Retro POY '66-67 (Voting Complete)

[lorak]

In this thread we'll discuss and vote on the top 5 best player seasons of '66-67.

Trying something new now. Schedule will be Mon-Fri, and Thu-Mon. Typically this will be morning to morning.

Some things to start us off:

NBA
Season Summary http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... _1967.html
Playoff Summary http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _1967.html
Award Voting http://www.basketball-reference.com/awa ... _1967.html
Final Box Score http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1967.htm

ABA
Season Summary http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... _1967.html
Playoff Summary http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _1967.html

Doc, ABA didn't exist that year

My vote:
1. Wilt
2. Big O
3. Thurmond
4. Russell
5. Barry

[Mean_Streets]

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

[Dr Positivity]

Will be tough to get on the computer the next couple days, so if I don't come back, my ballot:

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

Feels like they'll be lots of similar ballots this year.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm trying to get a handle on Thurmond vs Russell & Wilt, but I'm rather confused. I do see the articles talking about how there's now a big 3, and how Thurmond's poised to be the next great.

However, by my count, in the regular season, Thurmond went 2-5 against Philly, and 1-5 against Boston. I tried looking up how Thurmond specifically did against Boston, but the only time I saw his name mentioned was in the win (where he was the star and clearly played great). In the losses, Barry's the only guy they talk about.

Now I understand it's a team game here, it's certainly possible for Thurmond to be playing better than Russell (or Wilt for that matter) despite the losses. Still, I was expecting more impressive results. I mean, with those kind of records, that basically means that the Warriors weren't an unusually big threat to either the 76ers or the Celtics.

[Doctor MJ]

Doc, ABA didn't exist that year

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Would it really make any sense to say "Duncan may look better than X because of his team success, but if X had had Horry instead of Duncan, that would have changed everything!". Role players are great and all, but it seems to me to be a given that if your team is doing great, you're having some role players playing their roles effectively. The guys worth mentioning are the stars.

Of course, Hondo is someone who bears mentioning, and when people promote Russell and minimize his supporting cast they tend not to do that proper mentioning. It's certainly fair to bring up Hondo specifically as someone that Russell had that other stars did not.

I'd say though that Wilt had Greer who was pretty comparable to Hondo (plus Walker and Cunningham), and West and Thurmond had even better sidekicks - and I don't think anyone's saying Russell's supporting cast was crap, they're just objecting to the notion that he had a massive advantage there.

[ElGee]

Nate Thurmond

Ran the +/- for Thurmond:

w/out Thurmond - 119.1 ppg 126.6 opp ppg
with Thurmond - 123.2 ppg 117.8 opp ppg

That's a monstrous +12.9. It should be noted that the number is exaggerated by a pretty difficult schedule (SRS 1.13, 9H 6A).

[Sedale Threatt]

I don't think anyone's saying Russell's supporting cast was crap...

Really? Perhaps not in those exact words, but I don't know how else to interpret this:

Russell's supporting cast was really unspectacular...

That's just a blatant mischaracterization.

As for the rest, no question Wilt had a quality cast around him at this point. You don't do what the Sixers did otherwise. At the same time, Russell's was way, way, way better than "really unspectacular." I honestly don't know how anyone can come to that conclusion.

I also don't agree that role players are a given. Stars are the most important ingredient, absolutely. But how different history would look if not for the Fishers and the Horrys and the Nelsons and the Hendersons and the Paxsons coming through in important moments. As such, when their contributions merit, they deserve to be recognized.

Did somebody like a Satch Sanders push the Celtics over the top? No, of course not. Could he have been replaced by somebody else? Very probably. But from everything I've read and what very little I've seen, he had a role on that team, and he filled it well. Hell, even Larry Siegfried was singled out by Jerry West for his hustle and tenacity.

I find it especially interesting that bastillon decries the overelliance on box score stats, yet blows such role players whose contributions aren't measured as such off when he sees fit.

[bastillon]

year, Hondo was probably top5 SF at this point (Baylor, Barry, Chet, DeBuscherre who is IMO one of the most underrated players ever) and Sam Jones is top5 SG (Greer, West, Sloan who is another all-time underrated player and Ohl who finished ahead of Jones on all-star team but was injured late in the season and Jones ended up selected to all-NBA team). also, Howell was one of the best PFs in the league... but how's that any worse than any team in the league at the time ?

basically you put him on ANY team without its best player and supporting cast is just as good if not better in some cases. Wilt had drastically better cast for example. that's why I said unspectacular.

[ElGee]

Sam Jones

This is arguably the end of Sam Jones' best 3 years in the league, and while the competition is pretty stiff this year, I'd thought I'd discuss him, even if he doesn't crack ballots yet.

To me, Jones always came across as Boston's best offensive player during this period. This might seem somewhat inconsequential given that they were never very good on offense, but if you look at the shooting patterns of the 60s Celtics, they'd be far worse off without Jones. Furthermore, removing the best offensive player from the structure of the offense means Havlicek and Russell would have expanded roles (perhaps they could have filled the void to a point), but it would in all likelihood have a negative domino effect on weaker offensive players like Sanders and KC Jones.

Consider, in 1968 everyone's offense on the team dipped but Sam Jones'. In 67 -- the best Celtics offense of the period? -- Howell joined the team and Havlicek had one of his best shooting years of the period. In 66, Jones and Don Nelson were the only Celtics to shoot over 43%. The year before, only Russell and Jones over 43%. Ramsey retired that year and Jones role expanded and the Boston offense improved. In 64, Sam and Russ were the only Celtics only 42%. Even on the balanced 63 team, Jones and Sanders were the only players over 45%. At his best (65-66), Jones got to the line more than any of his teammates.

Sam Jones estimated pace-adjusted numbers

Code: Select all

      Pts/75  Reb/75  Ast/75  Rel TS%
========================================
1962  16.3    5.2     2.7     2.8%
1963  18.0    4.8     2.9     2.6%   
1964  17.6    4.2     2.4     0.6%
1965  20.6    4.1     2.2     2.6%
1966  21.3    4.7     2.9     3.4%
1967  20.1    4.3     2.7     1.5%
1968  18.4    4.2     2.6     1.5%


Beyond statistics, what I always see Jones bring on film is a viable No. 1 scoring option from the perimeter. Of course, he had a bank shot, but he could use the dribble, pullup, and was a deadly mid-range to outside shooter. Along with West and maybe Robertson, he had a more modern game than many contemporary players. His per possession scoring numbers are good while playing in a balanced attack, so it's easy for me to imagine that he could have put up bigger numbers on a team structured like, say, the 67 Warriors, where more focus was on him. Certainly his playoff performances during this period indicate he was capable of that. He was a big game player as well and incredibly clutch by reputation.

Overall, I see Jones as the 3rd best perimeter guy of the decade. Not sure he'll make my top 5 in 67, but he's definitely in consideration in these years.

[bastillon]

what makes you so impressed Elgee ? I have a hard time believing that 33 year old perimeter scorer can have a game-changing impact. I'll agree about shot creation - it's an extremely valuable asset and as Jones regressed, Celtics offense suffered too. nevertheless, he's still pretty one-dimensional to be considered as a legit top5 candidate.

before Ohl got injured, he finished ahead of him on the all-star team. I'd take Greer over him easily. I'd take Sloan too, but I'm fan of his great defense and I rate him a lot higher than normal people do. West still played in the league, too. that gives you 4 guys from the same position playing at comparable or higher level. hardly a candidate to me.

but you know what ? Sam Jones missed some ~10 games that year. why don't we check them ? it'd be a great exercise.

[Sedale Threatt]

year, Hondo was probably top5 SF at this point (Baylor, Barry, Chet, DeBuscherre who is IMO one of the most underrated players ever) and Sam Jones is top5 SG (Greer, West, Sloan who is another all-time underrated player and Ohl who finished ahead of Jones on all-star team but was injured late in the season and Jones ended up selected to all-NBA team). also, Howell was one of the best PFs in the league... but how's that any worse than any team in the league at the time ?

It's not -- that's the whole point. In fact, with the exception of Philly, Boston is markedly better than any other team's. Minus their star player, no other team had a trio to match Hondo/Jones/Howell. Hell, as great as Philly was, I don't even think their group is substantially better than that one with Greer/Walker/Cunninghan. Better, but not this vast chasm you're making it out to be. The more I look at it, maybe Chamberlain was just that much better than Russell this season.

[ElGee]

what makes you so impressed Elgee ? I have a hard time believing that 33 year old perimeter scorer can have a game-changing impact. I'll agree about shot creation - it's an extremely valuable asset and as Jones regressed, Celtics offense suffered too. nevertheless, he's still pretty one-dimensional to be considered as a legit top5 candidate.

before Ohl got injured, he finished ahead of him on the all-star team. I'd take Greer over him easily. I'd take Sloan too, but I'm fan of his great defense and I rate him a lot higher than normal people do. West still played in the league, too. that gives you 4 guys from the same position playing at comparable or higher level. hardly a candidate to me.

but you know what ? Sam Jones missed some ~10 games that year. why don't we check them ? it'd be a great exercise.

We can certainly check them, but I'd expect to see a small number as long as Russell were playing. Just like if Greer missed time I wouldn't think Philly would take a huge hit. Both are clearly top 10 players. If situational *value* is your primary criteria, then I could probably think of lesser players who were more valuable than those two.

Jones' age is meaningless to me because he still had it in 1967, just like Nash still had it this year. Jones was a later starter and played lower minutes early on because of team makeup (and racial factors?) so it makes sense that at 33 he didn't have the normal miles a 33-year old has.

Other points:
-I'm wondering why'd you take Greer at all, let alone easily?

-The AS game doesn't bother me too much -- if others play well for 2 months and he's so-so, he could easily be snubbed. The All-NBA team and years coming off getting MVP votes seem more relevant.

-West is out (injury), but otherwise he's definitely better. I've never seen an Ohl game in his prime, but I don't understand what evidence suggests he's on his level. (Scoring? TS%? Skills? Media recognition?) Sloan is underrated historically, but I think Jones' offense is way too good for Sloan's defense to offset it.

-I could call Rick Barry one-dimensional this year in the same vein. It doesn't really change how good he is, and where stands relative to competition.

[Sedale Threatt]

I guess this is what it comes down to. Greer is allegedly "easily" better than Jones, but when you compare their numbers, they look almost shockingly similar.

Jones - 32.3 mins, 8.9 FGM, 19.5 FGA, .454 FG%, .857 FT%, 4.7 RPG, 3.0 APG, 22.1 PPG
Greer - 38.6 mins, 8.7 FGM, 19.1 FGA, .459 FG%, .788 FT%, 5.3 RPG, 3.8 APG, 22.1 PPG

I'll give Greer the edge because he was three years younger. Don't think either had a rep for playing especially great defense, but I could be wrong. Both were widely admired for their professionalism. So somebody tell me -- what's the major difference between these two?

[ElGee]

I don't think there's a major difference. I'd take Jones based on watching them on film and for the reasons I outlined above. This is yet another year where Jones' number increase in the postseason...Greer played well in the postseason with a huge drop in TS%.

Outside of that we can look at Regulator's research, although I don't think that provides much detail/insight into these guys in this particular year.

Macroscopically, Hal Greer did get 3 MVP points (non-first place votes) before Wilt arrived in 1964. Jones had 4 first place votes in 1965 when his role jumped, playing alongside Bill Russell (winner of the MVP). Shouldn't the latter be significantly more impressive?

(66 MVP votes: Russell 7, Jones 2)

[Warspite]

I'm trying to get a handle on Thurmond vs Russell & Wilt, but I'm rather confused. I do see the articles talking about how there's now a big 3, and how Thurmond's poised to be the next great.

However, by my count, in the regular season, Thurmond went 2-5 against Philly, and 1-5 against Boston. I tried looking up how Thurmond specifically did against Boston, but the only time I saw his name mentioned was in the win (where he was the star and clearly played great). In the losses, Barry's the only guy they talk about.

Now I understand it's a team game here, it's certainly possible for Thurmond to be playing better than Russell (or Wilt for that matter) despite the losses. Still, I was expecting more impressive results. I mean, with those kind of records, that basically means that the Warriors weren't an unusually big threat to either the 76ers or the Celtics.

Lets not forget historical context here. We hear about the east coast bias and this is the era in which it started. The only time any sports writer saw Thurmond was when he was in Boston or Philly. I would go so far as to say that 90% of all Basketball writers were in 3 US cities (Boston,NY, Phily) So if you didnt play well in these cities you werent any good. When you consider that Bells and Reed are also in NY/Baltimore then you start to understand what the expectations of play and what is considered avg to good. In a 8 team league Reed or Bellamy is an Avg C. Being the 3rd best C in an 8 team league is pretty much like being the 12th best C today. He surely was the 3rd best C but thats not exactly as elite as we would percieve it.

Thurmond dominating the Lakers in LA on a Tuesday night in which the game didnt start untill 10pm east coast time and wasnt carried on TV or radio east of Riverside CA is much like a tree faling in the forrest. You didnt hear it so it didnt make a sound.

[penbeast0]

Again, there are two dominant teams in the league and I mean REALLY dominant. The Sixers were the big monsters with a win% of .840 and an SRS of 8.50 but the Celtics were a dominant team also with 60 wins themselves and an STS of 7.24. The only other team in the league over .500 was the 44-37 Warriors.

Thus, I can’t see anyone approaching the two top teams superstar centers as Most Valuable this year. Wilt is clearly #1, Russell is clearly #2. The only real question is whether anyone else on those teams ends up top 5.

The Sixers’ second best player was probably Hal Greer (22/5/4 with a 28/6/5 playoffs!) who was the 3rd best guard in the league by voting throughout the 60s and was the second leading scorer with solid if not outstanding efficiency; Walker or Cunningham are very close but Walker isn’t as good defensively and Cunningham’s efficiency is about the same despite playing PF to Greer’s SG (a big difference before the 3 point shot). If Cunningham played more minutes, I’d rate him higher, it’s one of the great sixth man seasons but still only 27 mpg.

The Celtics’ second best player was John Havlicek (21/7/3, playoffs 27/8/3!) pretty easily over Sam Jones (C’s top scorer but also only an average efficiency year) and Bailey Howell (though Howell is much more efficient). Like Greer, Hondo is only average efficiency but his defense is better. Tough call between the two . . . but I lean to Havlicek by a little.

The Warriors were Rick Barry’s team offensively (35/9/4 also on average efficiency, poor playoff efficiency at 35ppg but .403) but Nate Thurmond’s team defensively (19/21/3 and also a little playoff slippage to 15ppg but even worse efficiency despite being a center). The contemporary voters voted Thurmond a lot higher than Barry so I’ll go with that as a tie breaker between them. Both definite candidates though.

Other players with big numbers on losing teams included Oscar (30/6/11 shooting almost .500 from the field plus a solid playoff series loss) and Jerry West, though West sort of slipped out of this competition missing 15 games and the playoffs

As I said, easy choices at the top

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Bill Russell

Thurmond, Havlicek, Greer, Oscar, and Barry are the other contenders. All had huge playoffs; Oscar was the most dominant regular season player and the Warriors weren’t that much better than the pack.

3. Oscar
4. Thurmond
5. Havlicek

HM Greer, Barry . . . hard not to put Greer in here with the Sixers magic season but ahead of who?


P.S. On Thurmond. People talk about Russell being Ben Wallace but he was efficient as a scorer early in his career, finishing in the top 5 in the league his first 4 years -- it was just an era differential as the league was shooting below .400 (similar to the jacked up rebound numbers of his 60s seasons) -- plus contemporaries raved about his passing skills too. The real defensive star/offensive disaster was Nate Thurmond who not only shot worse than his guards in many if not most of his seasons, but continued to jack shots at a high pace despite being such a poor shooter. Sort of like prime Jermaine O'Neal falling in love with that weak ass turnaround only worse.

[TrueLAfan]

1. Wilt. Pretty obvious. I think it's the greatest season by an NBA player.
2. Bill Russell. So he didn't win this year. Doesn't mean he wanything less than great. If I had to choose between Russ and Nate in 1967, I'm still going with Russell.
3. Rick Barry. In general, I think D is underrated. And Rick Barry was not a particularly good defender (nor, often, an efficient offensive player). But he was pretty efficient this year, partly because he went to the line nearly 11 times a game and was automatic. His efficiency went in the toilet in the PS, though. But he was still more important, IMO, to the Warriors than Nate.
4. Oscar Robertson.
5. Nate Thurmond.

HM: John Havlicek, Hal Greer, Sam Jones, Jerry Lucas

Note about the Sam Jones and Celtics in general. The 60s Celtics platooned players--even great pklayrs--and those players were willing to focus on whatever was necessary to help the team. Satch Sanders, for instance, was a scorer in college who became a multi-role defensive specialist for the Celtics. And those players had numbers that look less impressive because of their more limited playing time. Sam Jones, for example, averaged over 33 minutes per game once in his career. Heinsohn never played 33 minutes a game. Satch Sanders only 30 mpg once in his career. From 1957 to 1969, the Celtics only had 25 players seasons of over 33 minutes a game...and 14 of those were by Bill Russell. In other words, the average Celtics' Dynasty team had, maybe, one player other than Bill Russell that played 33 minutes a game. It wasn't that the Celtics had a bunch of elite players...it was more like every team had Russell, a couple of HOF players who played 30-33 mpg and were fresh and ready, and waves of 22-30 mpg players that were capable and knew their roles. Guys like Satch Sanders, K.C. Jones, Larry Sigfried, Frank Ramsey, and Don Nelson may not look that impressive on paper. But they backed up Russell, Heinsohn, Cousy, Sharman, Havlicek, and Sam Jones in whatever ways were called for...so you ended up with a really good 7 or 8 man rotation that balanced role players with different skills. The Celtics outside of Bill Russell were a very well put together team. The end result speaks for itself.

[mopper8]

I think if you took the best player off every team in the league, you'd be hard-pressed to find very many remaining duos as good as Hondo/Jones. Baylor/Goodrich, I guess, and Greer/Walker or Greer/Cunningham (or you could argue since Philly had all 3, that's basically better by default). But I don't see a ton of teams out there otherwise that had two better 2nd/3rd stars. Heck, those guys would be the best players on a lot of teams in the league at that point.

[ThaRegul8r]

Beyond statistics, what I always see Jones bring on film is a viable No. 1 scoring option from the perimeter. Of course, he had a bank shot, but he could use the dribble, pullup, and was a deadly mid-range to outside shooter. Along with West and maybe Robertson, he had a more modern game than many contemporary players. His per possession scoring numbers are good while playing in a balanced attack, so it's easy for me to imagine that he could have put up bigger numbers on a team structured like, say, the 67 Warriors, where more focus was on him.

I'm not taking anything away from Jones in any way—he's going to get some Top 5 votes from me in the next upcoming years, but Jones was in the perfect situation as far as fit for his personality.

“Sam was the guy everyone wanted to take the last shot in the game. Sam didn’t want to do it, but Red and the guys just made him take it. He was the reluctant hero.”

After a few seasons with the Celtics, I noticed that Sam Jones could take over a game […]. He wouldn’t do it the way Oscar did, or nearly as often, but sometimes he gave off a feeling that he simply would not let us lose this game. He’d shoot, steal and score lay-ups, and when the other team tried to gang up on him, he’d feed the rest of us for easy baskets. Sam took on a glow that said, “The game’s over.”

But it only happened about one game in twenty, and I puzzled over it for a long time. I couldn’t figure it out, so one day I asked, “Sam, why don’t you play like that all the time?”

“No, I don’t want to do that,” he said without the slightest hesitation. He knew exactly what I meant, and he’d already thought about it. “I don’t want the responsibility of having to play like that every night.”

I was floored. “It would mean a lot of money,” I said.

“I know,” Sam replied, “but I don’t want to do it.”

Sam knew how good he was, but he made a choice and lived with it. Many players since him have refused to make that choice; they want the star’s money without the responsibility. While I believe that players should be paid as much as the market thinks them worth, I also think the star’s money carries the extra load.

I respected Sam’s choice, but I didn’t understand it. There were a lot of things about Sam I didn’t understand.

In Boston he didn't have the responsibility that came with being "THE guy," because Russell was "THE guy." But on another team he might be forced to take on an extra load that he wouldn't have been comfortable with. This is where a player's personality factors in.