside Russell ran into both in one run). Beating one would-be champion is not the same as beating 2 would-be dynasties.

By the way, according to Thinking Basketball's data the 1969 Celtics were +6.4 rORtg and -0.6 rDRtg in the playoffs. My statement that they were carried largely by their offense, not defense, is valid.

I am aware. I just don't trust that when by BBR all of the celtics opponents see their raw scoring plummet and in the regular season they are literally the opposite in terms of splits. That said, like I argued defending Wilt in the 62 thread, the splits are cool, but what matters is the overall impact.

Not sure about '69 to '71 as a "WoWY" Russell versus Cowens type comp.

You go from a 14 to 17 team league.

'69 has 8 players above 1000 minutes, 13 players overall
'71 has 8 and 14.

Of the 8s, 2 are constant Hondo and Nelson.
Full roster there's 4 constants: Chaney jumps from 209m 20 games to 2289m (4th on the team), Rich Johnson 163 minutes to 13 minutes.

Regarding rookie Cowens he was apparently used what we would now think of as out of position for some part of the year, i.e. more at forward than at center initially, unclear how long this goes on (or exactly how minutes were split etc). This and or being a rookie might relate to his high even for his playstyle 4.1 fouls per 36 (cf Sullivan, '77, p57 and surrounding).

This isn't to take a side on any debate. Understand if this is intended to be "Well if you don't like Finkel ..." and that Russell has big impact signals. I just don't think you've got anything where one can isolate anything there, there isn't enough constant, I wouldn't have thought.

[One_and_Done]

With everyone casting the same vote it almost seems redundant for me to join the choir. The 70s can't get here soon enough, there will be more interesting discussions to be had then.

[penbeast0]

...

4. Bob Petit

Well this is awkward. After confidently proclaiming 1963 would be his last appearance on my ballot, he appears again. Not confident putting him over West at all. a 1-win game win where he was outscored by 11 doesn't seem like a great reason to dump the guy everyone has top 4. Nonetheless if I am truly consistent here, he is the best defender and a big minute's outlier on what was, for most of the season, a better team in an era where defense is really really important. Honestly it'd be nice to hear more in depth-cases for and/or against Petit the defender because with all the success his teams seem to enjoy, even well past what should be his peak, it's weird how lowly he is regarded relative to players like West and Oscar.

He also plays 7 more minutes than any other Hawk as his team takes the player many are considering for #1 to 7. There was quite the points drop though that seems forgivable considering how much praise we're throwing towards the Warriors and Wilt's defense.....

A big part of why Pettit is seen below Oscar and West is because they are far bigger outliers relative to their peers. Pettit was a PF/C, a big man. Big men consistently post stronger numbers then smaller ones in this era so he's competing with not just Baylor (who plays more like the PF next to Rudy LaRusso) but also Bellamy, Reed, etc. Pettit is the 6th best all time up to Alcinder/Kareem (Russell, Wilt, Mikan, Oscar, West) but he's closer to Baylor's impact than he is to West or Oscar.

[IlikeSHAIguys]

With everyone casting the same vote it almost seems redundant for me to join the choir. The 70s can't get here soon enough, there will be more interesting discussions to be had then.

Really?

First time I've seen people pick Wilt.

[eminence]

^Schayes>Pettit imo

Does anybody know who primarily had the Pettit assignment in the Warriors series? Did Thurmond spend a lot of time on him? It's rookie Thurmond, but I'd be very understanding of a player getting limited in that situation - Thurmond on him with Wilt waiting in the wings. His scoring dropping against the Lakers is probably the more notable sign of Pettit slowing down.

I tend to think of Zelmo as the 'best' defender on those later Pettit-era Hawks, though more into toss-up territory for most impactful due to the minutes gap. It's a little inconsistent, but I think Zelmo has enough signal later in his career to believe in him as a very good defensive player.

[IlikeSHAIguys]

1 - Bill Russell
Feel some of you are overthinking. If the team is getting better and theyre stopping other teams better then I feel like Russell is still the best. I don't really get picking a year the Celtics light everyone up to say woah, is Russel really that guy?

2- Wilt
Yeah, no offence or anything but the reasons for Wilt to be first seem pretty weak. Averaging 36 is really impressive and he seems like an awesome defender but like the Celtics had an easy time with them and honestly it seems russell carried.

3 - Oscar
MVP and his team did as good as the Warriors. Also keeps leading the best offence while putting up a really impressive slashline.

4 - West

So he lost to Petit but he put up way better numbers and it doesn't feel like people think Petit was a great defender or anything. The team also seems to suck whenever he misses time and he's considered a top 3 or 4 player by everyone so he's my 4th.

5 - Petit
He pushed Wilt and beat West and I feel like if youre the best player on a team that beats 2 of the best guys maybe you should get a vote. His playoff stats do kind of suck.

Defensive Player of the Year

1 - Russell
2 - Wilt Chaimberlain
3 - Thurmond

Offensive Player of the year

1 - Oscar
2 - West
3 - Wilt

[Djoker]

The Knicks improved significantly from a 5.48 SRS in 1969 to a 8.42 SRS in 1970. You're right that they were already better post-Debusschere trade in 1969 and that's a good point but that's still a only fragment of a season. Frazier got better in 1970 and he a was key player for the Knicks. They also had a whole year to gel with DeBusschere.

1969 MOV with DeBusschere: +9.32 (112.4-103.04)
1970 MOV with DeBusschere: +9.15 (114.9-105.76)

The 1969 Lakers were no all-time great team and of course nor were the 1970 Lakers.

All-time great is vague here, but back-to-back Game 7 Finals losses and +6 postseason SRSs in that era signifies pretty strong competition. For reference, the 1970 Knicks had a +5.6 postseason SRS (lower than what they had in 1969…), and roughly half the Celtics titles had a lower value than that.

I'm aware of their improvement after the DeBusschere trade and said so in my post.

Again all-time great vs. very good team are important distinctions. I don't disagree that the 1969 and 1970 Lakers were very good or strong as you described them but OhayoKD used the description "all time" which is a step too far.

Hondo was literally better the next year and they were bad lol. Hondo was also on the team for the 5 games in 1969 which they fell off a cliff. And he was peaking in 71 when they were average with Cowens replacing Russell.

If you want a comparative reference, feel free to use your 2ndOAT in Jordan

That was rookie Cowens. As Owly explained, there are complications there as well as in very different rosters.

I'll just say that rookie Cowens being less impactful than last year Russell perhaps isn't that meaningful.

The Knicks quite literally posted the same m.o.v as their 1970 selves in 1969 following the DeBusschere trade. What dramatic improvement took place from 69 to 70?

The 69 Lakers were quite literally a merger between the 2nd and 3rd best team from the previous year, went 8-3 in the first two rounds, and were one win off a championship the following season despite a big srs and record regression in 1970.

What dramatic improvement took place for them?

The Celtics quite literally beat the best team and the 2nd best team of 1970 in one go and then proceeded to be bad the second Bill Russell left. Yet you are saying offensive numbers means Russell was not actually all that valuable when his team goes 8-2, posts a -10 drating, and is an even bigger rs outlier than they were in 1963? Did the Celtics supporting cast see some "massive improvement" I missed?

The offensive numbers do not matter when show, over and over again, you do not need them to have goat+ impact.

I can agree on the Knicks. Fair enough. Although I still think they improved in 1970 with Frazier getting better. He was such a key ingredient to them winning that title.

As for 1964 Russell, I'm not saying he was bad. I'm planning to vote him second, easily over another all time great with one-way impact (Oscar). However I can't vote him over Wilt when Wilt himself led a -6.0 rDRtg team meaning he was a historically great defensive player and was just massively better offensively.

The Celtics lost Russell, saw his best teammate improve(along with the offense), and then replaced him with a soon-to-win MVP center and a hof coach and...still not as good

Soon to win MVP as in two years later? Sure but players can improve a lot in 2 years. 1973 Cowens >>> 1971 Cowens. This isn't a good argument on your part.

"Competition" somewhat implies a curve as obviously you cannot beat a team that won the title that year en-route to a championship. Probably more precise to say "all-time great non-champion" though it doesn't roll of the tongue.

All-time great non-champion? I don't think so. For one indication, none of those Lakers or Knicks teams made Sansterre's Top 100 List. Names on the roster don't imply greatness.

It cannot. The Utah Jazz did not win in 1999 (or come close), and did not make the finals outside of the two years they lost thanks to teams not named the Chicago Bulls. Your example actually illustrates what makes the 60's/70's Knicks/Lakers such an outlier in terms of opposition(setting aside Russell ran into both in one run). Beating one would-be champion is not the same as beating 2 would-be dynasties.

My point there wasn't even to glorify the Jazz. They didn't win. End of story. No excuses. No hypotheticals.

I am aware. I just don't trust that when by BBR all of the celtics opponents see their raw scoring plummet and in the regular season they are literally the opposite in terms of splits. That said, like I argued defending Wilt in the 62 thread, the splits are cool, but what matters is the overall impact.

I don't see a whole lot of parallels between 1964 and 1969. That's all. 1964 Russell is in fact a lot better than 1969 Russell. I just don't think he was as good as 1964 Wilt who put everything together as a player that season.

[penbeast0]

^Schayes>Pettit imo

Does anybody know who primarily had the Pettit assignment in the Warriors series? Did Thurmond spend a lot of time on him? It's rookie Thurmond, but I'd be very understanding of a player getting limited in that situation - Thurmond on him with Wilt waiting in the wings. His scoring dropping against the Lakers is probably the more notable sign of Pettit slowing down.

I tend to think of Zelmo as the 'best' defender on those later Pettit-era Hawks, though more into toss-up territory for most impactful due to the minutes gap. It's a little inconsistent, but I think Zelmo has enough signal later in his career to believe in him as a very good defensive player.

I think of Beaty as the primary defender too; the year before he came, the Hawks fell off defensively, then the signals started coming back up. Pettit had a rep as "relentless" or high energy but I get the feeling his defensive impact is more his rebounding than rim protection or great man coverage.

I do have him as better than Schayes though, primarily offensively, and he seemed to adapt better to the sudden influx of talent at the end of the 50s, beginning of the 60s, though he was younger. Not sure Schayes is the defensive force on Syracuse either from what I've read.

[LA Bird]

Does anybody know who primarily had the Pettit assignment in the Warriors series? Did Thurmond spend a lot of time on him? It's rookie Thurmond, but I'd be very understanding of a player getting limited in that situation - Thurmond on him with Wilt waiting in the wings. His scoring dropping against the Lakers is probably the more notable sign of Pettit slowing down.

https://www.nytimes.com/1964/04/05/archives/warriors-triumph-over-hawks-12085.html
"Bob Pettit of the Hawks was victimized by the defensive play of Wayne Hightower and was held to 14 points."

Hightower only played 5 minutes in G4 because of a sprained ankle and Pettit had 29 points on 62% TS with 5 assists that game.
He averaged 19.8 points on 48% TS and 2.5 assists the rest of the series.

Some more info on Hightower from wikipedia:

As a player, Hightower was not a high percentage shooter. His speed and defense were considered the strongest parts of his game. Billings Gazette sports editor Norm Clarke called Hightower "one of the best defensive performers in the ABA". Hightower was named to the 1969 ABA All-Star Game as a coaches selection. Western Division head coach Alex Hannum told the Associated Press, "The writers and broadcasters go with the glamor boys. There's nothing wrong with that, but I added Hightower to help us win the game. [...] He has a great ability to play defense. He is big enough to guard a big man and still agile enough to handle a good size guard." Hightower's head coach with the Utah Stars, Bill Sharman*, praised Hightower's ability to the Deseret News in 1970. He told the publication, "[Hightower] can play anywhere with his speed and I'm not scared to use him as a guard on defense. I can even use him sometimes as a relief for Zelmo Beaty at center and he can also bring the ball down with another guard."

[Dr Positivity]

Competition for #1 was weaker in 1969. No one as good as Wilt in 1964...

What competition from any potential poy including 1964 Wilt are you counting on taking a weak cast(bad without him that year, the next year, and average without him with strong replacements in 1971) against two cores that combined for three titles in the next 5 years(including the next)?

By impact, statistically, 1969 Russell without any offensive numbers is a god. Why question 1964 Russell because of his offense when it isn't stopping 69 Russell from cooking a gauntlet?

1969 Russell isn't as good as claim IMO. Havlicek along with Sam Jones and Bailey Howell carried a the whole load on offense and were very important for the Celtics. The 1969 Celtics actually didn't have a very good defense in the playoffs and won with their offense. Not sure what "god like" impact numbers you're talking about.

And regarding teams that combined for 3 titles. That ignores the obvious fact that both the Knicks and Lakers dramatically improved in their title years compared to 1969. There is nothing particularly impressive about the 1969 Knicks and 1969 Lakers apart from the names on the roster. Neither team played very well. Nowhere near well enough to be called an all-time opponent.

Well the Knicks after the DeBusschere trade play at a 1970 level, with the same team (36-11 overall, 26-4 start). And while Frazier his younger, his post ASB in 69 are as good as 1970/the rest of his prime. Still it's easy to see why experience wise they couldn't beat Celtics on their first try.

Not sure about ATG, but the Lakers season seems like the 2011 Heat where they got it going by the playoffs.

[One_and_Done]

I guess I should vote to give Baylor some love. Pettit had Beaty, who is being undersold. I might give him a vote soon in fact.

I'll go:
1. Russell
2. Wilt
3. Oscar
4. West
5. Baylor

I think those were just the best 5 players in the league, both this year and in general. In fact that's probably the order I'd put them in all time too.

People are focusing too much on record, in a league that wasn't optimising some of these guys well.

[Djoker]

VOTING POST

POY

1. Wilt Chamberlain - 1st Team All-NBA and should have been MVP given his team's similar SRS to Oscar's Royals. Wilt put up what is one of the best two-way seasons in NBA history. I don't think a lot of people appreciate anchoring a -6.0 rDRtg defense which would be a very good season even for Russell while carrying a huge offensive load. Wilt averaged 36.9/22.3/5.0 on 53.7 %TS (+5.2 rTS) in the RS and then 34.7/25.2/3.3 on 54.3 %TS (+5.8 rTS) in the PS. Becoming a more willing passer made him a better offensive player fostering more optimal team play even with a very meager supporting cast on the offensive end.

2. Bill Russell - 2nd Team All-Defense and anchored an absolutely historic -10.8 rORtg defense. His offense in the playoffs though was pretty horrible just dreadful efficiency and he's up against an all-time great at his absolute peak. Had Russell had a better postseason scoring the ball, he probably would have been my #1 because winning matters a ton but here he has to settle for #2 ahead of another one-way impact player in Oscar. 15.0/24.7/4.7 on 46.1 %TS (-2.4 rTS) in the RS then 13.1/27.2/4.4 on 40.6 %TS (-7.9 rTS) in the PS.

3. Oscar Robertson - 1st Team All-NBA and in my book still the best offensive player in the league. Led the #1 offense. 31.4/9.9/11.0 on 57.6 %TS (+9.1 rTS) in the RS and 29.3/8.9/8.4 on 56.8 %TS (+8.3 rTS) in the PS. Just wonderful efficiency even against a very strong Boston defense.

4. Jerry West - 1st Team All-NBA. The Lakers have become West's team with Baylor starting to succumb to injuries and West also taking a leap forward. Jerry is a very efficient scorer with good playmaking. 28.7/6.0/5.6 on 56.2 %TS (+7.7 rTS) in the RS and 31.2/7.2/3.4 on 56.4 %TS (+7.9 rTS). He lost to Pettit's Hawks in the playoffs but he's been the better player so gets the nod from me.

5. Bob Pettit - 1st Team All-NBA. Strong season then a somewhat lackluster postseason. 27.4/15.3/3.2 on 53.5 %TS (+5.0 rTS) in the RS then 21.0/14.5/2.8 on 48.3 %TS (-0.2 rTS) in the PS. Poor playoff efficiency means he can't really go any higher here especially considering the team results aren't noteworthy either and the year is very competitive with the top 4 really as good as it gets.

OPOY

1. Oscar Robertson - Monster combo of scoring and playmaking.

2. Wilt Chamberlain - Incredible scorer who took a step forward as a willing passer.

3. Jerry West - He took a step up and become super efficient. Good playmaker.

DPOY

1. Bill Russell

2. Wilt Chamberlain

3. Nate Thurmond - Feels a bit like voting on reputation and what he would become later but by newspaper accounts, his defense even as a rookie seemed quite good when he subbed for Wilt or played PF next to him.

[eminence]

Player of the Year
1. Bill Russell
The Celtics are as reliant on their defense as ever and romp to the title again (6 straight, 7th overall). Still a good cast, still headed by Russell. I've complemented some of his offensive improvements in the past, but it's mostly to have something new to say. 80-90% of his impact is coming on the defensive side of the ball. I'm not that worried about up and down box-score signals for 4th options on offense. Russell moves ahead of Schayes to #1 on my personal shares list (starting in '50, will wait til next season to pass Mikan on my post WWII list).

2. Wilt Chamberlain
Narrowly going Wilt here, pretty strongly feeling the debate here is he vs Oscar for #2, not he vs Russell for #1. Overall I think the cast difference is enough to explain the RS gap between the Warriors/Royals, and the PO performances lean Warriors after Lucas got dinged up. Though not particularly impressed with their PO performance (Hawks got this close to upsetting them). Wilt (when engaged) I pretty consistently have as a notably better defensive player than offensive player (not to Russell's degree), and he put in good effort this season. Still an outright bad passer despite moderate improvements.

3. Oscar Robertson
Best offensive player in the world, and this season the Royals put together a competent defense to go with it (shoutout to Lucas). Royals really struggled to get anything at all going against the Celtics in that series, think I would've needed to see that series be stronger to get Oscar over Wilt. Plenty of other seasons we've done so far Oscar would've gotten #2, bummer to go up against '64 Wilt.

4. Jerry West
Showed strong impact (1-7 without him), but not a particularly noteworthy season from the Lakers with Elgin fading. For a lead guard not a particularly inspiring playmaker yet. Played well enough against the Hawks I can't really see Pettit over him.

5. Bob Pettit
Thought about Elgin here, but still have a defensive edge to Pettit and Pettit was great in the RS even if he slowed a bit in the playoffs. Congrats to Bob on 9 appearances on my ballot, currently (and will retire) in 4th place for POY shares (Mikan/Russell/Schayes/Pettit/Cousy the current top 5, Wilt likely bumping Cousy next season).

[trex_8063]

Have only had a chance to read a little, but I better get a tentative ballot in.


Offensive Player of the Year
1. Oscar Robertson - I mean, what's really changed from the last three seasons (which he won unanimously)? The guy is 2nd in league in ppg (comfortably above 3rd) while also being a close 2nd in TS% (the one guy barely ahead is his teammate, and likely benefiting by playing with Oscar), and 1st by a country mile or two in apg.......all while at the helm of the comfortably best offense in the league. Has a solid playoff showing as well. Easy pick, imo.

2. Jerry West - A distant 2nd, fwiw. But with a decling Elgin he anchored a solid offense, while individually being 3rd in ppg and 4th in TS%, and 3rd in apg. He's got shooting range, finishing ability, passing skills, foul draw capability (where I think he shoots like 83% at the FT-line). Amazing offensive player; only a distant 2nd because Oscar is Oscar.

3. Wilt Chamberlain - The Warriors weren't a good offense, but tbf Guy Rodgers is overrated (imo), while Gary Phillips, Wayne Hightower, and rookie Thurmond are all sort of drags on the offense. Aside from Rodgers [who is debatable in quality], Mescherry and Attles, he had like no help at all on offense. If you put Russell with this cast, they likely have an ORtg around 88 (instead of 93).
At any rate, he occupies a great deal of defensive attention while accounting for a tremendous of their offensive production, leading the league [comfortably] in ppg on good shooting efficiency, and also 6th in apg (and likely no worse than 2nd in orpg, fwiw).
Leads the league in PER, WS/48, and estimated BPM, while simultaneously leading the league in mpg. That's like.....wow!
Can see a case for him at 2nd, tbh, though I'm not personally comfortable going there.


Defensive Player of the Year
1. Bill Russell - Well, this is Russell near his peak. And even in Taylor's pace-adjusted estimates, the Celtics are the best defense by an utterly absurd margin (even over a team that has both Wilt and rookie Thurmond). His brains, his timing, his athleticism all combine to make him the ultimately elite help defender, and he's leading the league in rpg this year, too.

2. Wilt Chamberlain - C and leading mpg player on the 2nd-best defense. We have ample footage showing what a force he was as a rim-protector (if a bit reluctant to come out of the paint), and he's second to only Russell in rpg. Can't see going another route for #2 here.

3. Tom Sanders - I feel like Russell alone is not the only manufacterer of that stellar defense; if I had to pick one additional character most repsonsible, it would probably be Satch. He's versatile and long, and rebounds well, and this is his 2nd-highest mpg season.


Player of the Year
1. Wilt Chamberlain - My #2 for defense, and #3 on offense (with perhaps case for #2). He's a beast of an athlete, a beast of a player, and this is one of his two best individual seasons, imo. His numbers are monstrous (again: 1st in PER, WS/48, estimated BPM, while also leading in mpg; substantial leads in most things), and the team is successful. Tremendous individual showing the playoffs, too (despite facing Russell for 5 games in the Finals).

2. Oscar Robertson - Was, in fact, the MVP this year. Tough call between my OPOY and DPOY for 2nd this season. This is, or near, Oscar's peak, and it's pretty magnificent. His WOWYR is generally through the roof in his prime, fwiw; and I'm giving him the edge over Russell based partly on holding up better in the playoffs (though I'd consider switching if someone can prove to me Russell had a sudden surge in defensive impact in the playoffs [above and beyond what he was doing in the rs]).

3. Bill Russell - Close call between my OPOY and DPOY. Though Bill won the title, his playoff performance slumps slightly more than Oscar's. I'm probably going counter to much of the board in having Russell only 3rd. But I don't think it's really a stretch to put the guy who has such tremendous impact signals ahead of Russell.

4. Jerry West - Looking at his player attributes, impact signals, and individual numbers, I have trouble going any other route for #4, given the first three players off the table.

5. Bob Pettit - Still hanging in there at 5th in his tenth season. He's 4th in PER, 5th in WS/48 (4th in WS), 4th in estimated BPM (and VORP), while not missing a single game. Stumbles in the playoffs, which removes him from contention for #4, but I'm not sure there's anyone else I'd prefer to round out my ballot.
Major HM: Walt Bellamy. The shaky impact signal and losing team is enough to give me pause, though. However, I could see switching this.

[ardee]

POY

1. Wilt Chamberlain

Unbelievably dominant year and I think now it can be argued as his peak (not that I'm low on '67, just that this one is so good too). Efficiency up, passing way up, probably the best defense of his career until he went to the Lakers, and went on to bring it all Playoffs long including in the Finals against his arch rival.

2. Bill Russell

Offense dropped off enough for Wilt to surpass him in my book. One can say his defense was so dominant that his team won anyway so it shouldn't matter, but I think being -8 TS% in the Playoffs gave them much less room for error, in comparison to Wilt who was as close to flawless as can be.

3. Oscar Robertson

Tremendous RS but unfortunately disappointed a bit in the postseason. A bit like Curry, if you combine his RS peak ('64) with his PS peak ('63), he suddenly jumps up from a top 15 caliber peak to a top 10 in my book, but sadly, we can't do that.

4. Jerry West

Baylor took a step back this year impact-wise, and as a consequence we see the Lakers' overall performance suffer. They go from the inarguable second best team in the league in '62 and '63 (being RIGHT there with the Celtics when fully healthy) to barely over .500 and playing only one Playoff series. That suggests West hadn't taken the next step himself, and was still a notch below Oscar (though he did the very next year).

5. Bob Pettit

Kind of the default 5th pick here. His Playoff performance dropped somewhat but still pretty impressive to be as good as he was in year 10 (for that era).

[Dr Positivity]

With Wilt passing more this year and his 36ppg coming in a more team basketball way under Hannum than previous strategy of just dump it into him and watch, it's hard for me not to think his offensive impact over Russell isn't significant, while being the 2nd or 3rd best defender in the league it appears. Russell is still better on D, but he is human.