How many contending seasons did Wilt, Russell, and Kareem each have?

[f4p]

How many contending seasons did Wilt, Russell, and Kareem each have?

Barkley and Karl Malone Thread
Garnett and Nowitzki Thread
Kobe and Bird Thread
West and Erving Thread
Lebron and Jordan Thread
Duncan and Shaq

This is relative: If a team wins 57 games and no one else wins more than 52, they're probably a contender. If a team wins 57 games and 3 teams win 65+ and they have to beat all of them on the road, they're probably not a contender.

This is not a supporting cast question: If Bill Russell plus 4 guys from the Y win the title, that's a contender. If Charles Barkley and 4 guys from the Y win 30 games, that's not a contender. Of course, if it's Barkley and 4 all-stars and they only win 30 games, you could still say they were a contender and just underperformed.

This is dynamic: It's really a "Did a team have a chance to win it all?" question. If things outside of a team's control help/hurt, take that into account. This includes injuries. The 2000 Spurs might have been contenders, but not once Tim Duncan missed the playoffs. However, if it's new information in a team's control, like if they're the 8th seed and upset the 1st seed, that's just a great series by a non-contender, not the birth of a new contender. The 2007 Cavs aren't necessarily contenders even while making the Finals, the 2007 Mavs are even though they lost in the 1st round.

Optional (but not optional): Apply weights to contending seasons. This isn't championship odds so the numbers aren't supposed to add up to 1.0 for each season. I would say something like below, but choose whatever you want:

1.0 - Favorite / Co-Favorite ('85 Lakers and Celtics?)
0.75 - 2nd best team but there is a strong favorite ('97 Jazz?) / Top 3-4 team in wide open field (Top 2-3 in the 60's?)
0.5 - 2nd best team but there is a dominant favorite ('96 Sonics / '17 Cavs?) / 3rd best team behind co-favorites / Top 4-6 team in wide open field (Top 3-4 in the 60's?)
0.25 - Fringe contender, lots of things need to go right, but not like "once in NBA history" right (if you're the 5th or maybe even 4th seed, you probably don't qualify most years)

An example for Charles Barkley could be:

1985 - 0.5
1993 - 1.0
1994 - 0.75
1995 - 0.75
1997 - 0.25

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt

1960 0.75 as this was Wilt's best supporting cast with the Warriors and they most likely win that series vs Boston if Wilt didn't hurt his hand by punching Heinsohn.

As outside of games 3 and 4 in which he clearly was not at 100% Wilt averaged over 36 PPG a game in the series.


1962 0.5

1964 0.5

1965 0.5

1966 0.75 as they were the second best team in the NBA that season but the reality was, the Celtics were still a better team as Boston had a ton of games missed by their key players.

1967 1.0 as they were the best team all year

1968 1.0 easily would have cruised to a repeat if not for the devastating injuries the Sixers suffered.

1969 0.75 as they had a weak SRS compared to other teams such as Boston and New York and they basically had zero depth due to the trade they made getting Wilt plus VBK was a idiot who basically self sabotaged them in the finals.


1970 0.75

1971 0.25

1972 1.0

1973 1.0 as they started 24 and 4 before Happy went down and if not for West pulling both of his hamstrings in the 73 finals they would have gone back to back.

[f4p]

Wilt

1968 1.0 easily would have cruised to a repeat if not for the devastating injuries the Sixers suffered.

1973 1.0 as they started 24 and 4 before Happy went down and if not for West pulling both of his hamstrings in the 73 finals they would have gone back to back.

you can factor in the injuries into your number if you think it would change the numbers:

This is dynamic: It's really a "Did a team have a chance to win it all?" question. If things outside of a team's control help/hurt, take that into account. This includes injuries.

[70sFan]

1960 0.75 as this was Wilt's best supporting cast with the Warriors and they most likely win that series vs Boston if Wilt didn't hurt his hand by punching Heinsohn.

As outside of games 3 and 4 in which he clearly was not at 100% Wilt averaged over 36 PPG a game in the series.

That's a very bold statement. Before Wilt hurt his hand, the series was tied at 1-1. If you include games 5 and 6, there was a 2-2 tie. I'm sure the Warriors would have put up a better fight, but to say that Celtics would have lost "most likely" is something I'd need much bigger evidence than that. It looks like these two teams were evenly matched when Wilt played healthy.

[AEnigma]

Russell is easy: 1.0 for 1957-66, and then like 0.75 the last three years.

Wilt:
1960 — 0.75
1961 — 0.5
1962 — 0.75
1963 — 0
1964 — 0.75
1965 — 0.75
1966 — 0.75
1967 — 1
1968 — 1
1969 — 0.75 (several contenders, although they were the conference favourite)
1970 — 0.75 (Knicks commanding favourites)
1971 — 0.5
1972 — 1
1973 — 1 or 0.75; I think I said 0.75 for Jerry West, but I see both cases. They had the top SRS and seemed to have the better of that matchup with the Bucks in their own conference, but imo both the Celtics and Knicks were more trustworthy.

Kareem:
1970 — 0.75? 0.5? Had the second-best SRS but really not a team I would pick as a top three contender.
1971 — 1
1972 — 1 (Oscar’s injury would downgrade)
1973 — 0.75
1974 — 1
1975 — 0 (although with health, might have been interesting)
1976 — 0
1977 — 0.75
1978 — 0.75
1979 — 0.75
1980 — 1
1981 — 0.75
1982 — 1
1983 — 0.75
1984 — 1
1985 — 1
1986 — 0.75
1987 — 1
1988 — uhhhhh 1
1989 — postseason injuries but had been 1

[capfan33]

Kareem:
1970 — 0.5
1971 — 1
1972 — 1 (.75 with Oscar's injury)
1973 — 1
1974 — 1
1975 — 0 (Maybe 0.5 if he was healthy)
1976 — 0 (0.25 if they make the playoffs, but team sucked)
1977 — 0.75 (0.5 in the playoffs)
1978 — 0.75
1979 — 0.75
1980 — 1
1981 — 0.75
1982 — 1
1983 — 0.75
1984 — 1
1985 — 1
1986 — 0.75
1987 — 1
1988 — 1
1989 — .25 (probably 1 without Magic injury I think?)