Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #48-51, 1993 CHI, 1984 BOS, 1977 POR, 1973 NYK

[70sFan]

It's getting more and more interesting!

These two 1970s teams were excellent and often forgotten in all-time great teams conversations. Both teams relied heavily on team chemistry and ball movement, even though Walton and Frazier were clear leaders of these teams. They also faced fantastic competiton in playoffs, beating them fair and square.

I hope that some people will re-look at these older teams because of your project. Thank you!

Worth noting that Boston weren't at full strength for the entire series. In game 3 Havlicek injured his shoulder (having played 45, 40 and 44 minutes in games 1, 2 and 3, he missed game four, then playing 30, 27 and 23 in the last 3 off the bench).

I'm aware of Hondo's injury, but it's good that you mentioned it

[Owly]

It's getting more and more interesting!

These two 1970s teams were excellent and often forgotten in all-time great teams conversations. Both teams relied heavily on team chemistry and ball movement, even though Walton and Frazier were clear leaders of these teams. They also faced fantastic competiton in playoffs, beating them fair and square.

I hope that some people will re-look at these older teams because of your project. Thank you!

Worth noting that Boston weren't at full strength for the entire series. In game 3 Havlicek injured his shoulder (having played 45, 40 and 44 minutes in games 1, 2 and 3, he missed game four, then playing 30, 27 and 23 in the last 3 off the bench).

I forgot about that! I remember that came up in the writeup for the '74 Celtics.

Games 1-3: 2-1 Knicks, +4.7 points per game
Game 4: 1-0 Knicks, +7 points per game
Games 5-7: 1-2 Knicks, +1.7 points per game

So no Havlicek in Game 4 definitely seemed to help, but it's hard to look at the above breakdown and say that it hugely swung the series. If you're looking at MoV anyways. But it's definitely worth noting.

I added it primarily because, well, as you say, it is relevant.

Whether it "swung the series" or not (and I don't like the phrase because -to my mind - it implies one course the series goes with Havlicek, as opposed to an array of possibilities of varying degrees of probability) ... I think its an instance where it throws off the numbers.

Are you not crediting Boston for being a 7.35 SRS team over the RS in your calculations? Safe to say they don't do that with Havlicek out 1/7 of the season and then 10.3/2.3/3.3 in lesser minutes (don't like using slashlines here and efficiency held up okay, but reporting seems to be he was limited) for 3/7 after (this assuming the injury didn't affect him during game 3).

Whether or not it "swung the series" (and series are tiny samples anyhow, subdividing them further moreso ... it depends on the point in question, could the Knicks have won the series anyway without the injury [given everything up to the point of injury, or indeed in general), of course, not a big gap between the two teams] can we conclude much more from it ... maybe not) it does suggest this is one occasion where the route on paper is (moreso than usual) somewhat different from the one on court. IMO anyway.

[Owly]

It's getting more and more interesting!

These two 1970s teams were excellent and often forgotten in all-time great teams conversations. Both teams relied heavily on team chemistry and ball movement, even though Walton and Frazier were clear leaders of these teams. They also faced fantastic competiton in playoffs, beating them fair and square.

I hope that some people will re-look at these older teams because of your project. Thank you!

Worth noting that Boston weren't at full strength for the entire series. In game 3 Havlicek injured his shoulder (having played 45, 40 and 44 minutes in games 1, 2 and 3, he missed game four, then playing 30, 27 and 23 in the last 3 off the bench).

I'm aware of Hondo's injury, but it's good that you mentioned it

Don't doubt it, just that phrasing and absence of mention in OP, it felt like a pertinent note on the competition.

[sansterre]

Worth noting that Boston weren't at full strength for the entire series. In game 3 Havlicek injured his shoulder (having played 45, 40 and 44 minutes in games 1, 2 and 3, he missed game four, then playing 30, 27 and 23 in the last 3 off the bench).

I forgot about that! I remember that came up in the writeup for the '74 Celtics.

Games 1-3: 2-1 Knicks, +4.7 points per game
Game 4: 1-0 Knicks, +7 points per game
Games 5-7: 1-2 Knicks, +1.7 points per game

So no Havlicek in Game 4 definitely seemed to help, but it's hard to look at the above breakdown and say that it hugely swung the series. If you're looking at MoV anyways. But it's definitely worth noting.

I added it primarily because, well, as you say, it is relevant.

Whether it "swung the series" or not (and I don't like the phrase because -to my mind - it implies one course the series goes with Havlicek, as opposed to an array of possibilities of varying degrees of probability) ... I think its an instance where it throws off the numbers.

Are you not crediting Boston for being a 7.35 SRS team over the RS in your calculations? Safe to say they don't do that with Havlicek out 1/7 of the season and then 10.3/2.3/3.3 in lesser minutes (don't like using slashlines here and efficiency held up okay, but reporting seems to be he was limited) for 3/7 after (this assuming the injury didn't affect him during game 3).

Whether or not it "swung the series" (and series are tiny samples anyhow, subdividing them further moreso ... it depends on the point in question, could the Knicks have won the series anyway without the injury [given everything up to the point of injury, or indeed in general), of course, not a big gap between the two teams] can we conclude much more from it ... maybe not) it does suggest this is one occasion where the route on paper is (moreso than usual) somewhat different from the one on court. IMO anyway.

Yeah, they're credited with their regular season SRS, and then adjusted from there based on performance in the first round.

Yeah, figuring out how to adjust for injuries is one of the real questions about the 2.0 formula.

[homecourtloss]

Really enjoyed the writeup for the Knicks, Sansterre. I loved how this entry touches on the overall landscape of the league, the respective trajectories of very good/great teams as they age, and the attention to attempting to quantify how much league disparities/variance in SRSs reflect how “good” a team was for the sake of basketball historicity, etc.

You’re also a better a writer than most people getting published on ESPN, SI, the Athletic, etc., so it’s a joy to read these.

[JordansBulls]

Great write-up for the 1993 Bulls. That game 3 in Chicago down 0-2 when Jordan went 3-18...narrative could have been much different if Pippen hadn’t stepped up against that all-time Knicks defense. Then Jordan had his great bounce back game 4.

Those 1992 and 1993 Knicks teams with limited offense, only one “star,” really had a chance to pull off some great wins but couldn’t get it done. 1992’s strong Chicago team was tied 3-3, total points scored dead even against the Knicks. Imagine if those Knicks had one more scorer; the narrative could have been much different.

I see what you did here.

[mojomarc]

I'm really late to the game, but thanks for this write-up. The first NBA games I ever went to were at the old Memorial Coliseum to see the Blazers in 76-77, and I was at several of the home playoff games that year and at all of the home games the following year. The 77-78 team was clearly better top-to-bottom, but once Walton was out the rest of the team fell apart and they were left with multiple 10-day contract players. Such a great "what might have been" story since the 78-79 Bullets and Sonics teams were just not competitive with what Portland was doing prior to the injuries.