Retro Player of the Year 1963-64 UPDATE — Bill Russell

[AEnigma]

General Project Discussion Thread

Discussion and Results from the 2010 Project

In this thread we'll discuss and vote on the top 5 players and the top 3 offensive and defensive players of 1963-64.

Player of the Year (POY)(5) — most accomplished overall player of that season
Offensive Player of the Year (OPOY)(3) — most accomplished offensive player of that season
Defensive Player of the Year (DPOY)(3) — most accomplished defensive player of that season

Voting will close sometime after 20:00 PM EST on Sunday, August 25th. I have no issue keeping it open so long as discussion is strong, but please try to vote within the first three days.

Valid ballots must provide an explanation for your choices that gives us a window into how you thought and why you came to the decisions you did. You can vote for any of the three awards — although they must be complete votes — but I will only tally votes for an award when there are at least five valid ballots submitted for it.

Remember, your votes must be based on THIS season. This is intended to give wide wiggle room for personal philosophies while still providing a boundary to make sure the award can be said to mean something. You can factor things like degree of difficulty as defined by you, but what you can't do is ignore how the player actually played on the floor this season in favor of what he might have done if only...

You may change your vote, but if you do, edit your original post rather than writing, "hey, ignore my last post, this is my real post until I change my mind again.” I similarly ask that ballots be kept in one post rather than making one post for Player of the Year, one post for Offensive Player of the Year, and/or one post for Defensive Player of the Year. If you want to provide your reasoning that way for the sake of discussion, fine, but please keep the official votes themselves in one aggregated post. Finally, for ease of tallying, I prefer for you to place your votes at the beginning of your balloting post, with some formatting that makes them stand out. I will not discount votes which fail to follow these requests, but I am certainly more likely to overlook them.

Current Voter List

Spoiler:

________________________________________
Layaway Voters
* B-Mitch 30
* Bad Gatorade
* McBubbles

[Dr Positivity]

I will probably be voting Wilt first, now that I believe in his offense more with his playmaking game improving and while being the 2nd best defensive player in the league, his two way impact is too big for me. I also really like the Hawks roster so Wilt beating them to make the finals is impressive. I suspect people here who care more about team ORTG/DRTG than me will give most of the credit to Russell for the Celtics going all D this year but the unofficial 1st team All D is arguably all Celtics except for SG, and I'm not convinced Sam Jones is that far off (I believe he got great word on that end early on when reserve combo with KC but not sure about 30 year old version).

[eminence]

Worst to First '64

Knicks (22-58): Okay offense (3rd), bad defense (9th). Had a couple trades so nobody in particular is responsible, pretty balanced offensive duties. Nobody even close to POY contention.

Pistons (23-57): 8th offense and defense. Howell's efficiency tries to float the offense but fails, with DeBusschere out for most of the season the defense never had a chance, though they weren't better with him. No POY ballot contenders.

Bullets (31-49): 5th O/D. The expansion team has hit respectability! Gus Johnson adds another real rotation guy to the roster. Bells is still putting up big numbers, but I've come down on him as sub the level needed for POY contention.

Sixers (34-46): Goodbye Syracuse. 6th O/7th D. Greer/Kerr/Walker are good solid players, but the depth has faded and those guys as a top 3 are each a bit stretched. Dolph tries his hand at player-coaching. Gave the Royals a good series, but probably would've needed to score the upset to get anybody into contention.

Lakers (42-38): Elgin falls off (he's still good, but lesser), and the Lakers drop like a rock from their healthy pace the past two seasons. 2nd offense/6th defense. LaRusso/Barnett are weak 3/4 guys and without both stars firing they just don't have it any more. Clearly West's team now imo. Drop to a balanced effort from the Hawks in the playoffs. Jerry will be on my ballot, not sure how high.

Hawks (46-34): 4th offense/3rd defense. More depth than ever before, with Zelmo continuing to emerge and acquiring Guerin. Pettit still looks the RS star, but even closer during the POs, where they beat the Lakers and then give the Warriors quite the series. 6 guys in double digits to win game 6. Ultimately Wilt was too much. Pettit might make my ballot in the 5th slot, but for sure behind West so far.

Warriors (48-32): Top of the West was pretty close this year. Wilt is back at it, #7 offense/#2 defense. Hannum in as coach, Wilt liking him probably didn't hurt at all in terms of getting good effort. Hannum building him into that passer role. Not a lot of surrounding talent (excepting rookie Thurmond, who is about as poor of fit with Wilt as I can imagine), pretty successful carry from Wilt. Getting to the Finals this year was a success, no shame in not pushing the Celtics there.

Royals (55-25): #1 O/#4 D. Lucas arrives (to much fanfare, they'd drafted him out of highschool several seasons prior and he supposedly helped double attendance) as Oscar's #2, a bit overhyped, but a good player for certain. Lucas gets injured in the Sixers series and lays a bit of an egg in the playoffs, Twyman steps back up into that #2 spot. Embry still here as well. For as much as this was Oscar's regular season masterpiece, I'm a bit underwhelmed by their PO performance, going 5 with an uninspiring Sixers squad before getting pretty thoroughly beat by the Celtics. It'll be Oscar vs Wilt for the 2/3 slots. Wish Lucas had been healthy.

Celtics (59-21): #9 O/#1 D. Cousy is gone. It's still Russell and the gang. The gang is now Hondo/Sam/KC/Sanders/Heinsohn in RS mpg order. Team is more defensive than ever before with the switch from Cousy to KC. A ridiculous -10.8 by BBref. Don't get any competitive playoff series this season. Russell will once again be my #1 despite some big seasons from Oscar/Wilt.

Early guess at my order 1) Russell, 2/3 Oscar/Wilt, 4) West, 5) Pettit?

Thinking about Oscar vs Wilt, and if I should seriously consider someone other than Pettit for the 5th spot.

[trelos6]

Wilt puts up a huge challenge to Russell for #1. Oscar keeps doing Oscar things and Jerry West continues to get better.

* = led the league

Regular Season

Code: Select all

Player            GP   MIN    PTS    TS%    REB    AST
=======================================================
Bill Russell      78   44.6   15.0   .461   24.7*   4.7
Jerry West        72   40.4   28.7   .562    6.0    5.6
Oscar Robertson   79   45.1   31.4   .576    9.9   11.0*
Wilt Chamberlain  80   46.1*  36.9*  .537   22.3    5.0
Bob Pettit        80   41.2   27.4   .535   15.3    3.2

Post Season

Code: Select all

Player            GP   MIN    PTS    TS%    REB    AST
=======================================================
Bill Russell      10   45.1   13.1   .406   27.2*   4.4
Jerry West         5   41.2   31.2   .564    7.2    3.4
Oscar Robertson   10   47.1*  29.3   .568*   8.9    8.4*
Wilt Chamberlain  12*  46.5   34.7*  .543   25.2    3.3
Bob Pettit        12*  41.2   21.0   .483   14.5    2.8

Estimated Pace-Adjusted Numbers 1964

ORtg

Code: Select all

1.  Cincinnati    99.2
2.  Los Angeles   98.0
3.  New York      95.6
4.  Baltimore     95.2
5.  St. Louis     95.2
LEAGUE AVG.       94.5
6.  Philadelphia  93.3
7.  San Francisco 93.0
8.  Detroit       92.1
9.  Boston        89.3


DRtg

Code: Select all

1.  Boston        83.0
2.  San Francisco 88.6
3.  St. Louis     93.8
LEAGUE AVG.       94.5
4.  Cincinnati    94.9
5.  Baltimore     96.6
6.  Philadelphia  96.9
7.  Los Angeles   97.1
8.  Detroit       98.6
9.  New York      101.4

Celtics continue to have the best defensive record in the league, again by a long shot. The Warriors anchored by a motivated Wilt, and Thurmond are up to second, and Pettit in his second to last season anchored the #3 defense.

Russell is still #1 DPOY, but Wilt comes roaring back in at #2. 3 is a tough one, I want to go a Celtics player since they dominated defensively. There are 3 options. KC Jones, Tom Sanders and John Havlicek, and they all played roughly the same amount of minutes, give or take.

DPOY

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Tom Sanders

HM: KC Jones

Offensively, looking at some pp75, rTS% stats. Wilt was 25.1, +5.2. West 23, +7.7. Oscar 21.7, +9.1. I think these 3 have a strong claim for the top 3. Baylor starts to decline 20.3, .2. Pettit is still quite solid, but doesn't do enough 20.9, 5.

Oscar also ran the best offensive in the league for a 4th straight season. West and Elgin were the #2 offense. In the playoffs, the Royals faced the top 2 defenses, and Oscar was still very good. This is enough for me to have him at #1 again. West is a firm #2, which leads me to a decision between Pettit and Wilt. I'll go Wilt for volume, and he was ok enough in the finals, averaging a 29/28/2 on +2.4%

OPOY

1. Oscar Robertson
2. Jerry West
3. Wilt Chamberlain

HM: Bob Pettit

POY

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Jerry West
5. Bob Pettit

HM: Walt Bellamy

Ultimately, it was close. I think this is peak Russell. and he edges out Wilt by a hair. Oscar is still a little above West, largely from his offensive playmaking and efficiency.

[Djoker]

I will probably be voting Wilt first, now that I believe in his offense more with his playmaking game improving and while being the 2nd best defensive player in the league, his two way impact is too big for me. I also really like the Hawks roster so Wilt beating them to make the finals is impressive. I suspect people here who care more about team ORTG/DRTG than me will give most of the credit to Russell for the Celtics going all D this year but the unofficial 1st team All D is arguably all Celtics except for SG, and I'm not convinced Sam Jones is that far off (I believe he got great word on that end early on when reserve combo with KC but not sure about 30 year old version).

I agree with this. I too will probably vote Wilt #1. His passing improvement coupled with Russell having an absolutely awful postseason scoring the ball makes me lean Wilt and his two-way impact winning out. In fact, I also think a very persuasive argument can be made that 1964 Wilt is the peak version of Wilt over 1967.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote

1. Wilt Chamberlain - GOAT level two way skillset when he's on like this

2. Bill Russell - This is the point where his team should've lost for a few years as a transition period but it didn't happen and in fact they won rather easliy, so you have to give him the most credit.

3. Oscar Robertson - Not going to vote West over Oscar in his big MVP year

4. Jerry West - A little bit disappointing season even with Baylor decline, but still elite two way skillset, and Pettit had weaker playoffs

5. Bob Pettit - His stats run out of gas a bit in the playoffs, but I don't think Greer on mediocre team or Jones as his team's non best player is quite enough to get over him.

Offensive player of the year

1. Oscar Robertson
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Jerry West

Defensive player of the year

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Tom Sanders

[penbeast0]

1. Bill Russell -- Still the best at creating a winning team
2. Wilt Chamberlain -- still the most talented in the league and good team results
3. Oscar Robertson -- League's best creator
4. Jerry West -- still improving as a playmaker, great scoring continues
5. Bob Pettit -- the last full year for the Tim Duncan of the 50s/60s, consistent excellence

[Djoker]

Looking at the head to head, Wilt won but it wasn't actually that one-sided. According to the newspaper reports by Regul8r in the original thread, Russell probably won the match-up in both Game 1 and Game 5.

The reason I'm voting Wilt this season is that he anchored -6.0 rDRtg which is better than a few Russell seasons and in the elite range historically. And that's on top of being a really good offensive player. Being a more willing passer under Hannum made Wilt into a more potent offensive weapon. His San Francisco Warriors period (1962-63, 1963-64 and the first half of 1964-65) were also his weakest supporting casts. Oscar won the MVP but I feel like it should have been Wilt who has better two-way impact. Thurmond might have helped on defense even as a rookie but offensively, the team had very little.

Of course, Russell led a -10.8 rDRtg so there is that but with how poor his scoring was, I can't imagine he had any positive impact on offense this year. There's only so much you can do with one side of the ball even in that era.

1964 Finals - Wilt vs. Russell

Game 1 - Celtics by 12

Wilt: 22/23/1 on 43.5 %TS (-5.0 rTS)
Russell: 9/25/4 on 42.3 %TS %TS (-6.2 rTS) with 12 blocks

Game 2 - Celtics by 23

Wilt: 32/25/3 on 51.7 %TS (+3.2 rTS)
Russell: 9/24/9 on 38.3 %TS (-10.2 rTS)

Game 3 - Warriors by 24

Wilt: 35/25/5 on 65.2 %TS (+16.7 rTS)
Russell: 16/32/3 on 37.7 %TS (-10.8 rTS)

Game 4 - Celtics by 3

Wilt: 27/38/1 on 50.9 %TS (+2.4 rTS)
Russell: 8/19/3 on 35.7 %TS (-12.8 rTS)

Game 5 - Celtics by 6

Wilt: 30/27/2 on 44.5 %TS (-4.0 rTS) with 5 blocks
Russell: 14/26/6 on 53.0 %TS (+5.5 rTS) with 13 blocks

Series Averages

Wilt: 29.2/27.6/2.4 on 50.9 %TS (+2.4 rTS)
Russell: 11.2/25.2/5.0 on 41.5 %TS (-7.0 rTS)

[OhayoKD]

Of course, Russell led a -10.8 rDRtg so there is that but with how poor his scoring was, I can't imagine he had any positive impact on offense this year. There's only so much you can do with one side of the ball even in that era.

Were Russell's offensive numbers in 1969 better? If defense was enough for russell to carry a weak team against two all-time opponents, I don't really understand the point of questioning his one-way impact in a season they were still steamrolling the league in the regular season and went 8-2 in the playoffs.

[Djoker]

Of course, Russell led a -10.8 rDRtg so there is that but with how poor his scoring was, I can't imagine he had any positive impact on offense this year. There's only so much you can do with one side of the ball even in that era.

Were Russell's offensive numbers in 1969 better? If defense was enough for russell to carry a weak team against two all-time opponents, I don't really understand the point of questioning his one-way impact in a season they were still steamrolling the league in the regular season and went 8-2 in the playoffs.

Competition for #1 was weaker in 1969. No one as good as Wilt in 1964...

[penbeast0]

Of course, Russell led a -10.8 rDRtg so there is that but with how poor his scoring was, I can't imagine he had any positive impact on offense this year. There's only so much you can do with one side of the ball even in that era.

Were Russell's offensive numbers in 1969 better? If defense was enough for russell to carry a weak team against two all-time opponents, I don't really understand the point of questioning his one-way impact in a season they were still steamrolling the league in the regular season and went 8-2 in the playoffs.

Competition for #1 was weaker in 1969. No one as good as Wilt in 1964...

No one was ever as individually good as Wilt who was the greatest outlier talent in the history of the league. The key is how well he and his coaches translate it into helping the team. You might be able to make a case for Wilt in 64 helping a relatively weak Warriors squad compete with a deep Boston team but that's the case you have to make to convince people like me.

[AEnigma]

Offensive Player of the Year

1. Oscar Robertson
2. Jerry West
3. Wilt Chamberlain

Top two self-explanatory. And then there is no other playmaker I trust at that level now that Guerin and Wilkens share a backcourt. But those are the top three offences, and I do not take Pettit over Wilt now that Wilt has mildly improved his instinct to pass. The Warriors have a bad offence, sure, but much as with 1962 where I see little to blame on Wilt himself, here I think Wilt is preventing this team from a historically bad offence. 286.1 individual TS Add (flawed measure but reasonably illustrative in this case), -419.2 rest of team TS Add. Last year it was 374.9 and -435.2 respectively.

Defensive Player of the Year

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Nate Thurmond

Top two self-explanatory. For third place, I think about how several of us were willing to vote for Sauldsberry a couple of years ago because of the team turnaround next to Wilt. Well, while part of this historic non-Russell defence (best non-Russell/Mikan to this point) was from the Hannum coaching takeover and Wilt’s own heightened motivation, the other significant change was rookie Thurmond, who was already one of the league’s top rebounders and shot-blockers. The Warriors will (by basketball-reference estimates) stay a top three defence until 1969, and an above average one until 1974 (where Thurmond’s twenty missed games are enough to drag them below the cut-off).

And with this we also mark the end of the Joe Graboski / Red Kerr era of third place defenders. With Thurmond (as well as Debusschere and Gus Johnson) in the mix, we can finally claim a full ballot of legitimate Hall-of-Famers.

Player of the Year

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Jerry West
5. Bob Pettit

I can believe Wilt was a better player this season than Russell was, but I am not confident enough in that possibility to overwrite the significant gap in success.

1964 Oscar may be the best #3 PoY in league history.

Great season from West, albeit not yet at his true peak years and with an underwhelming exit.

And then Pettit appears for the last time. Solid season capping off a decade of top ~five calibre play.

[Dutchball97]

Player of the Year
1. Bill Russell - Despite very strong competition from Wilt and Oscar this time around, but I believe this is peak Russell with him leading the Celtics to another title behind the best defense of all-time. The Warriors with Wilt and Thurmond were way ahead of the pack in terms of defense, by such a distance that resembles the usual Celtics lead in defense during this era. Then we have the Celtics with an even bigger gap to the Warriors than the latter have to the rest of the field. Defensively they were just on another level here and that's primarily because of Russell, especially considering their struggles on offense.

2. Wilt Chamberlain - An even closer call for the top spot than Oscar last year and it's well deserved Wilt is even getting 1st place votes this time around. However, Wilt's monstrous offensive numbers didn't lead to a particularly strong team offense. Of course he didn't have much help but I don't think he was so impactful on offense to have an overall better season than Russell at his absolute defensive peak. It helps the Celtics beat both the Warriors and Royals 4-1, while the latter 2 teams both went to deciding games against lesser opponents as well. This is still an amazing 2-way season though and the reason I'm mostly talking about why he's below Russell is because I don't think it needs much explanation why he's ahead of the rest of the league.

3. Oscar Robertson - A very strong MVP level season that would've been first most years being third here shows how strong the league is at the top this season. Overall Wilt and Oscar had very similar seasons but I think Wilt's individual dominance was even more eye popping, while Russell was putting on the most impressive defensive season ever.

4. Jerry West - All-NBA 1st team and top 5 in MVP voting, including 2 first place votes shows West's growth as he's finally making the Lakers his team with Baylor on the decline. West's post-season was short but sweet as he outplayed Pettit pretty convincingly in their head to head, which along with their regular seasons being comparable and Pettit not really stepping up the next round makes me prefer West's season overall but it's still quite a bit behind Oscar at this point.

5. Bob Pettit - It's looking like a pretty top heavy year as Pettit in his twilight years sneaks onto the ballot behind the real heavy hitters. It was another really good regular season for Pettit with only the players ahead on this ballot beating him there but he couldn't capitalize in the play-offs despite pretty impressive team results beating the Lakers and taking the Warriors to 7. I did consider Sam Jones as well with him stepping up as a second star next to Russell but with how bad the Celtics offense rates out I'm not sure Jones' increased role directly led to more success right away. Honorable mention to Hal Greer but he didn't have the strongest post-season himself, while having a clearly worse regular season imo.

Offensive Player of the Year
1. Oscar Robertson
2. Jerry West
3. Wilt Chamberlain

Oscar once again led the top offense in the league although it's questionable if that was still the case in the post-season. West leading the way for the Lakers seems to have made an already very strong offensive team even better. Wilt's team results on offense weren't the best but his scoring in both the regular season and play-offs makes it hard to leave him off, especially with Pettit and Baylor struggling a bit in the post-season.

Defensive Player of the Year
1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Nate Thurmond

Russell easily secures #1 again with his excellence on the defensive end, while Wilt is back to business after a somewhat lesser season the previous year. Maybe it's too early to give a rookie Thurmond his flowers here but his arrival did seem to give the Warriors a serious boost on defense and he played roughly 9 MPG more in the play-offs, which is always a good sign.

[LA Bird]

Player of the Year
1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Jerry West
5. Bob Pettit

As I briefly mentioned at the end of last thread, I feel like Wilt's offense this year is overrated. If we look at the sequence of events that made 1967 Wilt special,

1. Hannum new offensive system
2. Wilt passed more
3. Offensive rating skyrocketed

We didn't get that in 1964 at all. Wilt's assist numbers had already gone up at the end of the previous season (seemingly without much impact on winning) and the offense actually got WORSE under Hannum relative to the league, sinking to bottom 3. When he faced Russell in his first Finals appearance, Wilt only averaged 2.4 assists, a figure lower than his own 62 series against Boston. The second half of G4 got reuploaded on youtube again if anyone hasn't seen it yet:

Watch on YouTube

He wasn't too different from the early score-only Wilt. The big improvement of the 64 Warriors came on defense and as impressive as Wilt was this year, nobody is touching peak Russell on that end of the floor. If Wilt had anchored something like a +3 offense on top of the -6 defense, then yeah I'll put him over Russell. But the Warriors were a -1.6 offense. The Celtics were once again the top team overall in the regular season because of their historic defense and they defeated both of their 4 SRS rivals in the postseason convincingly. The common argument against Russell is that the Celtics success was because he had stacked teams but we once again saw Boston defense fall apart without him, allowing 133.5 points to the horrendous Knicks in the 2 games he missed. This is the closest Wilt has gotten yet but I think it's still Russell at #1 for a couple years.

Oscar won the MVP, being the only non-center to win it in the 60s/70s and the only guard between 1957 (Cousy) and 1987 (Magic).
Second in points, first in assists (doubling 3rd place West), first in FT%, second in TS% (behind own teammate Lucas), 0.09 rebounds away from a triple double average for those who like round numbers, highest SRS for a non-Russell/Mikan team between 1951 and 1966... this is a POY-worthy season in many weaker years. However, it's an underwhelming postseason. The Royals got pushed to the edge in the first round by a -3.8 SRS Sixers that they should have swept and then they got destroyed 4-1 by the Celtics. Lucas was injured and couldn't hit anything (27% FG, 62% FT) but he still had 14/24/6 and 16/25/10 games. Oscar didn't have a double digit assist game the entire series and he wasn't scoring like he did the previous year.

Baylor fell off and Pettit would soon join him in the playoffs, making West the easy pick at #4. The Lakers went 1-7 without West this year but 2-0 without Baylor. He has also finally gotten his legendary shot and was second in FT% behind only Oscar. Some might point to Pettit beating West H2H as a reason to rank him higher but he really wasn't that great in the postseason. Pettit was the 3rd highest scorer on the Hawks in every win and got outscored by Hagan (twice, tied another time), Wilkens, Guerin, Beaty, Vaughn. This wasn't peak Pettit any more. Sam Jones didn't have a strong enough regular season to overtake Pettit but that will come the following season.

[OhayoKD]

Of course, Russell led a -10.8 rDRtg so there is that but with how poor his scoring was, I can't imagine he had any positive impact on offense this year. There's only so much you can do with one side of the ball even in that era.

Were Russell's offensive numbers in 1969 better? If defense was enough for russell to carry a weak team against two all-time opponents, I don't really understand the point of questioning his one-way impact in a season they were still steamrolling the league in the regular season and went 8-2 in the playoffs.

Competition for #1 was weaker in 1969. No one as good as Wilt in 1964...

What competition from any potential poy including 1964 Wilt are you counting on taking a weak cast(bad without him that year, the next year, and average without him with strong replacements in 1971) against two cores that combined for three titles in the next 5 years(including the next)?

By impact, statistically, 1969 Russell without any offensive numbers is a god. Why question 1964 Russell because of his offense when it isn't stopping 69 Russell from cooking a gauntlet?

It's not like the Celtics are performing like we'd expect from a stacked team without Bill this year or the years right before this.

[Djoker]

Were Russell's offensive numbers in 1969 better? If defense was enough for russell to carry a weak team against two all-time opponents, I don't really understand the point of questioning his one-way impact in a season they were still steamrolling the league in the regular season and went 8-2 in the playoffs.

Competition for #1 was weaker in 1969. No one as good as Wilt in 1964...

What competition from any potential poy including 1964 Wilt are you counting on taking a weak cast(bad without him that year, the next year, and average without him with strong replacements in 1971) against two cores that combined for three titles in the next 5 years(including the next)?

By impact, statistically, 1969 Russell without any offensive numbers is a god. Why question 1964 Russell because of his offense when it isn't stopping 69 Russell from cooking a gauntlet?

1969 Russell isn't as good as claim IMO. Havlicek along with Sam Jones and Bailey Howell carried a the whole load on offense and were very important for the Celtics. The 1969 Celtics actually didn't have a very good defense in the playoffs and won with their offense. Not sure what "god like" impact numbers you're talking about.

And regarding teams that combined for 3 titles. That ignores the obvious fact that both the Knicks and Lakers dramatically improved in their title years compared to 1969. There is nothing particularly impressive about the 1969 Knicks and 1969 Lakers apart from the names on the roster. Neither team played very well. Nowhere near well enough to be called an all-time opponent.

[OhayoKD]

Competition for #1 was weaker in 1969. No one as good as Wilt in 1964...

What competition from any potential poy including 1964 Wilt are you counting on taking a weak cast(bad without him that year, the next year, and average without him with strong replacements in 1971) against two cores that combined for three titles in the next 5 years(including the next)?

By impact, statistically, 1969 Russell without any offensive numbers is a god. Why question 1964 Russell because of his offense when it isn't stopping 69 Russell from cooking a gauntlet?

1969 Russell isn't as good as claim IMO. Havlicek along with Sam Jones and Bailey Howell carried a the whole load on offense and were very important for the Celtics. The 1969 Celtics actually didn't have a very good defense in the playoffs and won with their offense. Not sure what "god like" impact numbers you're talking about.

Hondo was literally better the next year and they were bad lol. Hondo was also on the team for the 5 games in 1969 which they fell off a cliff. And he was peaking in 71 when they were average with Cowens replacing Russell.

If you want a comparative reference, feel free to use your 2ndOAT in Jordan

And regarding teams that combined for 3 titles. That ignores the obvious fact that both the Knicks and Lakers dramatically improved in their title years compared to 1969.

The Knicks quite literally posted the same m.o.v as their 1970 selves in 1969 following the DeBusschere trade. What dramatic improvement took place from 69 to 70?

The 69 Lakers were quite literally a merger between the 2nd and 3rd best team from the previous year, went 8-3 in the first two rounds, and were one win off a championship the following season despite a big srs and record regression in 1970.

What dramatic improvement took place for them?

The Celtics quite literally beat the best team and the 2nd best team of 1970 in one go and then proceeded to be bad the second Bill Russell left. Yet you are saying offensive numbers means Russell was not actually all that valuable when his team goes 8-2, posts a -10 drating, and is an even bigger rs outlier than they were in 1963? Did the Celtics supporting cast see some "massive improvement" I missed?

The offensive numbers do not matter when show, over and over again, you do not need them to have goat+ impact.

[Narigo]

1. Wilt Chamberlain- this is peak Wilt. This is one of biggest carry jobs in NBA history. His supporting cast isn't very good and carries them to the finals. The Warriors wasn't good offensively sure but Wilt didn't have any offensive help from his teammates. Improves his passing along with his scoring and defense

2. Bill Russell- Anchored an exceptional defense probably one of the best in NBA history. But I think he gets too much credit as Jones, Hondo and Sanders are playing more minutes than the season before


3. Oscar Robertson- With the addition of Jerry Lucas, the team improves a bit especially on the defensive end where they struggle most years during Oscar tenure with the Royals. This is probably Oscar best season

4. Jerry West- West improves his efficiency this year mostly because of his improvement at the free throw line.

5. Bob Pettit- Teams offense improves a bit because of Hagan increased playing time from the season before. Pettit plays really well in regular season but struggles in the pl6

[penbeast0]

1969 Russell isn't as good as claim IMO. Havlicek along with Sam Jones and Bailey Howell carried a the whole load on offense and were very important for the Celtics. The 1969 Celtics actually didn't have a very good defense in the playoffs and won with their offense. Not sure what "god like" impact numbers you're talking about.

And regarding teams that combined for 3 titles. That ignores the obvious fact that both the Knicks and Lakers dramatically improved in their title years compared to 1969. There is nothing particularly impressive about the 1969 Knicks and 1969 Lakers apart from the names on the roster. Neither team played very well. Nowhere near well enough to be called an all-time opponent.

Are you sure you have the right season? Howell had a 14.7 PER in the playoffs, when league average is set by definition at 15. Sam Jones had actually slipped to be a bench shooter and only had a 15 PER, dead average. The Celtics best offensive player per minutes was Don Nelson though Hondo had a nice playoff too. Meanwhile, the Celtics in 69, though they definitely were a step down from any other Russell year in the RS, still were the league's drtg rating while ranking 10/14 in offense.

On the other end, Philly shot .424 v. .454 in the regular season, Knicks shot .421 v. .459 in the regular season, and LA shot .442 v. .469 in the regular season. Meanwhile, while the Celtics offense was stronger in the first two rounds than RS numbers, they shot .418 v. Los Angeles v. their season norm of .431 so their final round was hardly an offensive explosion.

It wasn't a strong championship year for Russell and the Celtics, they were scrappy underdogs starting two waiver wire guards (Em Bryant and Larry Siegfried) and not expected to win anything for the first time in Russell long and amazing career.

[OhayoKD]

1969 Russell isn't as good as claim IMO. Havlicek along with Sam Jones and Bailey Howell carried a the whole load on offense and were very important for the Celtics. The 1969 Celtics actually didn't have a very good defense in the playoffs and won with their offense. Not sure what "god like" impact numbers you're talking about.

And regarding teams that combined for 3 titles. That ignores the obvious fact that both the Knicks and Lakers dramatically improved in their title years compared to 1969. There is nothing particularly impressive about the 1969 Knicks and 1969 Lakers apart from the names on the roster. Neither team played very well. Nowhere near well enough to be called an all-time opponent.

Are you sure you have the right season? Howell had a 14.7 PER in the playoffs, when league average is set by definition at 15. Sam Jones had actually slipped to be a bench shooter and only had a 15 PER, dead average. The Celtics best offensive player per minutes was Don Nelson though Hondo had a nice playoff too. Meanwhile, the Celtics in 69, though they definitely were a step down from any other Russell year in the RS, still were the league's drtg rating while ranking 10/14 in offense.

On the other end, Philly shot .424 v. .454 in the regular season, Knicks shot .421 v. .459 in the regular season, and LA shot .442 v. .469 in the regular season. Meanwhile, while the Celtics offense was stronger in the first two rounds than RS numbers, they shot .418 v. Los Angeles v. their season norm of .431 so their final round was hardly an offensive explosion.

It wasn't a strong championship year for Russell and the Celtics, they were scrappy underdogs starting two waiver wire guards (Em Bryant and Larry Siegfried) and not expected to win anything for the first time in Russell long and amazing career.

For what it's worth, the Celtics were a fair bit better in the 69 regular-season if you go by srs than if you go by record (a few tenths short of 1st). Of course that was only with russell. Without they sucked as mentioned before. And by whatever Ben's process is, at full health the Celtics suffered an 8 point drop-off between 69 and 70 at a point where 8-points was worth significantly more than it would be in most periods even just looking at the regular-seasons.

And then of course they beat the same lineup (posting the same margin of victory) as the 1970 champion, and the same core (posting a higher margin of victory) as the team that took the 1970 champion to 7.

Without Russell the Lakers and Knicks may well have had 5 titles between them from 1968 to 1973. That's about as all-time as opposition gets.