GOAT TEAM TOURNAMENT: #8 1967 Philadelphia 76ers v. #9 1970 New York Knicks

[penbeast0]

Each player will be considered to be as dominant against his opponents as he was the year that he played (ie. if you are just going to say the more modern team wins, don't bother to participate). And EACH MATCHUP WILL FEATURE THE RULES, REFEREES, AND EQUIPMENT OF THE OLDER TEAM. This doesn't mean that Steph Curry will be called for carrying each time he tries to dribble, just assume that his handle is proportionately as good relative to the era as it is relative to his own. So, in 65, if you think he has the best handle in today's league, you can assume he has the best handle of that era; if he's roughly average for starting PGs of today's league in terms of that one aspect, you can assume he is roughly average for starting PGs of that era. This hopefully will eliminate a bit of the recency bias. Health is as it was, if a player was 75% during the playoffs that year, assume he's only 75% now, this is a playoff tournament, not a regular season seeding.

One last thing. VOTES WITHOUT ANALYSIS (or with what in my personal subject opinion is stupid analysis) WONT BE COUNTED.

1967 PHILADEPHIA 76ers

C Wilt Chamberlain
PF Luke Jackson
SF Chet Walker
SG Hal Greer
PG Wali Jones

F Billy Cunningham
G Matt Goukas

Wilt finally gets more talent than he faces in Boston. HOF coach Alex Hannum turns Wilt into a passing hub; although Wilt's efficiency (.683 from the field!) was so high that he led the team in scoring, he was actually 5th among the starters in FGA/minute (and reserve Billy Cunningham was 1st). The team was the best in the league in offensive efficiency, 3/10 in defense with great scoring from Wilt, outside shooting Hal Greer, and slasher/midrange shooter Chet Walker, as well as the green but hugely talented rookie Cunningham (whose playoff minutes were cut to 22/game). They also had good defense at every position with the above names players plus Luke Jackson, Wali Jones, and Matt Goukas being good defenders though not impressive scorers. Playing against the 1970 New York Knicks is a difference of only 3 years so not a lot of rules changes.

1970 NEW YORK KNICKS

PG Walt Frazier
SG Dick Barnett
SF Bill Bradley
PF Dave DeBusschere
C Willis Reed

F/G Cazzie Russell
G Mike Riordan
F Dave Stallworth

The culture of the league was starting to change by 1970 with the influence of the ABA and more of a star system but the Knicks were the antithesis of that. They were known for unselfish play and outstanding ball movement though their real strength was their best in the league defense (5th/14 offensively). Walt Frazier and Willis Reed were the keys to both sides of the court though Dave DeBusschere was also an outstanding defender and all the starters scored over 14ppg (DeBusschere and Barnett scored over 16 ppg in the playoffs, while Bradley dropped to 13). The Knicks won their title by beating Wilt and the (West/Baylor) Lakers (although Wilt had been injured most of the season and still went for 23/24/4 as an average game that series).

Who do you have winning?

[Dr Positivity]

This is a rough one. I believe the 76ers equals any regular season in history. The problem with comparing them to the Bulls and Warriors is those teams were chasing higher records in 69 for the Bulls, 72 for the Warriors, while the record to beat for the Sixers was 62. They started 46-4 and then cruised past it with 68. Realistically if they were motivated to chase a number like 72 they could have gotten there. Then in the playoffs beating the strong Celtics team in 5 games is on the short list of most impressive series wins in history.

On the other hand I like having Reed against Wilt based on what he did to the older version. The Knicks defense and team play on offense could find a way to make Wilt think too hard which is when he gets into trouble. Still the Sixers play great team ball as well, and at the end of the day they have a GOAT level player at his peak. The Knicks beat Wilt in 1970 but they took 7 games against a team not as good as the 67 Sixers. Vote Sixers

[penbeast0]

I tend to agree with Doc Pos. The Knicks are the type of team that would give the Sixers the most problems. A multipolar attack with great passing and good defense. But, who does Bill Bradley guard? He's too weak physically to handle Luke Jackson and both Walker and Cunningham are the kind of outstanding, physical slashers who will force Reed over to help which leaves Wilt with the undersized DeBusschere (or worse, Stallworth) on him. They might put Frazier on Walker and try to use Bradley on Wali Jones, Walt had excellent size, but I don't remember them using this configuration much defensively. With the Sixers having a point of attack, this opens things up for everyone else as the Knicks have to shade to help. Reed is a good cover for Wilt with his extremely strong base; Clyde can give Greer trouble against his quick hands but Wali Jones is a capable if not outstanding offensive point guard and will do fine against Dick Barnett who is nothing special defensively. But in the end, it's the extra size of Wilt, Luke Jackson, Cunningham, and Walker (who plays bigger than Barnett did despite being of similar stature) that should be the deciding factor as the Sixers will be stronger in the paint. Vote: Sixers

[pandrade83]

I concur with Pen & Dr P.

New York is excellent defensively & seems like they could inflict a lot of damage against Philadelphia. However, Wilt in the right setting is the GOAT (although I don't have him ranked as such) and think this version of Wilt - flanked by long & athletic front-line players plus a skilled back-court is too much for the Knicks. The Knicks really struggled with the '70 Lakers who I see a tier down from Philly & the year prior couldn't get past the last gasp Celtics with largely the same core. I love the way they match up with Philadelphia & don't think it's a blow-out but I'll take the Sixers.

[Owly]

This is a rough one. I believe the 76ers equals any regular season in history. The problem with comparing them to the Bulls and Warriors is those teams were chasing higher records in 69 for the Bulls, 72 for the Warriors, while the record to beat for the Sixers was 62. They started 46-4 and then cruised past it with 68. Realistically if they were motivated to chase a number like 72 they could have gotten there. Then in the playoffs beating the strong Celtics team in 5 games is on the short list of most impressive series wins in history.

On the other hand I like having Reed against Wilt based on what he did to the older version. The Knicks defense and team play on offense could find a way to make Wilt think too hard which is when he gets into trouble. Still the Sixers play great team ball as well, and at the end of the day they have a GOAT level player at his peak. The Knicks beat Wilt in 1970 but they took 7 games against a team not as good as the 67 Sixers. Vote Sixers

Some context on the start. The start is with Larry Costello. They are 38-4 with him playing up to his big injury . Assuming we don't count Costello's 1 minute appearance versus San Francisco (Feb 2nd) as a game "with" him (a loss), nor his 1 point appearance versus Cincinnati (Jan 27th) (a win) as "in" games but as "out" ones you get a 26-8 record from January 8th to March 12th. One might note that they play the Celtics only 4 times in the first 42, versus 5 in the next 34 (handing the 76ers three of the 8 losses). Anhyhow, Jones moving to starting probably revealed a thin bench. Costello's availability could make a difference here too.

The other note would be that chasing a win total in a league that had never played so many games (81 that season, 80 the year prior, seventy-five in 1960, seventy-two in 1959 etc) wouldn't make much sense (not saying that I know for certain it wasn't a target, but if it was it would be a slightly odd one). A more relevant target would be the win% record of the 1947 (BAA) Washington Capitols at 81.6666667% (49-11), which they did indeed beat (83.9506173%).

[trex_8063]

Don't have a ton of time, but want get my 2c in.....

This is a rough one, as I feel like potentially BOTH of these teams are underrated by their seeding here; but especially the Sixers.

The Holzman Knicks were a team, in the true sense of the word; and that can be a tough situation to stop, even if your talent cup is more full. otoh, Hannum had Wilt bought into the team aspect: defense, rebounding, distribute the ball and keep everyone involved. So they're no slouch from this standpoint either. And '67 Wilt is [imo] the best player by a country-mile in this series.

The '67 Sixers have always been on my short-list of all-time greatest teams, so I've got to side with them here. For further justification I'll note that between '67 and '70, the league expanded by FOUR teams (proportionally, that's a 40% increase in league size); additionally, the ABA had come into existence. So while I do believe the popularity and player pool were growing rapidly in this time period, and that the league was becoming increasingly integrated, and that skills were actively evolving.......that's still a DRAMATIC expansion in just three years in the number of professional teams players were being distributed to. So I have to think the AVERAGE NBA player was a little better in '67 than in '70.
And the '67 Sixers still took all comers: 68-13 (vs 60-22 for the '70 Knicks), +8.50 SRS (vs +8.42 for the Knicks), and practically rolled into the finals: dispatched a mediocre Royals team 3-1 (lost a close one in G1, then blew them out for three straight games), knocked off Russell's Celtics 4-1 (two or three blowouts, too, and only one close loss; interrupting what would otherwise be 11 consecutive titles for the Celtics), and took the finals in six games. They simply looked more dominant in their playoff run than the '70 Knicks.

As such, I think they'll find a way to win here (especially w/ HCA).

Vote: '67 Sixers