Djoker wrote:.
Doctor MJ wrote:Dr Positivity wrote:I might consider Gola over him for Warriors
I think Gola's a guy that really needs a lot of discussion.
First, I'd say he was probably the most hyped prospect since at least Alex Groza (born 7 years earlier), so we're talking about someone who we might call a "generational prospect" by today's parlance. (Note: Russell coming out the next year might make that a little tricky, but I think it's clear that many at the time were more impressed with Gola than Russell, as off-the-mark as we know that now to be.)
Second, it's with his arrival that the Warriors go from a below average team to champs, and by Moonbeam's RWOWY analysis it made him the king of the team.
But, by ORtg/DRtg, his impact this year seems to be entirely offensive (they had a better rDrtg the prior year).
And, the next year without Gola, the team is still the best offense in the league.
And, the year after with Gola now the big MPG guy on the team, the elite offense disappears.
So I think what we're talking about here is a situation where Gola really did provide strong +/- impact as a rookie, but did so in a goldilocks situation where he was able to use his jack-of-all-trades skillset to shore up some of the weak spots on the team, but that this wasn't something the Warriors actually needed every year, nor was it something that Gola ensured every year by his presence.
From there, Gola's career fades into obscurity as the Warriors run everything around Wilt, and then Gola never really makes a dent after leaving the team.
I tend to see Gola as a guy who could have had a much more successful NBA career had things gone differently, but "differently" largely means that fitting in next to the right volume scorers. Those volume scorers didn't need Gola in order to do their thing, but Gola needed them in order to contribute that value-add.
And of course, as we've talked about, the Warriors go from being 2-time #1 ORtg to consistently below average on offense with the arrival of Sauldsberry who is treated like a major scoring force from Day 1, but should shot well enough to warrant this role on any of the team he was on in his career. For me this means that the rest of the Warriors don't really have to explain why the team fell off - I don't give them credit for success they didn't have, but I don't think there's any reason to think the success they did have was fluky.
In the end, I don't see enough of a throughline with Gola to see him as a guy who was "the real MVP" of these Warriors. I think there's a serious question between he, Johnston, and George for who was the 2nd most valuable player for the team in the chip run, but that's as far as I'd go.
As we debated to some degree in the Top 100 Project, I feel there is too much lauding of Arizin and diminishing of Johnston that is occurring.
Sometimes the 12-win season in ‘53 [after Arizin had left] is used against Johnston: Arizin left, and look what happened.
However, I do want to draw attention to how historically bad that supporting cast was. Bear in mind that it wasn’t just [
peak] Paul Arizin that was lost; Andy Phillips (probably one of the 3-4 best guards in the league) was also lost [except for 13 games]. And George Senesky fell off a cliff in ‘53.
I’d note also that even WITH Andy Phillip, AND limited minutes of rookie Johnston, AND a better version of Senesky, even
peak Paul Arizin only managed to anchor a .500 team [with -1.08 SRS]......because that’s how bad the rest of the cast was.
Note that in ‘54, they improved to a .403 win% and -1.89 SRS: not far off of the ‘52 showing they had with peak Arizin, despite Johnston still having no one as good as Andy Phillip in support. True, they also added Joe Graboski and rookie Jack George, and got more time from Zeke Zawoluk, but none of these guys is of the calibre of a prime Andy Phillip (or arguably even quite as good as George Senesky had been in ‘52). They benched Joe Fulks, finally, and that no doubt helped, too.
But truly: is it terribly hard to imagine them pushing
close to a .500 record and/or a -1 SRS in ‘54 with a prime Andy Phillip at PG instead of a rookie Jack George?
The point I’m driving at is that I think Johnston’s cast in ‘54 is no better than Arizin’s cast in ‘52 [arguably marginally worse??]…….and they were still only
slightly worse than they’d been in ‘52 (despite this being PEAK Paul Arizin we’re comparing to).
I’d also push back slightly against this notion that a discussion of the best offenses of the 50’s MUST begin with the ‘56 Warriors. Yes, it was the highest raw ORtg seen, but relative to the league environment [rORTG], the Celtics were better in ‘54.
Though at any rate, it’s worth looking at that elite offense in ‘56 by the contributions (from the box).....
Arizin averaged 24.2 ppg @ +6.86% rTS (+228.6 TS Add), with 2.6 apg.
Johnston averaged 22.1 ppg @ +9.72% rTS (+270.9 TS Add), with 3.2 apg. Given he outrebounded Arizin by +5 per game, I’d wager he gets more ORebs, too.
Based on this alone, who would we say contributed more offensively? Bear in mind that’s a 72-game sample vs just 10 for the playoffs, too.
And while Arizin’s production obviously holds up better in that playoff run this year, I’d note that for HALF of Johnston’s playoff sample he was being guarded primarily by Mel Hutchins, whom we’ve all been marvelling at the indicators of his man defense (as he seems to be the Nate Thurmond of his era, and is a strong candidate for DPOY [
based on his man D]).
Check out the first series [narrow 3-2 victory], though:
Arizin is utterly spectacular, averaging 30.2 ppg @ +16.87% rTS, with 3.0 apg.
But Johnston is playing big-time, too: 27.0 ppg @ +7.93% rTS, with a
team-best 6.4 apg (while also exactly
doubling Arizin in rebounds, with a series-best 17.6 rpg).
Overall for the playoffs, despite half his sample being guarded by arguably the best man-defender in the league [at
any position], Johnston averaged 20.3 ppg @ +2.66% rTS [that’s with a little slump at the FT-line, btw], a league-best 14.3 rpg, and 5.1 apg [barely behind Jack George’s 5.2 apg]. He still looks like a tremendous contributor, in other words.
Parsing out credit for the offense…..
In noting that Gola’s absence in ‘57 doesn’t seem to detract much from their offense, that again is missing some details. In ‘57 they were able to plug Larry Costello into the roster to fill most of the minute gap left by Gola’s absence. Although he hasn’t quite hit his prime yet, that’s a pretty nice player to be able to plug in.
Then in ‘58 Gola comes back, but the offense suddenly tanks. Here again are multiple considerations (at least one of which you allude to yourself): 1) Larry Costello has left. 2) Arizin himself has a bit of a slumped year. 3) They’ve added Woody Sauldsberry, and are giving him 33.5 mpg, despite the fact that he takes shots at a rate comfortably higher than anyone else on the roster not named Paul Arizin or Neil Johnston while
making them at a rate of only -6.21% rTS (fun fact: Sauldsberry’s -146.2 TS Add is [I think] the 3rd-worst seen in NBA
history up to that point). 4) George Dempsey sort of tanks in his efficiency too, fwiw (small volume scorer); Graboski has a kinda bad year also.
What happens in ‘59 is interesting......
Arizin has a
drastically resurgent year over ‘58: his rTS improves by
+3.2% over the year before, AND on notably higher volume than in ‘58 (possibly in relation to the addition of Guy Rodgers as a playmaker??? [although it should be said Rodgers is inefficient scoring himself]).
Graboski’s efficiency improves by +1.2% rTS as well (though Sauldsberry gets even worse). Gola is consistent, largely what he'd done in years past, though is around for 5 more games and 207 more minutes than he was in ‘58.
Dempsey–--ever inconsistent in his career–--has another resurgence [Rodger’s effect??], though is only playing small minutes in 23 games for the Warriors this year (yet still comes in 3rd on the team in TS Add because his [career-high] +7.31% rTS exceeds even Arizin’s that year).
And yet the offense tanks by a further -3.0 (falling to
dead-last in the league), while the SRS drops -2.5 (to 7th of 8).
What happened?
Well…….Neil Johnston is gone, that's what (contributing a relatively ineffectual 14.0 mpg in just 28 games after being injured late in ‘58, iirc; this would be his last season).
Fwiw, none of this is me saying Neil Johnston was better or more important to their success than Paul Arizin. None of this is me saying Neil Johnston was even AS GOOD as Paul Arizin.
But I’m troubled by this brewing narrative which seems to say that Arizin was better by leaps and bounds—lapping the field---over every one of his teammates, while Johnston is probably only the 3rd best player on the team.
imo, there’s just isn’t evidence to support such disparity.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
