CHALLENGE: Make an era-relative case for a non-russell season/peak against 1969 Bill Russell(read OP)

[mstat13shuh]

OF course he could have if any coach were dumb enough to feed a below average efficiency shooter that many shots. Thurmond was a great defender, an outstanding rebounder, a workhorse who kept himself in magnificent shape, but he was not a very good shooter who shot 42.7% for his career (66.7 from the line). The Warriors would have been better off having him shoot less for his career like Russell rather than trying to turn him into an inefficient version of Warriors Wilt.

That 42.7% career RS FG is misleading anyway, at least if you negate the number of games those were against dominant defensive centers. Not just Wilt, Russell & Kareem, but others like:

Bellamy, Otto Moore, Gene Wiley, LeRoy Ellis, etc.

I know for historical purposes this seems a bit unfair for the other great centers of his(Nate's)time, but career comparisons between better defensive centers, teams, etc, for a discussion such as this it may be wise.

I do not think Thurmond would come across as an effective scorer even if you just looked at what each hall of fame centre averaged against specific positional opponents.

Thurmond’s scoring was his worst trait. I have pushed back against the notion that he was some deleterious chucker, but that does not mean he produced efficient offence for himself. He liked taking jumpshots, which had some spacing benefit, but he was not good at them. Not a strong finisher. His ideal role was very similar to Russell’s. It is what it is.

Well, I don't quite see it that way.

Besides, respectfully & sensitively, I don't believe you're qualified to make an appropriate judgement on Nate's offense unless you've seen sufficient footage of him and/or studied many game articles. I've done much of the latter.

I mean, for starters, he had at least a few more offensive moves than Russ.

I'm still 100% convinced Nate could've averaged between 20-25 career ppg if necessary & on reasonable efficiency.

Now, could he have done scoring-wise what Bellamy did his rookie season if necessary? I certainly believe not.

But 25ppg for even one season? I can definitely see that transpiring.

Gus Johnson played less games in 1968/69 than in 1967/68.

1. Gus was healthy towards the end of 68/69, unlike the previous season.

Wrong.

smh, maybe I forgot about Gus in 68-69. I just don't recall him being unavailable for the playoffs that year.

Either way, I'll get back to you on this asap.

[mstat13shuh]

Smdh Ok, I forgot, I was wrong, I apologize.

I just checked to be 100% certain & Gus DID miss the entire '69 playoffs because of an injury.

[mstat13shuh]

Well, I don't quite see it that way.

Besides, respectfully & sensitively, I don't believe you're qualified to make an appropriate judgement on Nate's offense unless you've seen sufficient footage of him and/or studied many game articles. I've done much of the latter.

I mean, for starters, he had at least a few more offensive moves than Russ.

I'm still 100% convinced Nate could've averaged between 20-25 career ppg if necessary & on reasonable efficiency.

Now, could he have done scoring-wise what Bellamy did his rookie season if necessary? I certainly believe not.

But 25ppg for even one season? I can definitely see that transpiring.

I mean, after all, his career high was 41 points...

[70sFan]

I mean, for starters, he had at least a few more offensive moves than Russ.

What are those moves? How effective are they?

I'm still 100% convinced Nate could've averaged between 20-25 career ppg if necessary & on reasonable efficiency.

Why do you think he never did that? Do you think it wasn't necessary for him to average efficient 20 ppg, so he decided to average inefficient 20 ppg in prime seasons?

[penbeast0]

Smdh Ok, I forgot, I was wrong, I apologize.

I just checked to be 100% certain & Gus DID miss the entire '69 playoffs because of an injury.

I believe the team, which was having an amazing year prior to Gus's injury, was significantly hurt by his loss. Ray Scott and Leroy Ellis were just not able to take up the slack.

[mstat13shuh]

Smdh Ok, I forgot, I was wrong, I apologize.

I just checked to be 100% certain & Gus DID miss the entire '69 playoffs because of an injury.

I believe the team, which was having an amazing year prior to Gus's injury, was significantly hurt by his loss. Ray Scott and Leroy Ellis were just not able to take up the slack.

Precisely my point.

[mstat13shuh]

I mean, for starters, he had at least a few more offensive moves than Russ.

What are those moves? How effective are they? I don't know yet, but I'm certain they were pretty effective.

I'm still 100% convinced Nate could've averaged between 20-25 career ppg if necessary & on reasonable efficiency.

Why do you think he never did that?
Because it wasn't necessary.

Do you think it wasn't necessary for him to average efficient 20 ppg, so he decided to average inefficient 20 ppg in prime seasons?
I'm not saying he decided to average an inefficient 20ppg in his prime seasons, but the defense was more focused on him when Rick was in the ABA, hence his lower field goal percentages during that time.

[penbeast0]

Precisely my point.

Really? Read your posts. You were saying Unseld wasn't impressive because he had more Gus Johnson, Kevin Loughery, and Jack Marin and where you were wrong is that the combined minutes for Gus and Marin in 69 were less than the minutes Gus gave them in 68 and that Ohl was just as effective as Loughery in 68 so more minutes for Loughery wouldn't have made a significant difference. That was precisely your point and it was wrong.

It doesn't answer the question of whether Unseld was better than Russell, merely the one of did he have a significant effect compared to Leroy Ellis and Ray Scott. I believe that Russell was the better player in 69; this was always a tangential argument.

[70sFan]

[ I don't know yet, but I'm certain they were pretty effective.

How can you know that, if you don't even know these moves?

Because it wasn't necessary.

Considering that Warriors didn't have much scoring around Thurmond and they didn't dominate with their defense, I'd say it was necessary in his situation.

I'm not saying he decided to average an inefficient 20ppg in his prime seasons, but the defense was more focused on him when Rick was in the ABA, hence his lower field goal percentages during that time.

It doesn't make any sense though. Thurmond played with various teams across his career and he was never efficient scorer, even without volume.

What arguments do you have outside of your intuition?

[mstat13shuh]

Precisely my point.

Really? Read your posts. You were saying Unseld wasn't impressive because he had more Gus Johnson, Kevin Loughery, and Jack Marin and where you were wrong is that the combined minutes for Gus and Marin in 69 were less than the minutes Gus gave them in 68 and that Ohl was just as effective as Loughery in 68 so more minutes for Loughery wouldn't have made a significant difference. That was precisely your point and it was wrong.

First of all, I never said(or even tried to imply)that Unseld wasn't impressive in 68-69, because he certainly was, not just because he won Rookie of Year & RS MVP, but in other areas as well.

I'm saying he wasn't as impressive as Thurmond overall, particularly on the defensive side of the basketball.

It doesn't answer the question of whether Unseld was better than Russell, merely the one of did he have a significant effect compared to Leroy Ellis and Ray Scott. I believe that Russell was the better player in 69; this was always a tangential argument.

Yes! That was precisely my point. I believe myself that Russell was the better player than Unseld, even in '69.

[mstat13shuh]

[ I don't know yet, but I'm certain they were pretty effective.

How can you know that, if you don't even know these moves?
Because I know Nate had just as many, if not at least 1 or 2 more, offensive moves than Russell.

Because it wasn't necessary.

Considering that Warriors didn't have much scoring around Thurmond and they didn't dominate with their defense, I'd say it was necessary in his situation.

1. Didn't dominate with their defense? Please. I know Nate averaged about 8.5bpg that season.
2. Well, obviously Rick wasn't there that season, however, I don't feel it was truly necessary that season, because LaRusso & Joe Ellis, I feel, filled Rick's absence as well that season as they possibly could.

I'm not saying he decided to average an inefficient 20ppg in his prime seasons, but the defense was more focused on him when Rick was in the ABA, hence his lower field goal percentages during that time.

It doesn't make any sense though. Thurmond played with various teams across his career and he was never efficient scorer, even without volume. Maybe not compared with Wilt & Walt(or even Willis)but compared with all the remaining centers?
I sincerely beg to differ.

What arguments do you have outside of your intuition?

A few of them, but mainly:

If Bill Russell, of all people, says in his book "Second Wind" that he believed he might've been able to average 25 points per game for even one season, then you sir, of all people, I feel, should feel convinced as well that Nate, if necessary, could've averaged between 25-27ppg in his prime, had Al Attles(or whomever was coaching him at the time)deemed if necessary to do so.

More efficiently than either Wilt or Walt? I don't believe so.
Equally and/or more efficiently than Willis or Wes? Possibly.
Equally and/or more efficiently than all the remaining NBA centers? I believe so.

[mstat13shuh]

They dropped from 48 wins to 34. Not at all comparable to Kareem taking one of the worst teams in the NBA to 56 wins as a rookie, and then Kareem got even better.

1. The 48-34 RS mark Boston posted in 68-69 is significantly misleading when you factor in maybe 20 of those losses were by 3-4 points or less. And that was because, like Russ himself said, they didn't have a game winning play to run at the end of regulation in 5 seconds or less.

Which they actually worked on religiously from the end of the regular season until the beginning of the playoffs.
It ended up paying incredible dividends.

2. Don't also forget, that Sam Jones retired after 68-69 as well.
Had he continued playing for even 1 more season, I'm convinced Boston would've at least secured a playoff berth.

[mstat13shuh]

"He took twenty shots a game because he played 45 minutes a game and had one competent scorer on the team."

1. That 68-69 career-best 45.2 RS MPG for Nate, believe it or not, is unbelievably misleading.

Why?

Because there were 5 games that season that he played less than 30 minutes.
If you negate those 5 games, his MPG average rises from just under 45.2 to just over 47.25.
(Those 5 games, to my recollection, were either from injury and/or illness.)

2. I would say he had more than one competent scorer:

Joe Ellis
Rudy LaRusso
Jeff Mullins

[One_and_Done]

You can say that about every team, you're basically arguing 'if they'd been better they'd have been better'. We have metrics like SRS and point differential to tell us if a team was better than they appeared. As was noted, the SRS difference hugely favours what Kareem did.

[AEnigma]

"He took twenty shots a game because he played 45 minutes a game and had one competent scorer on the team."

2. I would say he had more than one competent scorer:

Joe Ellis
Rudy LaRusso
Jeff Mullins

I already acknowledged LaRusso as the team’s second best scorer, and I am not seeing why you would bother quibbling over the precise nature of “competence” versus something more akin to “adequacy”. LaRusso was not an ideal second-best scorer by any means. I am not blaming him; it is a testament to his play that he shouldered what had been unprecedented scoring load for his standards upon joining the Warriors, and ultimately they were happy to have someone take that shot volume without burning the time by doing so. But he was maybe on the fringes of the top fifty as a scorer. It is fine. If you want to say above average qualifies as competent, go ahead. But no one should look at a team and think, oh, wow, Rudy LaRusso is their second option, they are in pretty good shape.

Joe Ellis was an abysmal scorer though. Thurmond was a better scorer than he was, and that is my point: the Warriors were a team generally bereft of real scoring talent.

Don't also forget, that Sam Jones retired after 68-69 as well.
Had he continued playing for even 1 more season, I'm convinced Boston would've at least secured a playoff berth.

They were 8 games out of a playoff spot.

[mstat13shuh]

"He took twenty shots a game because he played 45 minutes a game and had one competent scorer on the team."

2. I would say he had more than one competent scorer:

Joe Ellis
Rudy LaRusso
Jeff Mullins

I already acknowledged LaRusso as the team’s second best scorer, and I am not seeing why you would bother quibbling over the precise nature of “competence” versus something more akin to “adequacy”.
??? I'm not quibbling over the precise nature of "competence" versus something more akin to “adequacy”.
I'm simply respectfully disagreeing with your assertion that the Warriors had only one competent scorer.

LaRusso was not an ideal second-best scorer by any means.
Well, I felt he 100% was with the Lakers in 61-62 when Elg had to miss the time he obviously needed to that season because of his military service.

Now, was an ideal 2nd scorer for a team by 68-69, compared with others like Ellis & Mullins?
Probably not. But I'm still convinced he was somewhat a reliable scorer.

I am not blaming him; it is a testament to his play that he shouldered what had been unprecedented scoring load for his standards upon joining the Warriors, and ultimately they were happy to have someone take that shot volume without burning the time by doing so. That's fine for me. I respect your stance here.

But he was maybe on the fringes of the top fifty as a scorer. Perhaps so.

It is fine. If you want to say above average qualifies as competent, go ahead. But no one should look at a team and think, oh, wow, Rudy LaRusso is their second option, they are in pretty good shape.

Joe Ellis was an abysmal scorer though. How would you know? By merely glancing at his 68-69 FG%?
Because I don't totally agree here.

Thurmond was a better scorer than he was, and that is my point: the Warriors were a team generally bereft of real scoring talent.
Disagree here as well. I still assert Nate was a real scoring talent. Nowhere like Rick, obviously, but still pretty reliable.

Don't also forget, that Sam Jones retired after 68-69 as well.
Had he continued playing for even 1 more season, I'm convinced Boston would've at least secured a playoff berth.

They were 8 games out of a playoff spot.

Right. So that would automatically indicate to me that had Sam continued playing, even with limited minutes, Boston still would've made the 1970 playoffs.

[mstat13shuh]

Here's what I now can definitively say about Nate Thurmond's scoring efficiency:

No, I don't think he was as efficient as a number of centers, particularly Wilt, Kareem, Bellamy, & a few others.

But his field goal percentage did noticeably rise with Rick's presence on the Warriors.
(Maybe other Warriors' FG% rose as well, I haven't extensively studied this enough, but that's still beside my point.)

[AEnigma]

"He took twenty shots a game because he played 45 minutes a game and had one competent scorer on the team."

2. I would say he had more than one competent scorer:

Joe Ellis
Rudy LaRusso
Jeff Mullins

I already acknowledged LaRusso as the team’s second best scorer, and I am not seeing why you would bother quibbling over the precise nature of “competence” versus something more akin to “adequacy”.

??? I'm not quibbling over the precise nature of "competence" versus something more akin to “adequacy”.
I'm simply respectfully disagreeing with your assertion that the Warriors had only one competent scorer.

By citing guys like Joe Ellis. LaRusso is very much a quibble when I already was calling him a better scorer than Thurmond. It is literal semantics about what you see as the bar here. But in terms of second scorers, I think he was the worst in the league, and most teams had a better third scorer.

Joe Ellis was an abysmal scorer though.

How would you know? By merely glancing at his 68-69 FG%?
Because I don't totally agree here.

What? Are you thinking of a different player? He was by any measure one of the worst scorers in the league every year of his career.

Thurmond was a better scorer than he was, and that is my point: the Warriors were a team generally bereft of real scoring talent.
Disagree here as well. I still assert Nate was a real scoring talent. Nowhere like Rick, obviously, but still pretty reliable.

There is no coherent basis for that in 1969. What was his “talent” here.

By 1971 his shot was decent enough that I would call him decent too. But not a talent, no.

his field goal percentage did noticeably rise with Rick's presence on the Warriors.

And his shot volume noticeably shrunk.

Don't also forget, that Sam Jones retired after 68-69 as well.
Had he continued playing for even 1 more season, I'm convinced Boston would've at least secured a playoff berth.

They were 8 games out of a playoff spot.

Right. So that would automatically indicate to me that had Sam continued playing, even with limited minutes, Boston still would've made the 1970 playoffs.

… 36-year-old Sam Jones was not worth 8 wins, no, and especially not to a team with already decent guard depth.

[70sFan]

Because I know Nate had just as many, if not at least 1 or 2 more, offensive moves than Russell.

But how can you know that if you don't know his moves? I don't understand your logic.

1. Didn't dominate with their defense? Please. I know Nate averaged about 8.5bpg that season.

I didn't say that Nate wasn't a dominant defender, I said that Warriors were not a dominant defensive team - which is true, they couldn't dominate the league with their defense. That means it would help them a lot if Thurmond would be able to ramp up his scoring numbers and offensive impact, but he never did.

2. Well, obviously Rick wasn't there that season, however, I don't feel it was truly necessary that season, because LaRusso & Joe Ellis, I feel, filled Rick's absence as well that season as they possibly could.

LaRusso isn't a secondary scorer level player for a title contenders and he's the only Warrior player you can call a positive volume scorer that year outside of Mullins. The rest of the roster is full of bad scorers (Ellis included) and Thurmond should do better in this situation if he's capable of.

Maybe not compared with Wilt & Walt(or even Willis)but compared with all the remaining centers?
I sincerely beg to differ.

Then you are wrong.

A few of them, but mainly:

If Bill Russell, of all people, says in his book "Second Wind" that he believed he might've been able to average 25 points per game for even one season, then you sir, of all people, I feel, should feel convinced as well that Nate, if necessary, could've averaged between 25-27ppg in his prime, had Al Attles(or whomever was coaching him at the time)deemed if necessary to do so.

I mean, yeah if you force Thurmond to take 30 shots per game, then maybe he'd average 25-27 ppg. I though we were talking about the efficient scoring though.

Again, Russell consistently improved his scoring performance at the highest stage in the playoffs. Thurmond didn't, he didn't show us any signs of having a scoring potential of a star.

More efficiently than either Wilt or Walt? I don't believe so.
Equally and/or more efficiently than Willis or Wes? Possibly.
Equally and/or more efficiently than all the remaining NBA centers? I believe so.

Thurmond wouldn't touch someone like Zelmo Beaty, who was much superior scorer. He wouldn't touch Reed either.

It seems that you think Nate could be a good scorer because he has efficient moves, but you don't know what moves and why they are efficient. It's not the best reasoning if you ask me.

[Fencer reregistered]

Well, I don't quite see it that way.

Besides, respectfully & sensitively, I don't believe you're qualified to make an appropriate judgement on Nate's offense unless you've seen sufficient footage of him and/or studied many game articles. I've done much of the latter.

I mean, for starters, he had at least a few more offensive moves than Russ.

I'm still 100% convinced Nate could've averaged between 20-25 career ppg if necessary & on reasonable efficiency.

Now, could he have done scoring-wise what Bellamy did his rookie season if necessary? I certainly believe not.

But 25ppg for even one season? I can definitely see that transpiring.

I mean, after all, his career high was 41 points...

Actually, Thurmond got up to 43 points, and 42 in a game where he played 48 minutes or less.

Russell's career high was 37, which in one case he achieved in 48 minutes.