Retro POY '72-73 (Voting Complete)

ronnymac2 · Post #61 » by **ronnymac2** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 6:35 pm

Oh, yeah, and Nate Thurmond was awesome, too. 17/17/3.5 with elite all-time level defense. He played Wilt and Kareem in the playoffs.

Also, Cunningham is a contender. So the ABA has another one.

Dr Positivity · Post #62 » by **Dr Positivity** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:33 pm

I'm thinking about changing by ballot again and putting Wilt #1. I wasn't sure if his d was as elite as in 72, but one thing that stuck out is him getting 1st team all d over Nate Thurmond. That tells me Wilt's d was still amazing. So you've got the unofficial DPOY, the league's best rebounder, and a guy who scores 73% and a .69 TS%. He also played 43mpg and is an elite passer (4apg+). His stats are basically a juiced up version of Dwight Howard's the last couple years - Amazing d and rebounding, super high efficiency on a limited quantity, which is something that may have more impact than we give it credit for (I think it's arguable 13ppg on .69 TS% is > 23ppg on .55 TS%+, for eg.), and a much better passer. After boililng it over I think I prefer Wilt's game to Cowens' at this point thanks to the elite defense. Wilt vs West/Frazier... it was a virtual draw for me before, leaning Wilt all of a sudden thanks to the building around a dominant defense/rebounding big strategy. Think I will put Walt or Wilt at #1

ElGee · Post #63 » by **ElGee** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:53 pm

Ran the quick +/- ballpark on West's missed time (13 injured game plus the hamstring injury game where he played 4 minutes) and he was +0.8.

(1) A few things to remember: this estimation occasionally doesn't line up with modern +/- figures for certain players for various reasons.

(2) The Lakers without West were *really* good, so there's a serious ceiling effect to consider here. They also played a below average schedule in his missed time, and posted a +7.9 point differential.

None of that leads me to dismiss West entirely, but for the "value" crowd it's probably pretty relevant. To me, it also bodes well for Wilt Chamerblain if you believe he was the other major driving force on that team.

Post #64 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:21 pm

ronnymac2 wrote:Sadly, Pete Maravich picked the wrong year to have team success. This is too strong a year. He needs props though. 26/7 in the REG SEA for a 46 win team. He was top 10 in PER. He only lost to the powerful Celtics in the playoffs after averaging 26/7.

Of course, it's probably not a coincidence that in the year he had team success, he wasn't the leading scorer, was much less efficient than the leader scorer, didn't lead the team in Win Shares, wasn't the leading MVP vote getter from his team, and in the playoffs didn't lead the team in scoring, scoring efficiency, PER, Win Shares, or minutes played...

Sweet Lou Hudson deserves some props too.

ElGee · Post #65 » by **ElGee** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:26 pm

As a follow up to pace estimation, here are some team numbers to consider (Note: these are a direct reflection of TS% and TS% against just transposed into ORtg/DRtg terms).

Team ORtg (estimated)

Code: Select all

Kansas City  101.0
Los Angeles  100.8
Milwaukee    99.7
New York     97.9
Golden State 96.3
Boston       95.1

Team DRtg (estimated)

Code: Select all

Boston       88.2
New York     91.6
Milwaukee    92.1
Los Angeles  93.1
Golden State 93.6
Kansas City  103.7

I did a bit of a double-take when I saw these numbers. Indeed, Tiny Archibald's Flying Circus Act led the league in TS%. His team was -333 in rebounding and apparently couldn't guard a WNBA team. Cousy and others associated with the team insisted they wouldn't have won 20 games without Tiny. Thoughts?

ElGee · Post #66 » by **ElGee** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:37 pm

Al Attles wrote:“We have 44 defenses for [Tiny Archibald], but he has 45 ways to score.”

Bill Sharman wrote: “[Jerry West] is the greatest defensive guard who's every played in the NBA.”

Post #67 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:58 pm

ElGee wrote:I did a bit of a double-take when I saw these numbers. Indeed, Tiny Archibald's Flying Circus Act led the league in TS%. His team was -333 in rebounding and apparently couldn't guard a WNBA team. Cousy and others associated with the team insisted they wouldn't have won 20 games without Tiny. Thoughts?

That's really quite fascinating. I'm still struggling though with the fact that the Kings didn't see much lift that year over the previous and subsequent years, and when they finally got decent in '74-75 (the first full year after Bob Cousy was gone as coach), it was with defensive efficiency being their strength, and with their defensive star being a guy who was on the '72-73 team. Was this really a great offense (which was basically just Tiny) with an absolutely worthless defense, or was it more a matter of inept defensive coaching strategy which allowed for the offense to score but not as well as their opponents?

ElGee · Post #68 » by **ElGee** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:09 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
ElGee wrote:I did a bit of a double-take when I saw these numbers. Indeed, Tiny Archibald's Flying Circus Act led the league in TS%. His team was -333 in rebounding and apparently couldn't guard a WNBA team. Cousy and others associated with the team insisted they wouldn't have won 20 games without Tiny. Thoughts?

That's really quite fascinating. I'm still struggling though with the fact that the Kings didn't see much lift that year over the previous and subsequent years, and when they finally got decent in '74-75 (the first full year after Bob Cousy was gone as coach), it was with defensive efficiency being their strength, and with their defensive star being a guy who was on the '72-73 team. Was this really a great offense (which was basically just Tiny) with an absolutely worthless defense, or was it more a matter of inept defensive coaching strategy which allowed for the offense to score but not as well as their opponents?

So, if I'm not reading too much into what you're saying, you're hinting at the idea that teams can choose to be "good" on one side of the ball at the complete expense of the other? There are certainly plausible explanations for that, especially in a higher paced league where the game could be wide open.

I also feel that could never completely explain so much success on one side of the ball. The Warriors of today probably "choose" -- in the strategy since, rightly or wrongly -- to be offensive-minded. But their efficiency numbers are average. I've never been really high on Tiny anyway so it's a curious situation for me. I also noticed I've never voted for anyone who's SRS was under -1.0, and KC's is -2.4. (PS: Tiny's TRB% is 3.2! 3.2!?! I'm pretty sure I could top that number.)

Post #69 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:15 pm

Did some digging on the Knicks-Celtics series. Was focusing on Frazier & Cowens:

Frazier scoring:
Game 1 - 24
Game 2 - 24
Game 3 - 23
Game 4 - 37. Knicks were down by 16, Frazier led them back with 15 in the 4th - and 10 more in 2OT.
Game 5 - 21
Game 6 - 29
Game 7 - 25. 13 points in 15 minutes "broke the game open"
Average: 26.1 ppg, led the team in scoring every game

Cowens scoring:
Game 1 - 18
Game 2 - ?. Blowout loss, and he got bench early. Havlicek scored 21, and White scored 15, I'm going to count it as 14, figuring they'd mention it if they scored more.
Game 3 - 27
Game 4 - 33
Game 5 - 32
Game 6 - 26
Game 7 - 24
Average: 24.9

Some thoughts:

-Good god it's irritating seeing them either not give a box score, or give a half-assed box score for NBA playoff games while minor league baseball games get full box scores.

-I wanted to look into this because this was clearly the "real" championship, and also because Frazier clearly had the big stats for the Knicks in these playoffs, but not in the finals. So was he huge against the Celtics when the Knicks were actually pushed? or did he just stat pad in the previous round? Turns out, he was huge in this series scoring 10 more ppg than in the finals.

-Hondo injured late in game 3 is a factor, but I don't think it's one big enough to make a huge asterisk. Through Game 2, the teams had met 10 times and each side winning 5, and the Knicks were winning this one in Boston in the 3rd quarter before Hondo's injury.

-Knicks are constantly referred to as the great defensive team in articles around this time, despite the fact that ElGee's analysis implies the Celtics might have been better per possession, just playing at a much faster pace. One wonders what reps established back in the day were exaggerated by having such imprecise stats.

Post #70 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:19 pm

ElGee wrote:So, if I'm not reading too much into what you're saying, you're hinting at the idea that teams can choose to be "good" on one side of the ball at the complete expense of the other? There are certainly plausible explanations for that, especially in a higher paced league where the game could be wide open.

I also feel that could never completely explain so much success on one side of the ball. The Warriors of today probably "choose" -- in the strategy since, rightly or wrongly -- to be offensive-minded. But their efficiency numbers are average. I've never been really high on Tiny anyway so it's a curious situation for me. I also noticed I've never voted for anyone who's SRS was under -1.0, and KC's is -2.4. (PS: Tiny's TRB% is 3.2! 3.2!?! I'm pretty sure I could top that number.)

That's what I'm talking about yes. I have no doubt that "choosing" offense can make some shift in that direction at the expense of defense. Part of it is simple: If my team attacks in transition, they can shoot before the defense is ready, but they may also be vulnerable to counterattacks in the same fashion.

I think it's quite healthy to question though whether the offensive focus can shift things THIS much. I'm skeptical of that. And yet also skeptical that a guy leading a team so bad, that didn't seem to get worse when he wasn't putting up such huge numbers, was really as good as the numbers imply.

JordansBulls · Post #71 » by **JordansBulls** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:57 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:Did some digging on the Knicks-Celtics series. Was focusing on Frazier & Cowens:

Frazier scoring:
Game 1 - 24
Game 2 - 24
Game 3 - 23
Game 4 - 37. Knicks were down by 16, Frazier led them back with 15 in the 4th - and 10 more in 2OT.
Game 5 - 21
Game 6 - 29
Game 7 - 25. 13 points in 15 minutes "broke the game open"
Average: 26.1 ppg, led the team in scoring every game

Cowens scoring:
Game 1 - 18
Game 2 - ?. Blowout loss, and he got bench early. Havlicek scored 21, and White scored 15, I'm going to count it as 14, figuring they'd mention it if they scored more.
Game 3 - 27
Game 4 - 33
Game 5 - 32
Game 6 - 26
Game 7 - 24
Average: 24.9

Some thoughts:

-Good god it's irritating seeing them either not give a box score, or give a half-assed box score for NBA playoff games while minor league baseball games get full box scores.

-I wanted to look into this because this was clearly the "real" championship, and also because Frazier clearly had the big stats for the Knicks in these playoffs, but not in the finals. So was he huge against the Celtics when the Knicks were actually pushed? or did he just stat pad in the previous round? Turns out, he was huge in this series scoring 10 more ppg than in the finals.

-Hondo injured late in game 3 is a factor, but I don't think it's one big enough to make a huge asterisk. Through Game 2, the teams had met 10 times and each side winning 5, and the Knicks were winning this one in Boston in the 3rd quarter before Hondo's injury.

-Knicks are constantly referred to as the great defensive team in articles around this time, despite the fact that ElGee's analysis implies the Celtics might have been better per possession, just playing at a much faster pace. One wonders what reps established back in the day were exaggerated by having such imprecise stats.

Any reason why you say this was the real championship when LA was the defending champs that met the Knicks in the finals that year?

Post #72 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Aug 14, 2010 11:43 pm

JordansBulls wrote:Any reason why you say this was the real championship when LA was the defending champs that met the Knicks in the finals that year?

When people talk about "real" championships they mean the matchup between the two best teams. The Celtics had the best record in the league and gave the Knicks by far their biggest challenge, so it's hard to imagine that after all was said & done, the Knicks & Celtics weren't considered the two best teams.

To be clear though, I'm not saying that the was the perception while this was still in progress. The Knicks weren't thought to be one of the 3 best teams in the league, so they wouldn't have been a part of any pre-championship "championship".

ThaRegul8r · Post #73 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:19 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
JordansBulls wrote:Any reason why you say this was the real championship when LA was the defending champs that met the Knicks in the finals that year?

When people talk about "real" championships they mean the matchup between the two best teams. The Celtics had the best record in the league and gave the Knicks by far their biggest challenge, so it's hard to imagine that after all was said & done, the Knicks & Celtics weren't considered the two best teams.

To be clear though, I'm not saying that the was the perception while this was still in progress. The Knicks weren't thought to be one of the 3 best teams in the league, so they wouldn't have been a part of any pre-championship "championship".

After they advanced to the finals, the Knicks were the underdogs against the Lakers because they had no one who could match up with Chamberlain.

fatal9 · Post #74 » by **fatal9** » Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:13 am

Doctor MJ wrote:-Good god it's irritating seeing them either not give a box score, or give a half-assed box score for NBA playoff games while minor league baseball games get full box scores.

Full boxscores of the series...

Game 1:

Game 2:

Game 3:

Game 4:

Game 5:

Game 6:

Game 7:

Post #75 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:48 am

Damn, you rock fatal. Thanks

fatal9 · Post #76 » by **fatal9** » Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:49 am

This is the only playoff series in Kareem's career (well the prime of it anyways) that I have an issue with. I do think Kareem checked out midway through the season when the whole DC murders happened, took several games off because of migraines, was receiving death threats at the end of the season but he just should have played better. Larry Costello (his coach) was upset with his effort in the first couple of games of that series. Anyways here's his gamelogs from the series:

G1: 22/24/1 (10/24). Bucks win by 20.
G2: 26/15/3 (12/20). Bucks lose by 3.
G3: 18/18 (8/24). Bucks win by 20 (thanks to Oscar who stepped up in this game, had 34 pts on 13/17 but strugled for rest of the series)
G4: 25/14/5 (8/19, 9/10 FTs). Was 1/10 in first half but played well in second half. Bucks lose by 5.
G5: 19/12/4 (8/24). Bucks lose by 3.
G6: 27/14/2 (13/27). Bucks lose by 14.

Thurmond if you look at Wilt and Kareem's stats against him is the greatest one on one defensive player ever at the center position. I recently looked up some of Wilt's game logs against him in the 60s (early 70s might have been Thurmond's defensive prime though, from pictures he looks a lot stronger) and Thurmond was locking him down as well. He did a great job against Kareem in '72 and '73, Kareem did have severe tendinitis in his knee right at the start of the playoffs in '72 though (on his skyhook leg that he uses to get lift), and I don't know if he was hurt in '73, but looking at regular season matchups, Thurmond definitely could defend Kareem the best. There is simply no denying it. It does however look like that changed in the '74 season though, Kareem didn't have a poor shooting game at all against him, and it might be that he finally could matchup with him strength wise (Kareem was 13 pounds heavier that season than '72/'73). Thurmond was really that good, I don't think anyone has ever averaged 20+ ppg for a series on good efficiency against him (Kareem played well against him in '71 though, 28/16 on 49%, probably the best scoring series anyone's ever had against Thurmond). Kareem hit a game winning shot vs Lakers in the last game of the regular season to give Bucks #1 seed over Lakers, but looks like that was a a curse because it also matched him up with his nemesis.

And for those who don't know how strong Thurmond was, just look at these pictures:

Post #77 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:15 am

Okay, so updating with the full box scores:

Frazier did 26.1 P, 7.3 R, 6.3 A, on 56 FG% & 61.7 TS%
Cowens did 24.4 P, 14.1 R, 3.0 A, on 49.3 FG% & 51.5 TS%

fatal9 · Post #78 » by **fatal9** » Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:21 am

ThaRegul8r wrote:After they advanced to the finals, the Knicks were the underdogs against the Lakers because they had no one who could match up with Chamberlain.

This is true...

"Lakers are favored over Knicks" : http://news.google.ca/newspapers?id=AnQUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RAIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5168,1756902

"Now the Lakers Root for the Knicks": http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F6091FFB395C1A7A93C5AB178FD85F478785F9

Post #79 » by **mopper8** » Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:28 am

Don't have the quote handy, but to add fatal9's post, Wilt said he thought Thurmond was a tougher matchup than Russell.

ronnymac2 · Post #80 » by **ronnymac2** » Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:00 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
ronnymac2 wrote:Sadly, Pete Maravich picked the wrong year to have team success. This is too strong a year. He needs props though. 26/7 in the REG SEA for a 46 win team. He was top 10 in PER. He only lost to the powerful Celtics in the playoffs after averaging 26/7.

Of course, it's probably not a coincidence that in the year he had team success, he wasn't the leading scorer, was much less efficient than the leader scorer, didn't lead the team in Win Shares, wasn't the leading MVP vote getter from his team, and in the playoffs didn't lead the team in scoring, scoring efficiency, PER, Win Shares, or minutes played...

Sweet Lou Hudson deserves some props too.

Yeah. Yeah, I know. But **** it. The coolest player ever still randomly deserves props.

Lou Hudson is a very good player though.

Damn, those are awesome boxscores Fatal. Looks like some NY Daily News boxscores. haha

This is going to be really tough. Was Kareem really THAT injured? He needs to get a spot, because I don't think his injury is enough to put him off a list or anything. I think he's the best player, but this might cost him something. Not sure how much.

Wilt IS looking like a good choice here. I was going to post the same ideas as Mufasa regarding Cowens vs. Chamberlain. I'd take the Stilt, too.