Retro POY '66-67 (Voting Complete)

[ThaRegul8r]

So, Wilt is a lock for 1, and I refuse to put anybody ahead of Russell unless there's an absolutely air-tight case on their behalf. So there are basically three spots left on my ballot.

I dunno if Russell's necessarily a slam dunk for #2 in this particular year. The thing is, Russell was trying to juggle coaching and playing this year, and he wasn't as good as it this year as he would be the next couple years, the last two years we've looked at. We'll see though, as the discussion progresses.

[Sedale Threatt]

Maybe Barry. Maybe Thurmond. Not feeling either one to a huge degree, though.

[bastillon]

I'm voting early and unless I manage to come back here, this will also be my final vote:

1.Wilt
2.Russell
3.Oscar: epic playoffs
4.Thurmond: great team D but not so great in the playoffs
5.Barry: offense played a large part in the playoffs and he was responsible, 35/9/3.6 on good efficiency

Reed was great, too. he gets an HM.

[ronnymac2]

Barry vs. Thurmond is tough for me right now. Barry is such a great scorer, but is he the offensive anchor his team needs? Is his playmaking where it was in 75? I don't think so. I've read before that his time in the ABA really helped him become a more complete player, especially as a passer. Now, he DOES score a crazy amount of points, and Thurmond isn't very efficient. But Nate is a beastly defender and rebounder. He fought the best player AND Luke Jackson hard in the finals.

Russell had a poor series against Philly. Granted, he was facing a GOAT candidate at his peak, but Russell really struggled. He shot horribly and was outrebounded by a lot.

Seems Oscar had a very strong year. No real black marks.

Elgin didn't have his best season. I don't hold it against him that his team lost in the playoffs because West went down, but it seems he really struggled individually. REG SEA wasn't his best either.

For now, I have Oscar ahead of Russell for second. Robertson was amazing this year.

[ThaRegul8r]

Russell had a poor series against Philly. Granted, he was facing a GOAT candidate at his peak, but Russell really struggled. He shot horribly and was outrebounded by a lot.

Hence one of the reasons why I said he wasn't a slam dunk for #2 this season. He averaged a career playoff-low 10.8 points on a career-low 36.0 percent shooting in the postseason, and his 22.0 rebounds per game were also a career playoff-low at that point. His 43.3 minutes per game were the fewest in the playoffs since his second year. I've been advocating for Russell the last couple years, but that doesn't mean I'm going to auto-select him for a certain position regardless of his actual play in the year in question. Objectively, Russell was NOT #2 this year factoring in his postseason. He had problems adjusting to playing and coaching at the same time, and it showed. He didn't play as well this year as he would the next year (when he got the hang of it), or as well as he did the previous year (when he didn't have the added burden of coaching). To do so would be dishonest of me, and would mean I'm only doing it because he's Bill Russell, or because I have a hidden agenda. And if I were going to do that, then I shouldn't be a part of this project.

[ThaRegul8r]

Sports Illustrated NBA preview:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

[ThaRegul8r]

Barry vs. Thurmond is tough for me right now. Barry is such a great scorer, but is he the offensive anchor his team needs? Is his playmaking where it was in 75? I don't think so. I've read before that his time in the ABA really helped him become a more complete player, especially as a passer. Now, he DOES score a crazy amount of points, and Thurmond isn't very efficient. But Nate is a beastly defender and rebounder. He fought the best player AND Luke Jackson hard in the finals.

Read the first post at the top of the page. No one—not even Barry himself—would put Barry over Thurmond this season.

Barry won All-Star Game MVP, but the West coach and Chamberlain both said Thurmond was the MVP. I remember Barry himself saying Thurmond deserved the All-Star Game MVP, I wanna say it was 15-20 years ago he said it, but I don't remember the exact year. I can't remember whether it was on The Rick Barry Show or whether it was an interview for some other show on All-Star Game weekend. It was one day on KNBR.

[bastillon]

Russell had a poor series against Philly. Granted, he was facing a GOAT candidate at his peak, but Russell really struggled. He shot horribly and was outrebounded by a lot.

it has been mentioned before that Russell was injured and that Sixers championship was thus, according to the author, tainted. on the other hand, informed poster like Warspite said that he had never heard about it before so we should probably look deeper.

now it makes sense - Celtics were 5-4 vs Philly in '67 RS, 4-4 in '68 RS (lost 2 games when Russ and Hondo were resting for the playoffs so it's basically 4-2) and 4-3 in '68 PS. it's incredibly strange that suddenly they were pounded by 10 pts on average in that series, while they outscored Celtics by 2 pts in the '67 RS. they did that by scoring 121 PPG in that series (111 vs Cs in '67 RS) it also coincided with Russell having the worst series of his career. what are the odds ?

fun fact: 1st time 67ers played Celtics, they destroyed them 138-96. Celtics come back week later and win 105-87. I've never seen such a turnaround. from -42 to +18 ? I mean wow. also, without that first game Philly scored 107.5 and was outscored by 3 pts so that game turned the sample around.

the point is that Celtics and 76ers were very much equal in 67-68 and it was a consistent trend. what jumps out is 67 postseason where the Celtics played just... poorly, with Russell playing the worst series of his career, basically making no impact. I'd say there's a pretty big chance he was injured badly.

now, it doesn't matter this year. it lessens his value, not justifies him. it's more important historically, if you put everything into context and realize healthy Russell never lost a playoff series.

[ThaRegul8r]

^^^ Do you have the 16 games Thurmond missed?

I can get those up later.

Here are those games you wanted, ElGee. I edited them into my initial reply, but I don't know whether you re-read posts that have already been made, so I'm making a new post:

2/3/67 - Thurmond missed game with strep throat, and the Warriors lost to the Los Angeles Lakers @ LA 129-80 for their worst defeat of the season.
2/4/67 - 140-127 L to Philadelphia

2/10, Thurmond fractures two bones in his left hand against Boston.

2/11/67 - 125-122 OT L @ New York
2/12/67 - 134-124 L @ Detroit
2/14/67 - 128-122 W over Boston
2/16/67 - 125-124 W over Chicago
2/18/67 - 130-124 W over Boston
2/21/67 - 136-133 W over LA
2/24/67 - 137-122 L to Cincinnati
2/25/67 - 129-116 L to Cincinnati
2/28/67 - 127-123 L @ New York
3/1/67 - 137-125 L @ Boston
3/2/67 - 136-128 L @ Philadelphia
3/4/67 - 111-102 W over New York
3/5/67 - 115-103 L to New York

3/8/67, Thurmond receives medical clearance to return (NY Times, Mar. 9 1967). Warriors went 5-8 without Thurmond (38.5%).

Mar. 14, 1967 LA Times says, “Nate Thurmond playing his second game after sitting out 14 games with a broken hand.” That means he played 3/13 against Detroit and 3/11 against LA, so...

3/10/67 - 111-105 L to St. Louis

5-9 after Thurmond's broken hand (26.3%).

Warriors went 5-11 without Thurmond (31.3%)

The Pittsburgh Press, February 7, 1967

“Thurmond is the key to our team. You’ve got to have a great center. We have one in Thurmond. The Celtics have Bill Russell, the 76ers have Wilt Chamberlain. We’d still be up there without me but not without Thurmond.” — Rick Barry

Looks like Barry was right.

[bastillon]

for the record, I'm putting Wilt at #1 this year, but his year was hardly GOAT year. he won because he had probably the most stacked team ever (relative to lg avg talent at every position). one of the best PFs, perhaps two of top3 SFs, 2nd best SG and a solid role player at PG. this team would be a strong contender without Wilt (when healthy).

Russell was #2 initially because he sucked in the playoffs, prbably because of injury but it doesn't matter. now, after some analysis and deeper thinking, I may put Russell at #3 or #4. I have to see how Warriors did without Thurmond, but Oscar probably deserves 2nd place this year.

[ThaRegul8r]

I have to see how Warriors did without Thurmond

For that, look at the post just above yours.

[bastillon]

5-11 without him means they were 39-26 with him. per 82 games it's 25.6W vs 49.2W. legit MVP-type impact. I may think about putting him ahead of Wilt, actually. Elgee will probably put up +/- figures and I'm really dependant upon them so we'll see what happens now.

[bastillon]

5-11 without him means they were 39-26 with him. per 82 games it's 25.6W vs 49.2W. legit MVP-type impact. I may think about putting him ahead of Wilt, actually. Elgee will probably put up +/- figures and I'm really dependant upon them so we'll see what happens now.

seeing dipper's analysis, Wilt outproduced Thurmond too much.

Series averages:

Wilt - 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 6+ bpg, 56% FG
Russell - 11.4 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, 36% FG

Series averages:

Wilt - 17.6 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg, 56% FG
Nate - 14.1 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 3.3 apg, 34% FG

Wilt is the man this year. Thurmond was maybe more productive against Chamberlain than Russell was, but Celtics defense was slightly better against Sixers because Nate's main asset wasn't much of a factor cause Sixers were scoring at will in the finals (124 PPG).

Celtics were once again dominant defensively and dominant overall (7.24 SRS). Russell's supporting cast was really unspectacular. especially KC Jones, who was 34, at the age when perimeter defenders become useless and he was awful offensively (Rondo-type jumpshot, no playmaking). probably the worst starting PG in the league. Celtics were above average offensively this year, so it's due to Sam Jones/Howell combo, but they were dominant defensively while Howell wasn't known for his defense and his backcourt teammates were 33 and 34 years old. I'd say Russell must have been pretty dominant on defense.

[ItsMillerTime]

1. Wilt
2. Roberston
3. Russell
4. Thurmond
5. Barry

[Sedale Threatt]

Russell's supporting cast was really unspectacular...

I continue to love this. No mention of Havlicek anywhere. Plus, Sanders was no slouch on defense. All told, good enough to record one of the best win totals and SRS figures of the Russell era.

[Optimism Prime]

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Oscar Robertson
3. Bill Russell
4. Nate Thurmond
5. Rick Barry

[ronnymac2]

ThaRegul8r- Thanks for the info on Nate. I don't put much stock into players talking about other players on their team, but Barry is an ass and definitely wouldn't say that if he really didn't believe it. Barry was also smart, so I'm inclined to believe him.

I guess it makes sense, too. Thurmond had great two-way impact and was more important against Wilt, Russell, Bellamy, etc. He's obviously the defensive anchor while supplying good offense. Barry seems like Durant at this point (Which is still unbelievable).

Looks like Elgin Baylor will be the odd man out this year. Reed will get an HM as well.

[bastillon]

Russell's supporting cast was really unspectacular...

I continue to love this. No mention of Havlicek anywhere. Plus, Sanders was no slouch on defense. All told, good enough to record one of the best win totals and SRS figures of the Russell era.

Sanders played 24 MPG so he must've contributed a whole lot, not to mention he's repugnant offensively and non factor overall. I don't know why I would mention him as a positive. have you seen his jumpshot ?

I didn't feel like I had to mention Hondo, seemed quite obvious. he wasn't near his prime anyway, but admittedly all-star level player.

[Sedale Threatt]

First, I didn't know there was a specific cutoff in regards to PT. That's roughly the amount of playing time Robert Horry got on the three-peat Lakers, and I'd dare anybody to say he didn't contribute a whole lot.

Note, that's NOT a direct comparison between the two, but rather a repudiation of the notion that you can't make an impact in a half of basketball. Indeed, how much more playing time is a role player supposed to get?

Second, it looks extremely strange when you continue to push this notion of a "really unspectacular" supporting cast and you neglect to mention one of the top all-around players in the league. Even when pressed, you acknowledge him only grudgingly, as an "admitted" all-star level player.

[mopper8]

Second, it looks extremely strange when you continue to push this notion of a "really unspectacular" supporting cast and you neglect to mention one of the top all-around players in the league. Even when pressed, you acknowledge him only grudgingly, as an "admitted" all-star level player.

Hondo was 2nd-team all-NBA the year prior (65-66) and the year following (67-68) in spite of the fact that 66-67 was arguably a better statistical year than both. In fact, it seems like the only reason he didn't make the team this particular season is because Willis Reed made the 2nd team at F rather than C, and he was competing with Barry, Baylor, and Lucas as well. And Hondo wasn't just "all-star level,", he was an All-Star that season, and the season before, and the season following, etc. Seems obvious to me that Hondo being in the ASG at that point in his career was hardly fluky; he was an legit All-Star and also a legit All-NBA performer who didn't make the 2nd team this particular season but was obviously playing at that level. And Sam Jones made the 2nd team at G, at that. So you have 1 all-NBA selection, and one guy playing at All-NBA level, in addition to Russell. Even in an 10-team league, you're looking at a top-5 guard, top-5 forward, and a Russell for that season. That's plenty of talent.