Retro POY '67-68 (Voting Complete)

[ronnymac2]

Pheromones?

[Sedale Threatt]

I'm going to try that. Just not shower and go with my raw, natural scent -- pheromones and funk. Nothing else seems to work.

[Doctor MJ]

also, what's your justification for Baylor under West ? similar stats (efficiency for West, rebounding for Baylor) but 25 games less should probably be a factor. team did quite well without him, too. Baylor had more MVP Shares (3rd), while West didn't even make the list. Baylor was first team all-NBA, West was on the 2nd team. RS wasn't even close. West stepped up in the PS, but so did Baylor and he had to carry this team without West to get there in the first place. do you think this team makes the playoffs without Baylor playing like a top player in the NBA ? it just seems like everything is in Baylor's favor - recognition, games, impact (given team didn't regress without West that much).

I must have missed the part about the Lakers doing fine without West. I'd appreciate if someone could re-post it.

I can definitely see a Baylor/West debate this year because of West's missed time, but I think the "similar stats" argument is off. West's efficiency isn't just better, it is light years better. 8.5% better TS in the regular season, and that gap increases in the playoffs. What the hell is Baylor doing shooting more than a healthy West (and of course still scoring less cause he misses so much) when West surpassed him as a scorer 4 years ago?

West has easily more Win Shares than Baylor in the regular season despite the missed time. I know that WS aren't anything like a holy grail, but rarely is a difference between two "debatable" players so glaring. Again, maybe Baylor gets the nod here based on time played, but I'd really have to be swayed to buy that it wasn't clear who the better player was when healthy.

[lorak]

EDIT -- I don't see much of a case for Hawkins. By most accounts the ABA was terrible at this stage, clearly inferior to the NBA, whereas later on there was at least a legitimate debate.

Two years later Hawkins has very similar numbers in the NBA. So we know for sure that it’s not “ABA was weak in 1968, so Hawk looks so good” but he really was that good. And younger Hawk = better (healthier) Hawk.

[Sedale Threatt]

No question he was very good. But Wilt/Russell/O/Baylor/West/Hondo good? Not in my opinion. Only real case he seems to have is the MVP/championship, and like I said, considering the competition, does it really matter?

[lorak]

No question he was very good. But Wilt/Russell/O/Baylor/West/Hondo good? Not in my opinion. Only real case he seems to have is the MVP/championship, and like I said, considering the competition, does it really matter?

Hard to say, but IMO matter that he was better player than Baylor in 1968 (and of course better than Hondo or West, because I have Baylor above them). Comparable rebounders, Hawkins much more efficient scorer (even if we look at Hawk’s numbers from first year in NBA he’s till much more efficient than Elgin, + .060 TS%!)), was better team player (his playmaking skill are really underrated). However I must admit I don’t know how to judge his defensive skills, but Baylor never was known as very good defender so it’s doubtful that at age of 33, after knees injuries he was better defender than prime Hawkins with his amazing athleticism.

[Sedale Threatt]

OK. I will take a closer look. But is it safe to say he is not a legit candidate for No. 1?

[Doctor MJ]

Two years later Hawkins has very similar numbers in the NBA. So we know for sure that it’s not “ABA was weak in 1968, so Hawk looks so good” but he really was that good. And younger Hawk = better (healthier) Hawk.

Eh, Connie put up similar looking volume numbers, but the efficiency took a huge dive. PER from 28.8 to 19.7 in the regular season, and an even bigger difference come playoff time. To me the big question is whether Connie actually was the same player or not. Connie did face some injuries between those years, and I know penbeast has talked about injuries having a big enough impact that Hawkins very much changed his style of play (from a high-flyer to more of a power forward).

With that said, if Baylor's a candidate for top 5, then so is Connie. Baylor's PER this year is only 21.0 and he has less WS there Hawkins did in his rookie NBA season (8.0 for Baylor, 10.2 for Hawkins). Literally it's debatable whether Baylor this year is better than '69-70 Connie , and '67-68 Connie can be argued to be much better than '69-70 Connie.

[Doctor MJ]

OK. I will take a closer look. But is it safe to say he is not a legit candidate for No. 1?

Quite safe to say imho.

[lorak]

Sure, he shouldn’t be no 1, but after top 2 (Wilt and Russell ) he definitely should be in the discussion.

By the way, some quotes about Hawkins from great Terry Pluto’s book „Loose Balls”:

The Hawk gave our league instant credibility and brought us a lot of attention. For years, everyone had heard how great the guy was, but very, very few people saw him play. Well, the ABA became his first stage. And the thins was that because Pittsburgh had a lot of talent, Connie just cruised during much of the regular season. He was maybe three levels above everyone else, so he could take it easy and still get his 25-30 points and 10-12 rebounds every night. He was good people. He just wanted to play ball and to get along with the other guys. He was doing things with the basketball, with those huge hands of his, that people had never seen before. Just about all the stuff Julius Erving did palming the ball, Connie did first. So that first year, I don’t think The Hawk ever let himself go until playoffs; then he showed that he really knew how to carry the load of a team on his back.

One night, Pittsburgh coach Vince Cazzetta was sick and he asked Connie to coach the team. I was coaching Denver and I was very interested to see what Connie would do. Well, he took it very seriously, probably too seriously. He concentrated so much on coaching that he hardly played himself (…) W won both games and I told my players: “Let’s be thankful that The Hawk felt more like coaching than playing”.

Connie deserved a lot of the credit for making us into a team. Let’s face it, he was a tremendous, overwhelming talent. He could decided he was going to average 50 points a game and been able to do it. But he loved and understood team basketball. He would get on Chico Vaughn and myself not to shoot so much from the outside. But he wouldn’t say, “Get me the ball.” He’d say, “Let’s move the ball around. Let everyone touch it.”
(…)
No matter what Mikan or anyone wanted, Connie knew how the game was supposed to be played and he talked a lot about passing and defense. He was true student of the game. He’d say to me, “Hey Charlie, watch me close tonight. See if you can find something to make me better.” When a guy of Connie’s ability says that to you, it makes you look at your game in the mirror, too. He really was a leader, and by the end of the year, guys got the message.

(…)
In the finals, we had to play New Orleans. Those guys were hood – with Doug Moe, Larry Brown and Jimmy Jones – and they got up 3-2 on us, with the chance to win the title in Game 6 in New Orleans. (…) Connie took over the game. He just wouldn’t let us lose (…) Connie had 41 points, and we won 118-112. He did it against Doug Moe, who was the best defensive forward in the league.

(In game 7 Hawkins had 20 points, 16 rebounds and 9 assists)

Connie Hawkins was our first true star, in the sense that he was a great player whose style attracted a lot of attention, yet he also played an all-around game. The guy who didn’t know basketball that well could look at Connie for 15 minutes and know that Connie was great. Then a guy who was a basketball person could watch Connie and see the subtle things – his passing, how he blocked shots and rebounded and knew how to help out his teammates on defense. I am convinced that the Connie Hawkins led Pittsburgh to that first title could play in the NBA and be on the same level as Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan are today. The Connie Hawkins that eventually got into the NBA was nearly 30, he had a couple of knee problems – it wasn’t the same guy.

[/quote]

[lorak]

Two years later Hawkins has very similar numbers in the NBA. So we know for sure that it’s not “ABA was weak in 1968, so Hawk looks so good” but he really was that good. And younger Hawk = better (healthier) Hawk.

Eh, Connie put up similar looking volume numbers, but the efficiency took a huge dive. PER from 28.8 to 19.7

I was talking about scoring efficiency (TS%) and PER pre 1977 is estimated so it’s even more useless stat than normally (it overrates inefficient scorers).

[Doctor MJ]

I was talking about scoring efficiency (TS%) and PER pre 1977 is estimated so it’s even more useless stat than normally (it overrates inefficient scorers).

I don't see how that really changes things that much. His TS% in the RS was down by 3.4%, and the playoffs (which is the real reason we're interested in Connie here) the TS% was down almost 15% relative this this year in the ABA.

Loved your quotes about Connie though. The more I think about it, the more he seems like a solid top 5 candidate this year.

[Sedale Threatt]

Loose Balls...probably my favorite sports book of all time. The chapter on Marvin Barnes and the St. Louis Spirits is worth the purchase price alone.

[lorak]

I was talking about scoring efficiency (TS%) and PER pre 1977 is estimated so it’s even more useless stat than normally (it overrates inefficient scorers).

I don't see how that really changes things that much. His TS% in the RS was down by 3.4%, and the playoffs (which is the real reason we're interested in Connie here) the TS% was down almost 15% relative this this year in the ABA.

Ok, but his TS% was still much better (almost 6%) than Baylor's in 1968 - and that was my main point. Besides I think it's safe to assume that his drop off in TS% between ABA and NBA could be explained (at least part of it) by his age/health. On the other hand two years isn’t a big difference, so I don’t know.

Loose Balls...probably my favorite sports book of all time. The chapter on Marvin Barnes and the St. Louis Spirits is worth the purchase price alone.

Yeah, I agree
What’s interesting there’s another book called “Loose Balls”. Jayson Williams is co-author and it’s not as good as Pluto’s book but also very interesting and very funny.

[Doctor MJ]

Ok, but his TS% was still much better (almost 6%) than Baylor's in 1968 - and that was my main point. Besides I think it's safe to assume that his drop off in TS% between ABA and NBA could be explain (at least part of it) by his age/health. On the other hand two years isn’t a big difference, so I don’t know.

Ah, I get it now. Good point.

[ElGee]

1968 SI Articles

Preview Issue
Knicks: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
East: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
West: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
ABA: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

Regular Season
Hawks: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
ABA 3: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
Bradelys' debut: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
Pistons: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
Bradely's problem: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
The Spectrum! http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

Playoffs
East and West: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
Celtics upset: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
Celtics Win: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

Roundups
April 8: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
April 15: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
May 6: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
May 13: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

Some interesting snippets:

Now that Wilt Chamberlain has decided not to acquire the Los Angeles franchise in the ABA or become a split end for the Jets or the heavyweight champion of the world but instead to play basketball for a salary approaching $250,000, the 76ers must be favored to win again.

Tom Sanders, ready to recover from bad knees and a bad year, is the defensive forward, and Don Nelson is also available. The league has been waiting a long time for this team to disintegrate, and it is conceivable that if the aged became infirm at the same time, the Celtics would collapse. But one of the casualties would have to be the coach because he makes up for lapses by everyone else, and Bill Russell is too prideful and still too hungry to permit such a thing.

The other distinguishing aspects of the season are neglected: Dave Bing's scoring, Nate Thurmond's knee, Rick Barry's lawsuits are all secondary to the subject of Bradley and his problems. So St. Louis is doing all that winning with mirrors. Earl Monroe is not really a Pearl but an O. San Diego is sinking so far out of the league that it may have to send the club mail to Tijuana. So what? What is wrong with Bill Bradley?

Russell started Havlicek at guard—as he had after Detroit had moved to a 2-1 lead in the first round—and Havlicek not only responded with 35 points but steered the offense and forced Hal Greer into some bad shooting.

Boston shot 58% for [game of 1 EDF], and the Celtic defense, overplaying Greer and Walker when they did not have the ball, proved even more effective with Cunningham's firepower gone.

There has been a great deal of talk all year about how Van Breda Kolff has managed to spread the scoring load around. But in the Lakers' first playoff series, which they won in five games against Chicago, Baylor and West made 293 of 510 Laker points.

Not to denigrate Boston's efforts, but the fact is the series with Philadelphia was extremely close most of the way and was decided in the end when the 76ers suddenly, unaccountably, forgot how to shoot. In the second half of the fifth game they started missing, and they never stopped missing.

"If I were Russell," Alex Hannum said, "I'd have my defense take credit for it." But it was not readily apparent that the Celtics' defense, always superb, suddenly improved part way through the fifth game. "Maybe we did help each other a little more," Bailey Howell said, trying to assist expert analysts in perpetuating the myth that all errors in professional sport are the result of vast strategic enterprise. Philly just went cold.

For the first four games and half of the fifth the 76ers shot 44%. For the balance of the series the figure was 35%.

Finally Philadelphia may have been more fatigued than Boston. The Knicks had pressed them full-court in their first-round games. The Celtics continued that pressure, with Havlicek operating at both ends, alternately throwing and catching passes in the manner of a single-wing tailback. Russell, as brilliant as ever though 34 and in his 12th pro year, restricted Chamberlain in a manner few believed possible. In the last half of the critical final game Wilt took only one shot and batted up only one errant attempt by a teammate.

"There are some people," Auerbach said, biting off the words because the notion so angered him, "who have already forgotten how great [Russell] really was."

But Russell was about to remind them all. His Celtics beat Philadelphia 4-3, and then last Thursday night in Los Angeles they closed out the Lakers 4-2 in the NBA finals, as Russell achieved a personal accomplishment unique in the history of team sport. Russell coached and he starred but, more than that, as he has for the past 15 years, he positively determined the nature of the game and, in the end, the result.

Russell is more of a disciplinarian than Auerbach was, and Auerbach himself was no Mary Poppins. For example, once this season Coach Russell fined player Russell $500 for getting snowbound and missing a game.

Late in overtime [of game 5 of the Finals], West tied it again at 117 all, but Havlicek threw in a 20-foot jumper with 38 seconds remaining. The Lakers now went to Elgin Baylor on the left side. Nelson was guarding him, and Elgin began to yo-yo his old roommate, the classic 1 on 1. Suddenly, with no discernible warning, Baylor whirled to his left and started his shot. It was inches on its way when from out of somewhere, from Commonwealth Avenue or Cape Cod or from 1960, Russell's great arm flew up and swatted the ball to a teammate. Nelson made a free throw a few seconds later that clinched the game 120-117.

[Doctor MJ]

Bradelys' debut: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
Bradely's problem: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

The hype around Bradley seems so bizarre. The Knicks had Reed, Frazier was joining the team at the same time as Bradley, and it was Bradley who was considered the franchise. One thing for a hyped prospect to flop, another altogether for the team counting on him to arguably become the best team of the next decade despite that disappointment.

From the second article, most of the way through Bradley's miserable rookie season:

However, in that area of performance that does not lend itself to tallying by point or percentage yet is crucial to team success—intelligent leadership and direction—Bradley is superb. He may never be able to control a game offensively as does Oscar Robertson, or defensively in the manner of Bill Russell, but in time he will control his team in a way that will make New York a vital force for years to come.

They've seen him for that long, on the same team as rookie Frazier, and they're still sure he's going to be a superstar. Crazy.

Also they mention something called a "basterd forward" which is interesting:

In recent years rookies of Bradley's size and ability have been made into what the NBA calls "bastard" forwards. Boston's John Havlicek was the first, though he was no offensive star. He made it big right away on his defense, because the Celtics had the shooters to carry him. Havlicek was followed by, among others, Joe Caldwell, Billy Cunningham, the Van Arsdale twins and Cazzie Russell, all of whom can swing between guard and forward but have proved to be more effective in the forecourt, where they can use their quickness and speed to get around bigger but slower defenders. Russell, in fact, was considered something of a bust when he played guard as a rookie last year. This season he has been outstanding as a forward.

Seems like basically the first blurring of the lines between the 2 and the 3.

[shawngoat23]

In the finals, we had to play New Orleans. Those guys were hood – with Doug Moe, Larry Brown and Jimmy Jones – and they got up 3-2 on us, with the chance to win the title in Game 6 in New Orleans. (…) Connie took over the game. He just wouldn’t let us lose (…) Connie had 41 points, and we won 118-112. He did it against Doug Moe, who was the best defensive forward in the league.

Did anyone else also not know Doug Moe played in the ABA and burst out laughing when they read this?

[penbeast0]

He was a pretty good two way player in the early days, and he had the same crazy, towel throwing, over the top foaming at the mouth attitude he had as a coach -- and Pat Riley was a lousy defensive player, go figure.

[Luv those Knicks]

Bradelys' debut: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
Bradely's problem: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

The hype around Bradley seems so bizarre. The Knicks had Reed, Frazier was joining the team at the same time as Bradley, and it was Bradley who was considered the franchise. One thing for a hyped prospect to flop, another altogether for the team counting on him to arguably become the best team of the next decade despite that disappointment.

From the second article, most of the way through Bradley's miserable rookie season:

However, in that area of performance that does not lend itself to tallying by point or percentage yet is crucial to team success—intelligent leadership and direction—Bradley is superb. He may never be able to control a game offensively as does Oscar Robertson, or defensively in the manner of Bill Russell, but in time he will control his team in a way that will make New York a vital force for years to come.

They've seen him for that long, on the same team as rookie Frazier, and they're still sure he's going to be a superstar. Crazy.

Also they mention something called a "basterd forward" which is interesting:

In recent years rookies of Bradley's size and ability have been made into what the NBA calls "bastard" forwards. Boston's John Havlicek was the first, though he was no offensive star. He made it big right away on his defense, because the Celtics had the shooters to carry him. Havlicek was followed by, among others, Joe Caldwell, Billy Cunningham, the Van Arsdale twins and Cazzie Russell, all of whom can swing between guard and forward but have proved to be more effective in the forecourt, where they can use their quickness and speed to get around bigger but slower defenders. Russell, in fact, was considered something of a bust when he played guard as a rookie last year. This season he has been outstanding as a forward.

Seems like basically the first blurring of the lines between the 2 and the 3.

Interesting read.


Bill Bradley is an interesting case. He's loved and his number was retired in NY, but 2 titles will do that.

But on the "hype" - he was drafted in 65 and he was ridiculous in college. Player of the year in 1965, all American 1st team in 64 & 65 and 2nd team in 63. He was viewed as a better prospect than Frazier by pretty much everyone before the season started.

After college (1965), Bradley, who was quite the intellectual, went on to Oxford to study for 2 years and at the time, Oxford didn't even have a basketball court. Now, this wasn't viewed as a big deal. Players had often done things like served in the Army after college and missed time. Bradley wasn't the first, but it was obvious that he'd lost something in those 2 years.

Bradley was also, when he joined the NBA, one of the highest paid players in the league, if not the highest. he got a half million dollar contract when he signed (I don't recall the length). It was a territorial draft pick, and I don't remember the rules around that, but a lot of teams felt they couldn't afford him.

The hype was no different than the hype your average #1 pick gets. Bradley wasn't a #1 pick, but he was like a #1 pick because of the college career he had. Maybe somebody who knows the history can explain how territorial picks worked, but NY was able to get Bradley in part because none of the other teams could afford him.

What's often not remembered is that the Knicks kind of bought a championship back then. They were the only team willing to pay Bradley what he wanted. They traded for Dave Debusschere because Detroit was afraid he was going to leave them and get a fat baseball contract from the Tigers (he was a highly regarded pitcher), but the Knicks felt they could pay him enough to get him to stay and the Knicks also, acquried Earl Monroe a couple years later because the Bullets didn't want to meet his contract demands.


My thoughts on Bradley is a couple things. I think (kinda obvious), some players don't mature into the NBA game as well as others and I think the 2 years at Oxford likely messed him up. He was still a good player, but in the end, he was perhaps, a little bit like John Salley on the Detroit championship teams or Eric Snow on the Sixers. Unspectacular, but, even though you couldn't explain what he did, you knew he was helping.

Team's rarely win with 5 all-stars. They win with maybe 3 all-stars, 2 roll players and a guy who scores off the bench. In 1970, The Knicks had a gaggle of scorers. 3 all-stars in Reed, Frazier & Debusschere, and Barnett could score, Cazzie could score off the bench, so there was some competition.

Without Cazzie, and without as much punch off the bench, Bradley played a bigger role on the 73 title team.

Clearly, Bradley still underperformed, and he also, once, missed a shot that might have beat the celtics and led to a 3rd championship for NYK (don't remember what year), but it's hard to argue with 2 titles and Bradley was a guy who could score if you needed him to, and who didn't hurt you when he was on the floor.

I don't know if Bradley would have been a 20 PPG scorer/repeat all-star on a team where he played a bigger role but he might have been.