RealGM Top 100 List #2

[penbeast0]

Hard to see why though. He was a great rebounder, an efficient scorer with good range (a stretch 4) . . . either his defense was really bad (and when I watched him on the Knicks, he seemed competent though not a good help defender), his passing was really bad, or the Royals changed the offense to a less efficient one trying to take advantage of his skills (like Wilt walking up the floor, using the clock and letting the defense get set).

And then . . . does this apply to Kevin Love?

[MisterWestside]

Lucas was really weird. Eidetic. Off personality. Said he “never really wanted to be a pro basketball player.” He had bad knees and played huge minutes. But Lucas has the Oscar thing going for him (irony alert!). When he went to a great team, he elevated them and put them over the top. When he went to the Knicks, he was a Godsend … Reed had been hurt, and it was Willis Reed for Christ’s sake. Lucas is a fundamentally different player than Reed, and it took the Knicks a while to figure it out—they were 6-9 to start, the season, closed with 42-25 and made it to the finals. They won the title the next year with Lucas playing a smaller but still (very) important part. You don’t hear (nearly) as much about Lucas as you do Oscar in terms of his role on a championship team … but Lucas was very important in much the same way in a contemporary context.

Not 100% sold on the On/Off numbers. This is a subjective opinion. Lucas, despite his big numbers, was definitely Robin. Oscar usage rate must have been astronomical—22 shot attempts, 10 apg, and going to line 11 times a game? Jesus. It’s harder to replace that when it goes down, IMO—especially in the short term . The Royals were a bad organization, but they generally had well crafted teams. Compared to the Lakers, they maintained a balance of offense and defense, big and small. You got perimeter shooting (Twyman, Smith, Van Arsdale), good D and adequate scoring from the perimeter and one half of the PF/C position (Embry, Boozer, Hawkins, Hairston, Love). I disagree that that the Royals frontline was an area of weakness. It seems like adding an inside/outside combo like Oscar and Lucas to that would help out more than it did. But the bottom line is results, and those teams didn’t produce despite having (IMO) some balance and quality. The mid-70s Lakers, for instance, had no frontcourt players other than Kareem, and marginal perimeter D. If the three had been around, they might have been able to make a run like the D12 Magic. Without it, they were a 45-50 win team. But they were a team with flaws and gaps. I don’t see that as much with the Royals. Never have. But I can how losing such a massively ball-dominant player as Oscar, a guy that did so much in so many different areas, must have been devastating.

Thanks for brining balance to the discussion. Haven't watched him play, but the footage of him shows a talented player in his prime, one who could help a team with the right context.

[DQuinn1575]

In 65 Lucas missed 14 games controlling for Oscar.

65 Cin WITH Lucas: +2.2 SRS
65 Cin W/OUT Lucas: +4.1 SRS

In 70 Lucas missed 17 games controlling for Nate Thurmond.

70 SFW WITH Lucas: -3.0 SRS
70 SFW w/OUT Lucas: -0.3 SRS

I never did 1969, a year in which he missed 8 games...

Sample size alert! - I looked at 1965, and almost all the difference is due to a 31 point win over the Lakers in the 2nd of a back to back for LA. Take that away, and the Royals margin of victory is slightly higher with Lucas then without.

Still not great, but not negative.

Some background on Jerry Lucas:
Lucas made a comment that he would chase down the last rebound of the quarter or half so he would get an extra rebound - this led to the stat obsessed comment- he was great with numbers, and did memory tricks, appearing on the Johnny Carson show and he had a memory book - but I'm not aware of anything he did that would be harmful for the team.

He led his team to a national title in college, beating out West and Robertson, and was a star along with those 2 on the 1960 Olympics.

A great college star, who probably would be deemed a slight disappointment not living up to his college rep, but still considered a good pro.

When on the Knicks, he was a center who shot from very long range and rebounded well. He fit in well with their offense. Not a great defender.
I don't recall seeing him play as a Warrior.

[TrueLAfan]

Thanks for the kind words, MisterWestside

Pen … this brings up another question. If Lucas’s game didn’t mesh somehow with Oscar, is it all Lucas’s fault? Certain players adjust their games as necessary—Wilt, obviously, did. Did Lucas not do this? (He seemed to with the Knicks.) Or was he not asked to? And how much responsibility does Oscar bear in not getting the most value out of his secondary, yet valuable, player?

Brief asides on the two main candidates here. I think Russell, for instance *did* change his play at different times in his career, depending on how much he was handling the ball. (And since the team continued to do well, I think this is an argument that Bill Russell offense is sometimes unfairly maligned.) The same is true with Kareem … Showtime is terrific, but having the most reliable halfcourt shot in history to fall back on is an awfully nice. The Bucks were a fairly slow team, the mid-70s Lakers were confused (of course)—fast one year, slow the next. The 80s Lakers were what they were. Kareem did what was necessary at every juncture, and always did it well.

[TrueLAfan]

In 65 Lucas missed 14 games controlling for Oscar.

65 Cin WITH Lucas: +2.2 SRS
65 Cin W/OUT Lucas: +4.1 SRS

In 70 Lucas missed 17 games controlling for Nate Thurmond.

70 SFW WITH Lucas: -3.0 SRS
70 SFW w/OUT Lucas: -0.3 SRS

I never did 1969, a year in which he missed 8 games...

Sample size alert! - I looked at 1965, and almost all the difference is due to a 31 point win over the Lakers in the 2nd of a back to back for LA. Take that away, and the Royals margin of victory is slightly higher with Lucas then without.

Still not great, but not negative.

Some background on Jerry Lucas:
Lucas made a comment that he would chase down the last rebound of the quarter or half so he would get an extra rebound - this led to the stat obsessed comment- he was great with numbers, and did memory tricks, appearing on the Johnny Carson show and he had a memory book - but I'm not aware of anything he did that would be harmful for the team.

He led his team to a national title in college, beating out West and Robertson, and was a star along with those 2 on the 1960 Olympics.

A great college star, who probably would be deemed a slight disappointment not living up to his college rep, but still considered a good pro.

When on the Knicks, he was a center who shot from very long range and rebounded well. He fit in well with their offense. Not a great defender.
I don't recall seeing him play as a Warrior.

Nice stuff. Some info about Lucas with the Warriors--the trade year was his worst season. He had considered retiring and was out of shape. This made his bad knees even worse. He had business ventures outside of basketball that failed, though, and he refocused himself ands came back strong.

Aside--Jerry Lucas always had some kind of weird business thing going on. He would appear on TV in the mid and late-70s pushing the Jerry Lucas Memory System, or whatever it was called. Looking back, I realize how far ahead of his time he was ... this was an infomercial. In the mid-70s! I remember my Mom (a school administrator) and I talking about this:

"Who is that?"
"It's Jerry Lucas."
"Is he a teacher?"
"He's a center with a good jump shot."

[An Unbiased Fan]

Vote #2: Kareem

I've already spoken about using the logic of the best at each position left in the project, in which I get Magic/Kobe/Bird/Duncan/KAJ. Of those 5, I think KAJ has the most overall career impact, a comparable prime to all, and the best longevity.

In terms of KAJ vs Russell, I spoke about this earlier. I don't see Russell's defensive impact trumping KAJ's offense + defense impact. KAJ was the consensus best center of his era......Russell wasn't by his peers. KAJ was an ATG 1st option offesnively, and a good defensive anchor. Russell was more of a 4th option on offense, and an ATG defensive anchor. KAJ did it across multiple eras, without a 3pt line, and with one. Russell played in, there's no way around it, weak era when it came to offensive talent, and team coaching.

This is KAJ for me.

[Clyde Frazier]

Just as an aside, it would be really interesting to see guys like Lucas and McAdoo in today's game. They'd undoubtedly become stretch 4s, at least in certain situations. It was widely reported that they had 3 pt range back then, but couldn't put it to use.

[lorak]

Yes, I've looked at Russell's rookie year and posted in the Peaks Project all of the relevant WOWY information we have around his team:

So Celtics in 1957 were already +3.6 SRS team without Russell? (BTW, is Heinsohn underrated?) That means his impact for the rest of the 50s and first half of the 60s was around 3-4 SRS (I obviously have much less confidence in +20 Gs sample over +10 years, than +20 Gs sample in one season), because it's very unlikely Celtics roster was worse after 1957. Far from GOAT level player.

Have you done this same analysis for Lucas who is a strong stat guy? I've always wondered how Cincinnati can have two players as outstanding as Oscar and Lucas and still be so suck. Either (a)Oscar's impact is not that great, (b)Lucas's impact is not that great, (c)the rest of the team is THAT far below average (this would include the coaching). I'd love to see it if you have it.

I'm unable to provide details right now, but some time ago Bastillon did analysis of Lucas impact and it shows he is overrated player, who was obsessed with his own stats and limited on court impact.

[colts18]

The most games that Russell missed after his rookie year was in 1962 when he missed 4 games. Do you want to know who his backup center was? No one. He didn't have one.

This is the 1962 Celtics roster

No. Player Pos Ht ▾ Wt Birth Date Exp College
6 Bill Russell C 6-10 215 February 12, 1934 5 University of San Francisco
15 Tom Heinsohn PF 6-7 218 August 26, 1934 5 College of the Holy Cross
16 Tom Sanders SF 6-6 210 November 8, 1938 1 New York University
4 Carl Braun PG 6-5 180 September 25, 1927 12 Colgate University
20 Gene Guarilia SF 6-5 220 September 13, 1937 2 George Washington University
18 Jim Loscutoff SF 6-5 220 February 4, 1930 6 University of Oregon
24 Sam Jones SG 6-4 198 June 24, 1933 4 North Carolina Central University
21 Gary Phillips PG 6-3 189 December 7, 1939 R University of Houston
23 Frank Ramsey SG 6-3 190 July 13, 1931 6 University of Kentucky
22 Al Butler PG 6-2 175 July 9, 1938 R Niagara University
14 Bob Cousy PG 6-1 175 August 9, 1928 11 College of the Holy Cross
25 K.C. Jones PG 6-1 200 May 25, 1932 3 University of San Francisco

Notice something there? Russell was the tallest player on the team. The next tallest player was Heinsohn at 6-7. They had to also play 6-6 Tom Sanders at PF. Is it shocking a team would drop off with a 6-7 center? is it shocking that the offense would drop off?

[MacGill]

Just a quick reponse here as my vote has been cast. Magic, Shaq, Hakeem and Duncan are all on my mind after what will most likely be the end of the top 3 between Russell and KAJ. I also want to thank the posters here for #1, having patience with me with my KAJ rants and for providing some great insight about him. Your efforts are not going unnoticed.

[Doctor MJ]

The most games that Russell missed after his rookie year was in 1962 when he missed 4 games. Do you want to know who his backup center was? No one. He didn't have one.

This is the 1962 Celtics roster

No. Player Pos Ht ▾ Wt Birth Date Exp College
6 Bill Russell C 6-10 215 February 12, 1934 5 University of San Francisco
15 Tom Heinsohn PF 6-7 218 August 26, 1934 5 College of the Holy Cross
16 Tom Sanders SF 6-6 210 November 8, 1938 1 New York University
4 Carl Braun PG 6-5 180 September 25, 1927 12 Colgate University
20 Gene Guarilia SF 6-5 220 September 13, 1937 2 George Washington University
18 Jim Loscutoff SF 6-5 220 February 4, 1930 6 University of Oregon
24 Sam Jones SG 6-4 198 June 24, 1933 4 North Carolina Central University
21 Gary Phillips PG 6-3 189 December 7, 1939 R University of Houston
23 Frank Ramsey SG 6-3 190 July 13, 1931 6 University of Kentucky
22 Al Butler PG 6-2 175 July 9, 1938 R Niagara University
14 Bob Cousy PG 6-1 175 August 9, 1928 11 College of the Holy Cross
25 K.C. Jones PG 6-1 200 May 25, 1932 3 University of San Francisco

Notice something there? Russell was the tallest player on the team. The next tallest player was Heinsohn at 6-7. They had to also play 6-6 Tom Sanders at PF. Is it shocking a team would drop off with a 6-7 center? is it shocking that the offense would drop off?

Remember though the in/out numbers here are more to assuage doubts of doubters. Russell's note worthiness has always been based on the extreme success when he's on the court after all not based on some "wouldnt win a game without him" excuse.

Put another way: doesn't the roster info you provide make all the more clear that the entire winning approach of Boston was dependent on one singular talent?

Go look at the minutes distribution around '64 and you see everyone else was basically platooned around Russell. General rule: If a coach can platoon you, then your talent is relatively replaceable there. I would suggest people really ponder what that means when talking up Russell's supporting cast



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[MisterWestside]

The most games that Russell missed after his rookie year was in 1962 when he missed 4 games. Do you want to know who his backup center was? No one. He didn't have one.

This is the 1962 Celtics roster

No. Player Pos Ht ▾ Wt Birth Date Exp College
6 Bill Russell C 6-10 215 February 12, 1934 5 University of San Francisco
15 Tom Heinsohn PF 6-7 218 August 26, 1934 5 College of the Holy Cross
16 Tom Sanders SF 6-6 210 November 8, 1938 1 New York University
4 Carl Braun PG 6-5 180 September 25, 1927 12 Colgate University
20 Gene Guarilia SF 6-5 220 September 13, 1937 2 George Washington University
18 Jim Loscutoff SF 6-5 220 February 4, 1930 6 University of Oregon
24 Sam Jones SG 6-4 198 June 24, 1933 4 North Carolina Central University
21 Gary Phillips PG 6-3 189 December 7, 1939 R University of Houston
23 Frank Ramsey SG 6-3 190 July 13, 1931 6 University of Kentucky
22 Al Butler PG 6-2 175 July 9, 1938 R Niagara University
14 Bob Cousy PG 6-1 175 August 9, 1928 11 College of the Holy Cross
25 K.C. Jones PG 6-1 200 May 25, 1932 3 University of San Francisco

Notice something there? Russell was the tallest player on the team. The next tallest player was Heinsohn at 6-7. They had to also play 6-6 Tom Sanders at PF. Is it shocking a team would drop off with a 6-7 center? is it shocking that the offense would drop off?

It's funny, because all the numbers actually do is answer the question "Who was the Celtics most important player from 1957 to 1968?" That. Is. It. Heck, you can't even claim that "Russell was most important player on the best team; therefore he was the best player in the league". The logic doesn't follow. Value =/= Goodness. Not the same thing.

Spoiler:

I do think he was arguably the best player of his time. But not because of impact numbers, as such.

[DQuinn1575]

Just as an aside, it would be really interesting to see guys like Lucas and McAdoo in today's game. They'd undoubtedly become stretch 4s, at least in certain situations. It was widely reported that they had 3 pt range back then, but couldn't put it to use.

While on the Knicks Lucas took a lot of shots from the top of the key and beyond - they called it "The Lucas layup"
He definitely had 3 point range.

McAdoo shot a lot from 15-17 feet, which was pretty uncommon for centers. He probably didn't really have 3 point range, as taking 22 footers in the 70s was a bad shot for most everyone.

He would have adapted if the rule was in place like it is today, but he really didn't shoot from that range.

[DQuinn1575]

They had to also play 6-6 Tom Sanders at PF.

Most of the power forwards up to the mid 70s were 6-6 and 6-7

[ardee]

Yes, I've looked at Russell's rookie year and posted in the Peaks Project all of the relevant WOWY information we have around his team:

So Celtics in 1957 were already +3.6 SRS team without Russell? (BTW, is Heinsohn underrated?) That means his impact for the rest of the 50s and first half of the 60s was around 3-4 SRS (I obviously have much less confidence in +20 Gs sample over +10 years, than +20 Gs sample in one season), because it's very unlikely Celtics roster was worse after 1957. Far from GOAT level player.

Jesus come on, are you trying to say that he didn't improve at all from his rookie year?

24 games in someone's rookie year is an idiotically small sample size to make a judgment on about someone's whole career.

Don't you say Oscar was a +8 player in '71 and '72? Well if that kind of sample size is ok in your books, then according to the '72 WOWY Oscar was a +4.8 player.

Don't shift goalposts man.

[Doctor MJ]

The most games that Russell missed after his rookie year was in 1962 when he missed 4 games. Do you want to know who his backup center was? No one. He didn't have one.

This is the 1962 Celtics roster

No. Player Pos Ht ▾ Wt Birth Date Exp College
6 Bill Russell C 6-10 215 February 12, 1934 5 University of San Francisco
15 Tom Heinsohn PF 6-7 218 August 26, 1934 5 College of the Holy Cross
16 Tom Sanders SF 6-6 210 November 8, 1938 1 New York University
4 Carl Braun PG 6-5 180 September 25, 1927 12 Colgate University
20 Gene Guarilia SF 6-5 220 September 13, 1937 2 George Washington University
18 Jim Loscutoff SF 6-5 220 February 4, 1930 6 University of Oregon
24 Sam Jones SG 6-4 198 June 24, 1933 4 North Carolina Central University
21 Gary Phillips PG 6-3 189 December 7, 1939 R University of Houston
23 Frank Ramsey SG 6-3 190 July 13, 1931 6 University of Kentucky
22 Al Butler PG 6-2 175 July 9, 1938 R Niagara University
14 Bob Cousy PG 6-1 175 August 9, 1928 11 College of the Holy Cross
25 K.C. Jones PG 6-1 200 May 25, 1932 3 University of San Francisco

Notice something there? Russell was the tallest player on the team. The next tallest player was Heinsohn at 6-7. They had to also play 6-6 Tom Sanders at PF. Is it shocking a team would drop off with a 6-7 center? is it shocking that the offense would drop off?

It's funny, because all the numbers actually do is answer the question "Who was the Celtics most important player from 1957 to 1968?" That. Is. It. Heck, you can't even claim that "Russell was most important player on the best team; therefore he was the best player in the league". The logic doesn't follow. Value =/= Goodness. Not the same thing.

Spoiler:

I do think he was arguably the best player of his time. But not because of impact numbers, as such.

Value is not goodness however goodness is nothing more than the ability to contribute value. The distinction is merely in the recognition that a player's actual value achieved does not in and of itself define the Expected or Optimal Value his goodness would allow.

While considering Russell, his extreme success, and his team's indisputable dependence on him far beyond any other teammate, I would say the question to ask is whether you really thought Kareem or any one else could have such impact. Or whether you infer that such would simply have to be possible based on your perception of the superiority of a more two-way star.

My feeling is really that Russell's more one-sided specialization needs to be viewed by flipping the assumed causality. He just kept going more and more in that direction because it worked, and worked better than the more static approach of having your star be the focus of all aspects of your team.

I think also that recognition of specialization is now largely the established opinion in basketball if you think about it.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[colts18]

Put another way: doesn't the roster info you provide make all the more clear that the entire winning approach of Boston was dependent on one singular talent?

Go look at the minutes distribution around '64 and you see everyone else was basically platooned around Russell. General rule: If a coach can platoon you, then your talent is relatively replaceable there. I would suggest people really ponder what that means when talking up Russell's supporting cast

You are looking at it completely wrong. Does 1999 Tim Duncan become less "valuable" because David Robinson was his backup in case of injury? If I was the backup to Michael Beasley, does that make him a "value"? Your backup has nothing to do with the quality of your play. In/out can't account for that so it literally can't make a judgment on how good a player is.

Did you ponder what it means to Russell's cast? You shouldn't make that argument because it props up the anti-Russell crowd. The Celtics had so much depth that they had quality players on the bench who could play in case of injury (it's not like you can start 9 HOF players at the same time). What other teams in that era had that kind of depth? Could the Lakers replace an injured Jerry West with HOF John Havlicek off the bench?

[lorak]

Yes, I've looked at Russell's rookie year and posted in the Peaks Project all of the relevant WOWY information we have around his team:

So Celtics in 1957 were already +3.6 SRS team without Russell? (BTW, is Heinsohn underrated?) That means his impact for the rest of the 50s and first half of the 60s was around 3-4 SRS (I obviously have much less confidence in +20 Gs sample over +10 years, than +20 Gs sample in one season), because it's very unlikely Celtics roster was worse after 1957. Far from GOAT level player.

Jesus come on, are you trying to say that he didn't improve at all from his rookie year?

He did. In rookie year his impact looks like 1-2 SRS, the same in 2nd year and similar in 3rd year. Then we have improvement to 3-4, and probably 5-6 in two peak seasons. Maybe I'm wrong, but if that's the case then I would like Russell's supporters to explain that (Celtics high SRS w/o Russell in his rookie year, small improvement in 2nd year and slightly better but still small improvement in 3rd year; and also that his impact on offense looks negative so his overall impact was lower than impact on D alone - and most pro Russell arguments are based on D, so not whole picture).

[O_6]

I choose Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as my #2 player on the GOAT list for a few reasons...

- If I had the #1 pick in an All-Time League that lasts 20 years, I'd choose Kareem over everyone

Kareem's combination of Top 5 Peak, GOAT Longevity, and Two-Way Impact at the Center position just makes him such a safe and easy pick to build around in any era. Especially considering how complete his offensive game was. The word COMPLETE describes Kareem so well. Even though I voted Jordan over Kareem for GOAT, I feel like Kareem is the smarter 1st pick in this scenario and the player who provides the highest floor for a Franchise. Although he probably doesn't provide the highest ceiling.

- His GOAT impact translates across all eras whereas there are questions about Russell

I feel like Russell had the GOAT pure impact at his peak. He revolutionized the game in the late 50s and then continued to stay at the top when the game changed by the mid 60s. I also believe that Russell's defensive athleticism is on par with or greater than Hakeem/Robinson, so I still think he'd kill it in this era. But how much better than Hakeem/Robinson could he possibly be on defense? I just don't think he could reach levels THAT much greater than those guys.

I actually feel like Russell's athleticism would allow him to become a more efficient Tyson Chandler/Joakim Noah hybrid type of high efficiency PnR finisher and smart passer. So he would have an offensive impact. But we have to change up his offensive style and almost pray that he finds a way to be more efficient in this era, and even if we do that he still wouldn't be a go-to offensive scorer which limits him.

Kareem's offensive impact would be MVP level in any era, Kareem's defensive impact would make him a Top 5 DPOY contender in any era. I don't need to try and bend and stretch Kareem's game to maximize his impact in different eras the way I'd need to with Russell.

-Kareem won 2 Titles, made 3 Finals, and led 4 different 60-win teams over first 11 years

Kareem's lack of team success during the late 70s is a weird period in his career. You start to question if he made the team impact his individual stats portray. But then you realize that he also led some amazing teams in his prime and had a ton of team success in the big picture over his prime. He was the most important force on an All-Time Great Championship Bucks team in '71 and a dominant Lakers team in '80. Sure he had Oscar and Magic, but both guys weren't in their true primes at that point. Russell and Jordan also had great support when they won too.

And Kareem was also a very important piece on 4 more title teams. Sure Magic Johnson was the engine of those teams, but Kareem's go-to scoring was an enormous reason why the Lakers were able to dominate to such a degree in the 80s. So despite the lack of team success in the late 70s, Kareem still goes down as a tremendous winner in my book. He won in his prime and he won after it remaining a valuable piece.

This top 3 was so hard for me to choose. I came into this project thinking Jordan/Russell/Kareem were the real GOAT contenders, and now I REALLY feel that way after this project. I think you could sneak Wilt into the GOAT argument somehow and possibly LeBron in the future, but the Top 3 just looks so clear to me right now.

But I feel like Russell is the #3 out of these 3 top GOAT candidates because he just feels more era dependent than the other 2. I actually came into the project thinking that he could be my #1. I'm sure I'm going to change my opinion on Russell vs. Kareem plenty of times in the future, but as of July 2014 I gotta go with Kareem despite being a much bigger Russell fan.

I hope Russell wins this though, because a Wilt vs. Kareem thread for #3 interests me far more than a Wilt vs. Russell thread.

[ElGee]

Yes, I've looked at Russell's rookie year and posted in the Peaks Project all of the relevant WOWY information we have around his team:

So Celtics in 1957 were already +3.6 SRS team without Russell? (BTW, is Heinsohn underrated?) That means his impact for the rest of the 50s and first half of the 60s was around 3-4 SRS (I obviously have much less confidence in +20 Gs sample over +10 years, than +20 Gs sample in one season),

No, it doesn't mean that. Read on my post on interpreting WOWY numbers in this thread.

because it's very unlikely Celtics roster was worse after 1957. Far from GOAT level player..

Unlikely based on what? I've gone through this year-by-year before, but at a high glance:

57 team: Same core from last year minus Macauley. Best backcourt in the game with Cousy in the heart of his prime and Sharman arguably the best shooter in the game. Additional size for the time in Risen and Nichols, although I know little/remember little about them.

Look at the other supporting casts/teams based on WS:

FTW: Foust, Shue, Houbregs
MNL: Lovellette, Garmaker, Mikkelsen
NYK: Gallatin, Sears, Felix
PHW: Johnston, Costllo, Beck (Arizin's cast)
ROC: Stokes, Pointek, McCarthy (Twyman's cast)
STL: Macauley, Shre, Coleman (Pettit's cast)
SYR: Kerr, Conlin, Lloyd (Schayes cast)

64 team: Sam, Hondo, Sanders, Heinsohn, KC

64 League

BAL: Dischinger, Gus, Rod Thorn (Bellamy's cast)
CIN: Lucas, Embry, Twyman (Oscar's cast)
DET: Scott, Ferry, Moreland (Howell's cast)
LAL: Baylor, Barnett, LaRusso (West's cast)
NYK: Heyman, Green, Gola
PHI: Walker, Kerr, Neumann (Greer's cast)
PHW: Meshery, Attles, Hightower (Wilt's cast)
STL: Hagan, Wilkens, Beaty (Pettit's cast)

Which league looks better? Then consider Boston's dominance over that league was far greater in 1964 than it was in 1957.