GOAT TEAM TOURNAMENT (round 2) #1 Milwaukee Bucks v. #8 1967 Philadelphia 76ers

[penbeast0]

Each player will be considered to be as dominant against his opponents as he was the year that he played (ie. if you are just going to say the more modern team wins, don't bother to participate). And EACH MATCHUP WILL FEATURE THE RULES, REFEREES, AND EQUIPMENT OF THE OLDER TEAM. This doesn't mean that Steph Curry will be called for carrying each time he tries to dribble, just assume that his handle is proportionately as good relative to the era as it is relative to his own. So, in 65, if you think he has the best handle in today's league, you can assume he has the best handle of that era; if he's roughly average for starting PGs of today's league in terms of that one aspect, you can assume he is roughly average for starting PGs of that era. This hopefully will eliminate a bit of the recency bias. Health is as it was, if a player was 75% during the playoffs that year, assume he's only 75% now, this is a playoff tournament, not a regular season seeding.

One last thing. VOTES WITHOUT ANALYSIS (or with what in my personal subject opinion is stupid analysis) WONT BE COUNTED.

1971 Milwaukee Bucks
Lew Alcindor (Kareem)
Greg Smith
Bob Dandridge
Jon McGlocklin
Oscar Robertson

Luscius Allen
Bob Boozer

The highest SRS of all time, the best offense AND the best defense in the league, Kareem surrounded by talent, what's not to like? Kareem was energized by the arrival of Oscar Robertson, not peak Oscar but still one of the strongest and smartest guards to ever play. Bob Dandridge provided a nice 2 way 3rd star, McGlocklin was a pure jump shooter who could play point and Smith was a dirty work player. Allen and Boozer provided starter quality minutes off the bench, both playing over 20 mpg in the playoffs as coach Larry Costello shortened his rotation to 7 players.


1967 PHILADEPHIA 76ers

C Wilt Chamberlain
PF Luke Jackson
SF Chet Walker
SG Hal Greer
PG Wali Jones

F Billy Cunningham
G Matt Goukas

Wilt finally gets more talent than he faces in Boston. HOF coach Alex Hannum turns Wilt into a passing hub; although Wilt's efficiency (.683 from the field!) was so high that he led the team in scoring, he was actually 5th among the starters in FGA/minute (and reserve Billy Cunningham was 1st). The team was the best in the league in offensive efficiency, 3/10 in defense with great scoring from Wilt, outside shooting Hal Greer, and slasher/midrange shooter Chet Walker, as well as talented rookie Billy Cunningham (whose playoff minutes were cut to 22/game). They also had good defense at every position with the above names players plus Luke Jackson, Wali Jones, and Matt Goukas being good defenders though not impressive scorers.

Both teams are in the pre-3 point era and only 4 years separated in time although there was considerable expansion within the NBA (10 teams to 17 teams not even including the ABA!) during that time so the stats from the Bucks regular season may be inflated.

[Samurai]

This would be a close series but I would pick the Bucks. Wilt and Kareem (Alcindor at the time) would be the match-up that most will likely focus on, but I don't see that as the deciding factor. I think the centers will largely be a wash; Wilt will outplay Kareem some of the time and Kareem will have the edge at other times. I see the deciding factor being in the backcourt. Oscar can easily post-up either Greer or Jones as neither had the length or especially the strength to keep Oscar from getting his optimum position on offense. And while McGlocklin also has the size advantage, his primary strength was outside shooting while Oscar's game was based on backing his man down and posting up smaller defenders. McGlocklin was also a very sound defender, so while Jones was quicker, Jon could use his length to make up for being a half-step behind.

Up front, Jackson has a clear size and/or strength advantage over either Smith or Boozer - the two PF options for the Bucks. But Jackson was not a go-to scorer who could take advantage of that match-up, at least not in the way that Oscar could in the backcourt. Cunningham could be a match-up problem, but he was only 23 and just in his second season in 67; he wasn't playing as many minutes and didn't have the overall repertoire that he would have in a few more years when he was a regular All NBA - First team member. I admired the Kangaroo Kid's game in his all too short prime and think he is very underrated by today's fans. In fact, if there was a fictitious time-machine that could transform Cunningham from 69-72 back onto this 67 team, I could see them beating the Bucks. But since time-machines don't exist, and I assume the Bucks would get home court advantage having the higher SRS, I vote for the Bucks in 7 games.

[kendogg]

Would Wilt vs Kareem really be that close? Kareem is a very experienced sophomore with his 4 year UCLA career but he's still pretty fresh compared to a guy in his 8th season and by most accounts his best all around season. In 1971, Kareem and Oscar played their first season together and while that is a powerful duo like Kobe/Shaq, the primes did not collide quite the same and they didn't have time to build much chemistry.

I feel like Wilt would get his, as he was a much more patient scorer at that point. Kareem would be noticeably slowed down. He was slowed down by a Wilt who was 5 years older and coming off a leg surgery. In fact, Kareem shot 48% against Wilt compared to 58% for the season in 1971. The 1971 Lakers were not a great defensive team either in terms of giving Wilt help. How much would prime Wilt slow down Kareem with a good defensive team? Noticeably more, I would wager.

As for the matchup as a whole and which team would win, that is a much harder question. Though Wilt did beat Kareem with a worse team and past his prime (1972 Lakers)

[trex_8063]

Close one. I think Wilt/Kareem and Walker/Bobby D are more or less a wash. I definitely like Milwaukee's backcourt better, though.
Philly's got the better depth, though; but then Milwaukee has the HCA.

idk, it's certainly a close consideration, but I think I'm gonna with Milwaukee based primarily on that edge in the backcourt. It's like Samurai said, I don't think Philly's backcourt can easily contain Oscar (especially because of his size advantage), and Philly's backcourt is pretty small in general (compared to McGlocklin, as well). McGlocklin was a lights-out shooter, and defending him with a guy who's 3" shorter could be a notable advantage, too.

Combine that with the HCA, I simply feel that outweighs Philadelphia's depth advantage and whatever small advantage they have at PF.

Vote: '71 Bucks (probably a great 7-game series, though).

[penbeast0]

I think people might be sleeping on Hal Greer here. His offensive numbers aren't quite Oscar level (more points, less efficient, less rebounds . . . he wasn't the PG so his assists are way lower) but he was known for consistent and strong defense, Oscar wasn't. Assuming they put Wally (a defensive specialist) on Oscar to keep Greer fresh for his offense, I don't see McGlocklin giving him a particularly difficult time. McGlocklin was a terrific open shooter but not all that strong at creating a shot. Greer won't give him much of an opening. And, if Greg Smith isn't able to hit enough midrange shots to keep Luke Jackson open, allowing Luke to double onto Kareem will be a real problem for Milwaukee. Oscar will have a good series but I expect Wilt to win the matchup with Kareem (Kareem didn't like playing the rare players stronger and more physical than he was) and Oscar isn't going to return to his Cincinnati days of scoring 25+ ppg especially with Wilt able to switch off him. I see Milwaukee playing Boozer a lot to force Luke or Wilt to guard someone away from Kareem and Greer outscoring Oscar (though Oscar does more overall). I agree its very close but if Kareem potentially comes up small, I don't think Milwaukee has enough to win this. Vote Sixers

[pandrade83]

Philly because:

-Old Wilt did a credible job on Young Kareem in the early 70's, this is peak Wilt
-Philly dominated a 10 team league just 4 years before the Bucks were the best team in a 28 team professional basketball era. The Bucks were the best of that era - but that just screams talent dilution to me. There's no way the average player could've been as good. I know that seems petty, but that comes to mind when looking at these teams from the ABA era - what would the average starter be doing in a different era? Playing basketball for a living or something else?

[iggymcfrack]

Philly because:

-Old Wilt did a credible job on Young Kareem in the early 70's, this is peak Wilt
-Philly dominated a 10 team league just 4 years before the Bucks were the best team in a 28 team professional basketball era. The Bucks were the best of that era - but that just screams talent dilution to me. There's no way the average player could've been as good. I know that seems petty, but that comes to mind when looking at these teams from the ABA era - what would the average starter be doing in a different era? Playing basketball for a living or something else?

Pretty sure the whole point of the project was to assume that each team is just as dominant as they were against the competition they played to prevent teams who faced much tougher competition in the 2010s from having too much of an advantage over teams from the 60s and 70s. While it obviously feels different when the teams played so close to each other in time, those rules have to still apply here.

Considering the Bucks not only had the best regular season SRS of all-time but also outscored their opponents by an incredible 14.5 points per game in the postseason, I think they’re clearly the more dominant team. The Sixers had a dominant postseason run as well but “only” outscored their opponents by 9.4 points per game in their run to the championship.

Now granted, the Bucks didn’t face a team anywhere near as tough as the Celtics that Philly beat, but overall their playoff competition wasn’t that different. The average playoff opponent for the Sixers had an SRS of +3.61 compared to +1.12 for the Bucks. It’s a difference but not enough to make up for the huge difference in performance. Overall, it would suggest the Bucks are around 3.5 points better which is the same delta we’d see in the regular season.

Voting Bucks in 6.

[pandrade83]

Philly because:

-Old Wilt did a credible job on Young Kareem in the early 70's, this is peak Wilt
-Philly dominated a 10 team league just 4 years before the Bucks were the best team in a 28 team professional basketball era. The Bucks were the best of that era - but that just screams talent dilution to me. There's no way the average player could've been as good. I know that seems petty, but that comes to mind when looking at these teams from the ABA era - what would the average starter be doing in a different era? Playing basketball for a living or something else?

Pretty sure the whole point of the project was to assume that each team is just as dominant as they were against the competition they played to prevent teams who faced much tougher competition in the 2010s from having too much of an advantage over teams from the 60s and 70s. While it obviously feels different when the teams played so close to each other in time, those rules have to still apply here.

Considering the Bucks not only had the best regular season SRS of all-time but also outscored their opponents by an incredible 14.5 points per game in the postseason, I think they’re clearly the more dominant team. The Sixers had a dominant postseason run as well but “only” outscored their opponents by 9.4 points per game in their run to the championship.

Now granted, the Bucks didn’t face a team anywhere near as tough as the Celtics that Philly beat, but overall their playoff competition wasn’t that different. The average playoff opponent for the Sixers had an SRS of +3.61 compared to +1.12 for the Bucks. It’s a difference but not enough to make up for the huge difference in performance. Overall, it would suggest the Bucks are around 3.5 points better which is the same delta we’d see in the regular season.

Voting Bucks in 6.

I interpreted part of the rules you're alluding to as to help avoid recency bias. I obviously did this here, whereas you're basically giving the Bucks credit for beating up lesser teams.

I think given that the Sixers achieved a comparable result to Milwaukee vs. much stronger competition is a meaningful edge given that they basically did it in the same era - furthermore, they have the one player who is superior to Kareem. Those are huge advantages.

[70sFan]

Bucks playoffs opponents are not comparable though... They are already worse by SRS as you pointed out but Lakers also missed West (arguably their best player) and Bullets played with injured Gus Johnson. Compare that to Celtics and Warriors and it's no contest.

[penbeast0]

Bucks 3
Sixers 2

I will close the active voting on this and the other remaining round 2 matchup Thursday afternoon/evening.

[JordansBulls]

You are talking about a battle, but I go with Milwaukee because of the HCA. Although I think it will go 7.

[kendogg]

Oscar is great, but he's past prime at this point. Kareem is great, but only in his 2nd season and he got kinda lucky on his first ring in 1971. I think the 67 Sixers are better than the 1972 Lakers which beat the 1972 Bucks handily and might have beaten the 1971 Bucks as well if not for an injury to Jerry West. The Lakers had 3 HOF players to the Sixers 4 plus another all star. I also predict prime Wilt would outplay sophomore Kareem in the head to head. I'm going Sixers in 6.

[trex_8063]

I think people might be sleeping on Hal Greer here. His offensive numbers aren't quite Oscar level (more points, less efficient, less rebounds . . . he wasn't the PG so his assists are way lower) but he was known for consistent and strong defense, Oscar wasn't.

I know this is the reputation for Greer, though I don't know how well-justified it is. And I still think the size disadvantage is a potential problem.
And while Oscar doesn't have the reputation for consistent and strong defense, I find the trends in team DEFENSIVE performance that seems to follow him (especially late in his career) interesting.

We don't see much of an immediate change to the Royals DRtg when he arrives, though it does trend toward a gradual improvement. And then again when he leaves, there's not a large change immediately, but it does gradually worsen to higher [worse] than it had ever been during his tenure there.

In Milwaukee, the changes are more immediate:
When Oscar arrives in '71, the Bucks defense improves from a pretty good -0.9 rDRTG to an elite -4.1 rDRTG. Oscar was really the only major roster change (maturing and modestly expanded roles for 2nd-year Kareem and Dandridge would be the only other terribly relevant changes, iirc)......and the D jumps by -3.2.
And then when he leaves the immediate change is even more dramatic: they go from being an elite -4.1 rDRTG in '74 to a mediocre +0.1 rDRTG in '75. Admittedly he's not the only change: they also traded away Lucius Allen early in the year. Allen's and Robertson's minutes are largely replaced by PG Jim Price and SG George Thompson. But otherwise they have the same team as in '74 (still have Kareem, Dandridge, McGlocklin, Warner); Kareem misses 17 games this year, but wouldn't think that would be enough to cause a collapse in their full-season DRTG. The most relevant change appears to be in their backcourt.

Anyway, for whatever that's worth....

[penbeast0]

Thompson never guarded anyone in his life, that's a problem. Also, check out the splits for with/without Kareem that year, they are pretty extreme. Kareem was also withdrawing from his team and teammates even more following the murder of the Hanafi Muslims at one of his houses and the racism/anti-Muslim attack from the Milwaukee crowds which were pretty offensive. Even Dandridge was getting a rep as a malcontent that year (never saw anything from him in Washington to indicate he was anything other than a consumate pro). It was a pretty bad locker room and that hurts defense; Oscar's leadership and the respect he got were probably a lot more important than his actual defensive impact I would guess from watching them.

[Owly]

Thompson never guarded anyone in his life, that's a problem. Also, check out the splits for with/without Kareem that year, they are pretty extreme. Kareem was also withdrawing from his team and teammates even more following the murder of the Hanafi Muslims at one of his houses and the racism/anti-Muslim attack from the Milwaukee crowds which were pretty offensive. Even Dandridge was getting a rep as a malcontent that year (never saw anything from him in Washington to indicate he was anything other than a consumate pro). It was a pretty bad locker room and that hurts defense; Oscar's leadership and the respect he got were probably a lot more important than his actual defensive impact I would guess from watching them.

Fairly or not the Hollander Pro Basketball Handbooks gave the impression they thought Dandridge was dogging it/too cautious with the injuries in his final years. Looking it up and I think the negative comment that stuck with me and made me remember the negative sentiment is "Always had the ability, but lacked the desire and, regretfully [sic], a brilliant career has been tarnished." That's after the '81 season. That year and the year before they call him "the mysterious Mr DNP".

Looked further into it. Final main year in Milwaukee ('77) said to have been unhappy due to the trade of friend Elmore Smith and salary. First year (title year) ... okay this looking like a thing ... was living in Virginia 'Had it written in his contract that he could fly out of Dulles instead of traveling with team ... Hates to practice ... When asked about skipping workouts during the playoffs, he replied "I'm an artist, not a house painter."'

[penbeast0]

Thanks, didn't know that. Back in the day, often negative stuff about local sports figures didn't get reported in the local news much. Not a problem now

[penbeast0]

4-3 Milwaukee wins through