One_and_Done wrote:2) You tell me you understand stuff like the law of diminishing returns, RS grind, etc, but then you ask yet again “well why didn’t they have a higher SRS most years after 1980?!!” For the exact reasons you claimed to understand. It’s not complex. The Celtics wins and SRS show us they were a contender those years, that’s all we need to know. Parsing which year had a slightly higher SRS isn’t a useful exercise.
The law of diminishing returns don't explain why Bird could turn supposedly 25 wins team into 60 wins team, but can't turn 45 wins team into 65 wins team, while being a better player himself. 60 wins is not a ceiling for all-time great players, we have seen them getting significantly higher - some of them with clearly weaker supporting cast than 1980 Celtics - let alone the later incarnations.
In the years Bird didn’t do better in the PS after 1980, he is criticised for it (see the RPOY project for e.g.). Mixed in with some of this is also Bird’s nagging injuries that had him thinking about retiring multiple times, which likely affected things too.
So what's the real signal for Bird - him carrying scrubs to 60 wins or him being unable to get close to win it all in 1982 and 1983 postseason with elite supporting cast?
3) I don’t agree with you about the 60s or 70s being stronger than the 80s. The 60s was the weakest era, then the 70s, then the 80s (which was a fair cut above the first 2). The players in the 60s mostly wouldn’t make the league today.
I didn't say the 1960s were stronger - I said it was harder to win 60+ games in a smaller league. If you don't believe me, just check it by yourself.
By your logic, most 1980s wouldn't make the league today either, so it's a moot point.
4) Bird didn’t always play with a lot of talent, because 1980 exists, and the Celtics probably win 29-35 games without Bird.
That's your assumption, not the fact.
Cowens and Tiny were the Jameer Nelson and BJ Armstrong of all-stars that year.
Again, you keep looking at top 3 players without even thinking about the roster construction, health and coaching.
It is very much like the 01-03 Spurs with Duncan, or the 09-10 Cavs with Lebron
Comparing 1980 Celtics roster to 2009-10 Cavs is laughable.
Your attempt to distinguish the Spurs by saying “well, that doesn’t count, because the Spurs SRS got better” shows you haven’t considered it closely. Yes, the Spurs SRS was better in some of the later years when the talent improved, but not always. The 2002 Spurs were even worse than the 2003 Spurs, and yet their SRS of 6.28 is only slightly lower than the SRS of the 2006 Spurs at 6.69, and there was much more talent around Duncan in 06.
That's your rebuttal - pointing out that roughly the same rosters (for RS at least) posted roughly the same results in 2002 and 2003, along with taking 2006 as an example when Duncan struggled with injuries throughout the year? Is that all you have got?
The reason the SRS isn’t really different is because of the factors I talked about. You can’t look at minor SRS variations for perennial contending teams who aren’t going all out in the RS. I the SRS was minus 2 in one year, then plus 8 in another, then I’d be open to the idea you had a point. These tiny SRS variations you cite are not meaningful.
They are meaningful in a way that taking in one, extremely controversial signal at face value require strong evidence from the remaining career and you failed to provide anything to back it up. You just keep talking about 1980 Celtics being 25 wins without Bird because it suits your agenda.
5) Your analysis of West continues to be bad. You can’t say West turned “35 win teams in to 55 win teams” because his teams only averaged 49 wins over his career, Most years he was not on a 55 win team at all. So there needs to be a really good explanation for why that is, and you don’t provide it.
Yes I provided it - it was West health issues which limited his games played. With West on the court, they played at ~55 wins pace. Are you really struggling to understand that?
For all his limitations, Baylor should have been plenty to produce a 35 win team or near enough,
That's why Baylor produced 35 wins before they drafted West, right? Oh wait, he actually won 25 wins before West got drafted.
and he often had much more than Baylor and still failed to get anywhere near 55 wins.
Can you name what is that "much more"?
Also, as I said the Lakers averaged 55 wins pace with West in the lineup for the majority of his career.
I think the biggest thing you’re not understanding when you post these “55 win pace with West, but only 27 win pace without!!!” figures is that those figures do not a) account for who else was playing the games with/without West (e.g. was Baylor playing during a losing/winning streak?), and b) what about all the years West isn’t having this impact because the team isn’t anywhere close to 55 wins?
It's very easy to take a look at Baylor's absence in these situations, Baylor don't change the needle for the majority of West prime seasons. You'd have known that had you know the basic things about the 1960s. Baylor stopped being a star-level player after 1965 injury, the majority of West's prime came after that.
At any rate, even a generous presentation of West’s signal is worse than Bird
They are literally not worse.
