Retro POY '66-67 (Voting Complete)

[Sedale Threatt]

1. Chamberlain
2. Russell
3. Roberston
4. Barry
5. Thurmond

[mopper8]

Guess I'm in the minority, other than ItsMillerTime, David Stern and ronnymac. Seems like Russell is being auto-selecting for a certain position just because he's Bill Russell,

This was my impression too. Contrary to what was posted earlier, the more I like at it, the more I think that Russell had the 2nd best supporting cast in the league this season. Meanwhile, his first season coaching clearly impacted his ability as a player (it went both ways, not just that he had issues coaching), and age was starting to catch up to him. I'd definitely take Oscar ahead of him personally, and consider one of Barry/Thurmond (not sure which cause I haven't looked at that situation fully)

[bastillon]

Barry seems like he was stat-padding. probably high TOVs (as evidenced by ABA years) and awfully poor team player. someone posted a quote with Barry having 60 touches and making 4 passes out of it. c'mon now. his team did well without him that year and they were on ~55W pace in '68 too, before Thurmond got injured. I'm not putting Barry in my TOP5. not helping his team as boxscore stats would indicate.

1.Wilt
2.Oscar (better PS than Russ)
3.Russell (more RS games, greater RS success)
4.Thurmond
5.Greer

great analysis Elgee with Sam Jones. shot creation is important and Boston had none. he was their offensive anchor, basically. still have a hard time putting him above more versatile players like Greer or even Hondo. I'm not convinced about Greer at #5 but Barry is out due to poor impact and no other players are impressive enough to be #5.

Regulator, could you check LAL with/without Jerry West ? it'd be a great continuation and we can tell a lot about his impact on basketball game. I'm starting to think that West is overrated. he's clearly below Oscar and healthy Thurmond is better, too.

[ElGee]

Guess I'm in the minority, other than ItsMillerTime, David Stern and ronnymac. Seems like Russell is being auto-selecting for a certain position just because he's Bill Russell,

This was my impression too. Contrary to what was posted earlier, the more I like at it, the more I think that Russell had the 2nd best supporting cast in the league this season. Meanwhile, his first season coaching clearly impacted his ability as a player (it went both ways, not just that he had issues coaching), and age was starting to catch up to him. I'd definitely take Oscar ahead of him personally, and consider one of Barry/Thurmond (not sure which cause I haven't looked at that situation fully)

I agree it was a down season from Russell. Where I mentally curved his impact up in 1969 -- namely coaching and playoffs -- I curved it down in 1967. I haven't seen a poster disagree on this. I assume from the estimated numbers that the coaching/situation might have decreased his defense a little, especially from his prime years we're about to hit. But he's still the best defensive player in the league, and probably by a decent margin.

Look at it this way: Boston posts a 7.24 SRS. That's not just good, it's bordering on dominant. Over a two-year period, they played the stacked 76ers, who were the best team in the league, basically dead even. (A team regarding as a GOAT team.) In 67, they lost once to Philadelphia without Sam Jones and a late season game in OT when he returned from an injury the day before. From what I've found, they were 3-4 without Jones and his offense seems pretty critical to their success, especially in the playoffs.

Then they lose to Philly by dropping serve once, a 107-102 defeat in G2 at home. That's the game Russell may have blown the season with his coaching, but it seems beyond ludicrous to take a player's impact and drastically ratchet it up or down because of one coaching decision. I have no issue saying Philadelphia was definitely a better team, but if a number of things that have nothing to do with Russell go a little differently, maybe they win another title. Or if Russell brings Jones back in and he does his typical late-game performance.

Even in defeat, they were clearly the second best team and championship caliber. So acting like there's suddenly some different narrative with Russell doesn't make much sense to me, and even with his down year, I fail to see how team's are better off with Thurmond (kind of like a weaker Russell) and Robertson (kind of like an offensive mirror of Russell's defense). Depending on one's criteria, I can see a case for those two at the second spot, but I don't think there's much "auto-selecting" here.

I'm starting to think Jerry West is overrated.

What makes you think that? His teams always suffer considerably when he misses time, his numbers are amazing, his game is amazing, his reputation is amazing. Guy can score, create, and is a theft-master on defense...

[bastillon]

suffer considerably ? +5 or +6 isn't MVP caliber impact and he didn't get much media recognition in the 60s either. I mean don't get me wrong, he was great, but he wasn't MVP-great, more like All-NBA-great. his teams posted some good results without him, they were like .666 in '68 and '69 combined without him. I consider him worse than Oscar clearly, and he was actually closer to Baylor at least when he still was relatively healthy.

[ThaRegul8r]

I have no issue saying Philadelphia was definitely a better team, but if a number of things that have nothing to do with Russell go a little differently, maybe they win another title.

They lost in five, which is pretty convincing. They were down 0-3 before finally winning out of pride to avoid going down in a sweep. Let's not make excuses here.

[bastillon]

something was clearly wrong with Russell in that postseason. Celtics underperformed in the PS, because Russell was worse than usually, probably because of the injury. one contemporary account says just that.

[fatal9]

Out of town for long weekend, but thanks for the great research in the thread.

1. Wilt
2. Thurmond
3. Oscar
4. Russell
5. Barry

HM: Hondo, Greer

[Doctor MJ]

Got a power outage in the LBC. Extending deadline to tomorrow.

[Dr Positivity]

I'm not putting too much on the W/L records and rough +/- with these injuries. My approach to projects like this is to eliminate as many extra variables as possible. I have a hard enough time with APM which is loaded with variables, then making a rough APM based on a 10-15 game injured stretch is like dropping it into variable soup.

Furthermore one of my problems with the APM approach is it assumes all improvement is equal. In truth climbing the NBA ladder is not unlike climbing Everest. Hiking to basecamp is one thing, going from basecamp to the peak is another entirely. I don't care half as much about the jump from 25 to 40 wins, as I do the jump from 40 to 55. Memphis trades for Zbo and they go from 24 to 40 wins... and I still wouldn't want him on my team. Denver goes from 50 to 54 with the Billups trade and it feels like they're on an entirely different level. Likewise the Hornets dropping from 56 to 49 felt like falling off a cliff.

So when I see something like West being worth 5 wins to his great team while Oscar is worth 13 to his mediocore one, that doesn't tell me much because West was so much higher on Everest. I'm still giving Oscar his due, just not because his mediocore team became **** without him which goes without saying for most 'star carrying mediocrity' teams.

I suspect KG's GOAT +/- numbers come from this too. KG may have been the difference between 20 and 50 wins on his team and later, 10 wins and 35. 09 Kobe maybe turned 45 into 65. But saying KG's +30 is >>> Kobe's +20 doesn't work because KG's getting his team to basecamp and Kobe's climbing the peak. KG's extraordinary numbers on those Wolves teams tells me his team was useless without him. No more, no less.

[Sedale Threatt]

I do generally appreciate those figures, especially the effort ElGee has taken to dig them up in these years, which must have been a painstaking task. So props for that. I found the Oscar Robertson information especially interesting.

But yeah, I learned to take them with a grain of salt -- as should be the case with every statistical model -- during the Kareem years. Pretty much dominated across the board, to an extent few players ever have, but it could be concluded from the team's record, which didn't improve all that much when he arrived in L.A., that he somehow failed to provide an impact.

I know well and good about the dangers of empty stats. But nobody yet has been able to explain how a player could do what he did, yet shoulder the blame for L.A.'s mediocrity as opposed to a supporting cast that bordered on the horrid.

So yeah, color me skeptical on using these figures as the end-all, be-all. A lot of people criticize even the in-game plus/minus stuff, so using straight records seems a little rote to me. But it's another piece to the puzzle from an era for which most of us have little practical experience, so it's good to have.

[Doctor MJ]

My vote:

1. Wilt
2. Russell
3. Thurmond
4. Oscar
5. Barry

Wilt, obviously.

Russell's my #2 and it doesn't seem like a very hard choice for me. Not saying I don't see how others could disagree, but I don't see what the big problem is with Russell this year. The Celtics did better this year than the previous by any real standard except winning the title (and they had to play the '67 76ers which is obviously a big factor). The other top contender? Thurmond's team did far worse, Thurmond was 1-5 against the Celtics, and Thurmond missed time.

Oscar's a comfortable #4.

Barry I actually really debated between he and West. West didn't play much less, and while the Lakers disappointed this year, they really weren't that much worse than the Warriors, and West didn't have Thurmond on his team.

[bastillon]

I'm not putting too much on the W/L records and rough +/- with these injuries. My approach to projects like this is to eliminate as many extra variables as possible. I have a hard enough time with APM which is loaded with variables, then making a rough APM based on a 10-15 game injured stretch is like dropping it into variable soup.

Furthermore one of my problems with the APM approach is it assumes all improvement is equal. In truth climbing the NBA ladder is not unlike climbing Everest. Hiking to basecamp is one thing, going from basecamp to the peak is another entirely. I don't care half as much about the jump from 25 to 40 wins, as I do the jump from 40 to 55. Memphis trades for Zbo and they go from 24 to 40 wins... and I still wouldn't want him on my team. Denver goes from 50 to 54 with the Billups trade and it feels like they're on an entirely different level. Likewise the Hornets dropping from 56 to 49 felt like falling off a cliff.

So when I see something like West being worth 5 wins to his great team while Oscar is worth 13 to his mediocore one, that doesn't tell me much because West was so much higher on Everest. I'm still giving Oscar his due, just not because his mediocore team became **** without him which goes without saying for most 'star carrying mediocrity' teams.

I suspect KG's GOAT +/- numbers come from this too. KG may have been the difference between 20 and 50 wins on his team and later, 10 wins and 35. 09 Kobe maybe turned 45 into 65. But saying KG's +30 is >>> Kobe's +20 doesn't work because KG's getting his team to basecamp and Kobe's climbing the peak. KG's extraordinary numbers on those Wolves teams tells me his team was useless without him. No more, no less.

-KG led the league in +/- on 10 SRS Celtics
-West wasn't worth 5 more wins to great team, because he didn't play on great teams. not even close actually. he played on good teams, at best, and still they did great without him.

look I'm not saying APM doesn't have flaws, but to just plain ignore it is unreasonable. I could say boxscore stats mean $hit because they pretty much don't include the defense. that's like half of the game, c'mon. offensively they're often flawed, too, especially now with the lack of data.

if you put both into context it gives you much more accurate results, and clearly it has even more predicting power if you go by these. you could predict Warriors doing well without Barry in '68, but collapsing once Thurmond went down. no such conclusions if you go solely on boxscore metrics.

I don't see this West as MVP candidate. rarely played on a good team and when he did, they had tons of talent. his teammate was all-NBA 1st teamer and he still often struggled to win 50 games. boxscore stats worse than Oscar's. with/without stats worse than Oscar's too. worse team offenses.

[Doctor MJ]

'66-67 Results

Code: Select all

Player             1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts   POY Shares
1. Wilt Chamberlain 17   0   0   0   0 170   1.000
2. Oscar Robertson   0   8   6   3   0  95   0.559
3. Bill Russell      0   8   5   4   0  93   0.547
4. Nate Thurmond     0   1   4   9   3  57   0.335
5. Rick Barry        0   0   2   1  12  25   0.147
6. Hal Greer         0   0   0   0   1   1   0.006
   John Havlicek     0   0   0   0   1   1   0.006


[ronnymac2]

Damn, that was close.

I voted for Oscar, and though I feel that Russell definitely had an argument this year, I'm glad Oscar is ahead.

If you take the names on the jerseys away and just see how the Boston C got destroyed by the Philly C on both sides of the ball, you'd think about Hakeem vs. Robinson and think that Boston's C had a huge matchup issue this year, and that that was a big reason for his team's loss. You'd penalize him accordingly.

[semi-sentient]

Site updated: http://www.dolem.com/poy

Wilt makes an appearance in the top 15, bumping off Wade and pssing up Robinson. Other than that, no changes.

Code: Select all

1.  Kareem Abdul-Jabbar  10.221
2.  Michael Jordan        9.578
3.  Magic Johnson         7.114
4.  Tim Duncan            6.153
5.  Larry Bird            6.147
6.  Shaquille O'Neal      5.910
7.  Julius Erving         5.046
8.  Karl Malone           4.649
9.  Hakeem Olajuwon       4.380
10. Kobe Bryant           4.326
11. Moses Malone          3.478
12. Kevin Garnett         3.388
13. LeBron James          3.083
14. Wilt Chamberlain      2.586
15. David Robinson        2.431

[ThaRegul8r]

If you take the names on the jerseys away and just see how the Boston C got destroyed by the Philly C on both sides of the ball, you'd think about Hakeem vs. Robinson and think that Boston's C had a huge matchup issue this year, and that that was a big reason for his team's loss. You'd penalize him accordingly.

That's one reason I commented that I felt people were auto-selecting him for #2 solely because his was Russell rather than on what happened this season. I advocated for him when I felt a legitimate argument could be made (and will continue to do so), but one thing I am not is a homer. I will dock anyone when and where I feel it's deserved. I will not fail to do so with Russell just because he's Russell.

[lorak]

Site updated: http://www.dolem.com/poy

Wilt makes an appearance in the top 15, bumping off Wade and pssing up Robinson. Other than that, no changes.

Code: Select all

1.  Kareem Abdul-Jabbar  10.221
2.  Michael Jordan        9.578
3.  Magic Johnson         7.114
4.  Tim Duncan            6.153
5.  Larry Bird            6.147
6.  Shaquille O'Neal      5.910
7.  Julius Erving         5.046
8.  Karl Malone           4.649
9.  Hakeem Olajuwon       4.380
10. Kobe Bryant           4.326
11. Moses Malone          3.478
12. Kevin Garnett         3.388
13. LeBron James          3.083
14. Wilt Chamberlain      2.586
15. David Robinson        2.431

Something is wrong - results from 1966/67 are show as "1967-68 Results ".

[Doctor MJ]

suffer considerably ? +5 or +6 isn't MVP caliber impact and he didn't get much media recognition in the 60s either. I mean don't get me wrong, he was great, but he wasn't MVP-great, more like All-NBA-great. his teams posted some good results without him, they were like .666 in '68 and '69 combined without him. I consider him worse than Oscar clearly, and he was actually closer to Baylor at least when he still was relatively healthy.

I think you need to be really careful here.

First, we saw years in the 70s where ElGee's number for West was > +10. Did you really think that West was not an MVP candidate level player in the 60s, but became one later? I think that's pretty crazy.

I think that something that's clear about the 60s Lakers is that the teams didn't mesh well. West & Baylor were both capable stars, but they couldn't make great use of each other. Similar issues with Wilt when he first came aboard. Oscar had the "luxury" of being on a team with no comparable star, and thus the team falls off more dramatically when he goes.

Now, I'm not saying that you have to pretend that Baylor wasn't on the Lakers, and pretend West was more valuable than he was. It's fine to factor that stuff in - but when speaking generally about his capabilities, we should keep such factors in mind.

I also think it needs to be emphasized about Oscar: Even with him, his team wasn't doing very well most of the time. This goes toward one of the core rules about +/- in my book: It's easier to lift a bad team than a good one, and thus to measure players simply by lift will generally overrate stars on mediocre teams. It's great that we now know that Cincy's offense was top notch, but Oscar was still a part of that horrendous defense and we shouldn't pretend like he was having elite team success when he really wasn't.

[semi-sentient]

Something is wrong - results from 1966/67 are show as "1967-68 Results ".

Ooops, looks like I forgot to add in the 67-68 results from last week. I'll fix it up a little later.