[Project] Top 5 single season peaks by franchises: The Warriors

[Odinn21]

Hello.

Link to the project thread.

Pick the top 5 individual single seasons in the Warriors franchise history.

As Golden State Warriors from 1971-72 to today
As San Francisco Warriors from 1962-63 to 1970-71
As Philadelphia Warriors from 1949-50 to 1961-62

Things to follow;
- This project is franchise bound, not city bound. Quick example; Philadelphia Warriors from 1949-50 to 1961-62 is part of the Golden State Warriors franchise history and 1952 Arizin is eligible for the GS Warriors history.
- We'll follow continuity of the franchise. I.e. Seattle SuperSonics and Oklahoma City Thunder are the same franchise. We'll use BBRef as reference for this.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/OKC/
- ABA seasons are included.
- 2020-21 season is yet to be completed, so, it's not eligible for this project.
- One season per player, no duplicates within the franchise history. Quick example; Shaquille O'Neal can be voted for only once for the LA Lakers franchise history, and he can be voted for the Orlando Magic franchise history. They are separate occasions.

- Reg. season and postseason play, both are included in evaluations.
- Votes will be counted per player, not per version of player.
- An easy going point system of 10/7/5/3/1, the same as Retro PoY project, will be used. Number of higher placement votes will be the tiebreaker (if two players are tied at 27 points for the 1st place, the player with more 1st place votes will get it).
- Explanation is needed, even in short forms.
- We'll be going alphabetically with franchise nicknames. Linked to the voting threads as well.

Spoiler:

Philadelphia 76ers
Milwaukee Bucks
Chicago Bulls
Cleveland Cavaliers
Boston Celtics
Los Angeles Clippers
Memphis Grizzlies
Atlanta Hawks
Miami Heat
Charlotte Hornets
Utah Jazz
Sacramento Kings
New York Knicks
Los Angeles Lakers
Orlando Magic
Dallas Mavericks
Brooklyn Nets
Denver Nuggets
Indiana Pacers
New Orleans Pelicans
Detroit Pistons
Toronto Raptors
Houston Rockets
San Antonio Spurs
Phoenix Suns
Oklahoma City Thunder
Minnesota Timberwolves
Portland Trail Blazers
Golden State Warriors
Washington Wizards

Results on Google Sheet

- The time frame for each franchise is 2 days (10:00 EST).

---

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Odinn21]

Sometimes daily life gets in the way. This one will have a little more than an hour over our usual timeline. Cheers all.

[70sFan]

I except huge discussion on Wilt vs Curry between me and Dr MJ

[TroubleS0me]

Wilt & Curry got strong cases for #1

[HeartBreakKid]

1) 1964 Wilt Chamberlain - I prefer Chamberlain over Curry because I am fairly convinced his defense was quite dominant. He was so long and athletic it's hard not to see him being a trouble in any era. As for his era, the Warriors were usually a good defense - probably better than their offense on average by a good amount. The Warriors nearly won the title in 1962 when Chamberlain was averaging 50 points per game, so I think the idea that Chamberlain NEVER played winning basketball before the Sixers joined them is a bit off base. The Warriors were very competitive in Wilt's rookie season as well. As for why I decided to pick the 1964 version of Chamberlain, it's because I think he matured more as a player. The 50 point thing was more of a gimmick, everyone knows hes not an "authentic" 50 point scorer. The reason why the Warriors probably did worse in 64 is simply because the talent wasn't as good. No Gola or Arizin, and Thurmond was only a 15 MPG rookie.

2) 2016 Steph Curry - If 2021 was eligible I would vote for that version. Curry vs Durant is a tough cookie to crack. Impact stats says Curry is better during the RS. During the PS we see Durant consistently dominate, but we know he also benefits from spacing than Curry does. However, we saw in the 2019 playoffs it seemed like Durant was unstoppable regardless of how he was guarded, he genuinely seemed better than Curry. It's a hard one for me to solve, but as of now I feel more comfortable with Curry. I still in large think what Durant did in OKC is the best representation of his "real impact". I would say Curry has a bit more evidence for him being a better player in a vacuum, though when they were together Durant was obviously the guy who feasted as I mentioned before.

3)2017 Kevin Durant - I think this is the best version of Durant among his tenure in Brooklyn, Oklahoma and the Bay Area. He played better defense this year than he did any other year in his career. His offense was a bit overblown, shot very well because no teams have the resources to deal with a team that has Durant, Curry, Klay with Green playmaking for them - not under the current CBA at least.

4) 1975 Rick Barry - I can't tell if Rick Barry is underrated out side of his championship years or overrated during his miracle run because it seems like to me not many folks really gives a darn about Rick Barry outside of 1975. I don't think Barry's scoring is quite as resilient as Durant's. Durant seems like a guy who just never misses. Barry seems more natural with the ball though than Durant. Barry is a player who is very good at quick decision making, great shooter, he'll make cuts occasionally, he'll iso - he's very versatile. Barry's defense does leave a lot to be desired. He's head to head with Arizin, very close, but perhaps era bias makes me pick Barry.

5)1956 Paul Arizin - Perhaps if Paul's prime was in a more competitive era or there he was a better passer Id go with him over Barry. Don't think anyone else is really in that MVP caliber tier that Paul Arizin and Rick Barry are in - as the remaining GSW players are more like top 15ish guys.

Nate Thurmond is probably the best of the rest. Without some impact stats to help support him, I'm not sure if I can give him the benefit of the doubt over Paul Arizin.

The Warriors were consistently an elite defense with Thurmond. It does make sense for a 7 footer with elite athleticism, all time great shot blocking ability and an elite rebounder to potentially be better than a 1950s star. However, Arizin's scoring in 56 was so good, I might have to give him the nod.

[homecourtloss]

I except huge discussion on Wilt vs Curry between me and Dr MJ

Also should be some interesting discussion as to where Draymond lands.

[Dutchball97]

1. Wilt Chamberlain, 1963/64 - I'm probably one of the more vocal detractors of Wilt's 64 season. Yes his stats were incredible but his finals performance, while still good, wasn't up to par with his level of dominance in the regular season or the Hawks series. I've also been critical of Wilt's ability to make his teammates better during his Warriors stint. In the 64 season he had 5 APG though, which was the most he had in his time with the Warriors by a fair margin. That said I still think he deserves the #1 spot for this franchise. There have been quite a few strong peaks for the Warriors but the only real competition for Wilt are Steph and KD. KD has a competitive play-off showing but he didn't have a large enough role in the regular season to really threaten Wilt. I rate Curry's 2016 regular season ahead of Wilt's 64 season or at the very least on the same level but Curry's post-season hurts his case significantly more than Wilt's not quite amazing finals performance. Curry missed most of the first and second round. He was incredibly inconsistent against the Thunder but he did play extremely well in the 3 final games of the series to send them to the finals. That series against Cleveland just stinks though. I might not even go with 2016 as the year for Curry as he had a much better showing in the post-season in 2015 and 2017.

2. Steph Curry, 2014/15 - Not quite unanimous MVP levels of great but not all that far from it. He again didn't have the best finals but this time he was way more composed and they most importantly didn't choke. I think his post-season overall was really strong though and with his second best regular season I feel comfortable going with this season over 2016, which was his best regular season but not even close to his best post-season. 28 PER, 15.7 WS on a league leading .288 WS/48, and a league leading 9.9 BPM with 7.9 VORP shouldn't be underrated just because his MVP wasn't unanimous here.

3. Kevin Durant, 2016/17 - I actually came closer to putting KD ahead of Curry than I initially thought I would. I think KD had the better overall season than Curry in 2017 but it being such a stacked team and KD missing quite a few regular season games makes me prefer 2015 Curry.

4. Rick Barry, 1974/75 - Great all around season and with Kareem missing the play-offs he might very have been the best player that year. I think he's a clear level below the 3 guys above though.

5. Paul Arizin, 1955/56 - Arizin had a top 5 regular season and was the best play-off performer in the league that year. The mid 50s are even more noticeably not that strong of an era as the mid 70s and I think Barry had a better all around season to begin with. I considered Arizin's teammate Neil Johnston for his gaudy regular season numbers but he didn't hold up as well in the play-offs. I gave serious consideration to Baron Davis and Draymond Green for their heroics in the play-offs but neither has a regular season that can compete with the relative dominance of Arizin and Barry in their eras. I'm not even sure if Baron and Dray were even more impactful than them in the play-offs either. Nate Thurmond might get a vote here or there but I'm not as high on him as the people who are really into big man defense. Overall this looks like one of the more straightforward lists of the project but I've been wrong on that before.

[homecourtloss]

Sometimes daily life gets in the way. This one will have a little more than an hour over our usual timeline. Cheers all.

It’s been a fun project and interesting to see where these franchise peaks are are team successes—thank you for leading it.

Would be interesting to take the Top 100 project and see how many top franchise peaks they played against in the playoffs.

[Jaivl]

I except huge discussion on Wilt vs Curry between me and Dr MJ

Also should be some interesting discussion as to where Draymond lands.

I'm betting he doesn't go in.

Wilt #1, Curry #2, Durant #3, leaning Barry/Thurmond after that. Somehow I thought there was still a day left for the Blazers

[kayess]

Where does Draymond's best season rank here?

[homecourtloss]

I except huge discussion on Wilt vs Curry between me and Dr MJ

Also should be some interesting discussion as to where Draymond lands.

I'm betting he doesn't go in.

Wilt #1, Curry #2, Durant #3, leaning Barry/Thurmond after that. Somehow I thought there was still a day left for the Blazers

His RAPM/PIPM/CORP/Backpicks BPM are just too high for him to be left out, but I think you’re right.

[Odinn21]

Sometimes daily life gets in the way. This one will have a little more than an hour over our usual timeline. Cheers all.

It’s been a fun project and interesting to see where these franchise peaks are are team successes—thank you for leading it.

I'm glad it was a fun and interesting concept to you, too. Making comparisons between Sheed's peak and Drexler's peak is not something would pop in mind easily. The point was to explore the ventures outside of our usual scope. I'd like to think the project has done it.

By the way, we still have one more after this one with the Wizards. I'm already curious about penbeast0's takes on that one.

Would be interesting to take the Top 100 project and see how many top franchise peaks they played against in the playoffs.

It'd be interesting indeed. Though it might be too skewed between the strongest teams and the weakest teams. '09/'10 Pau Gasol or '87 James Worthy would barely make the top 10 for the Lakers and they'd be easily #2 for the Wolves, lol.

[Doctor MJ]

I except huge discussion on Wilt vs Curry between me and Dr MJ

Curry. /thread

In all seriousness, the debate could be cool, but I'm not sure where to start. Clearly we could go offense vs defense, but I feel like the meaningful debate is more about Wilt's offense.

So, how do you view Wilt making mediocre offenses for the Warriors in an era where Oscar was the best offensive player in the world while still in college?

[Doctor MJ]

I except huge discussion on Wilt vs Curry between me and Dr MJ

Also should be some interesting discussion as to where Draymond lands.

So, general thoughts right now, the guys on my mind are:

Arizin
Wilt
Barry
Mullin
Steph
Dray
KD

Johnston, Thurmond, Baron & Klay seem like clear cut HM guys.

Also, as I type "Mullin" and "Klay", not at all sure Mullin should be above Klay, but he was the best Warrior from his era and underrated in general.

[Odinn21]

I think Thurmond too many quality seasons to be put in HMs.

1967 (missed too many games to make the top 5 but still a very good season nonetheless);
38-27 and +5.31 MoV w/ Thurmond
6-10 and -6.65 MoV w/o Thurmond
Thurmond was a 19/21/2 player with slightly below average scoring efficiency and goat level defense.
They made the NBA Finals and put up a decent fight against one of the strongest teams ever. He also held Wilt with 18/29/7 on .560 fg after Wilt had 24/24/8 on .683 fg season.

1972;
Very similar season to 1967, minus missed games.
Thurmond had a 21/16/3 season. Then he held Kareem under 23 ppg on .405 fg after Kareem had one of the goat level regular season performances with 35 ppg on .574 fg.

1973;
Very similar season to the other 2, though slightly lower offensive production with return of Barry.
17/17/4 season with average efficiency. Then he held Kareem under 23 ppg once again (on .428 fg) after Kareem had another monster season with 30.2 ppg on .554 fg. This time around, the Warriors also upset the Bucks with Thurmond's defense on Kareem being the key. In the next round, Thurmond had another pretty successful individual series against Wilt (though Wilt was about to retire and he wasn't the player he used to be at this point).

I don't think it's given that Draymond Green is above Nate Thurmond in here. I mean Draymond Green is a top tier help defender in the 3 pt era and Nate Thurmond was a top tier low post defender in the low post era. I don't think Thurmond falls short of Green necessarily.

[70sFan]

In all seriousness, the debate could be cool, but I'm not sure where to start. Clearly we could go offense vs defense, but I feel like the meaningful debate is more about Wilt's offense.

I think that Wilt's defense should be more meaningful in this debate - all of his offensive impact is only an addition to what he gave Warriors on defensive end. That's why he anchored by far the best defense in Warriors history (and the third one as well)

So, how do you view Wilt making mediocre offenses for the Warriors in an era where Oscar was the best offensive player in the world while still in college?

I don't deny that Oscar was better offensive player than Wilt, though it's important to note that rookie Wilt was far from finished product if you want to talk about college Oscar

What is also important is to look at how both teams fared without Wilt and Oscar:

Royals had +0.2 rORtg in 1959/60, before they got Oscar. Warriors had -3.5 rORtg in 1958/59 and they continued to struggle after they traded Wilt: they had -5.9 rORtg in 1964/65 (they missed Wilt for half of the season) and -2.3 in 1966 with addition of rookie Rick Barry.

Although it's true that Oscar was better offensive player than Wilt (and so is Curry), Royals simply seems to be clearly more talented offensive team. Warriors usually had some of the least efficient players in the league and it wasn't related to Wilt - they were terrible in other teams as well.

I'll champion 1963/64 season for Wilt due to his defense and the carryjob he made in postseason and 1964 SFW roster was just abysmal offensively - Tom Meschery was their only plus scorer and combination of Rodgers, Phillips, Hightower and rookie Thurmond more than neutralized everything Wilt scored when you look at TS Add. It's impossible to lead such a roster to good offensive results. Curry himself didn't do that in 2021, so why should we expect Wilt, an inferior offensive player, do to so?

[70sFan]

I think Thurmond too many quality seasons to be put in HMs.

1967 (missed too many games to make the top 5 but still a very good season nonetheless);
38-27 and +5.31 MoV w/ Thurmond
6-10 and -6.65 MoV w/o Thurmond
Thurmond was a 19/21/2 player with slightly below average scoring efficiency and goat level defense.
They made the NBA Finals and put up a decent fight against one of the strongest teams ever. He also held Wilt with 18/29/7 on .560 fg after Wilt had 24/24/8 on .683 fg season.

1972;
Very similar season to 1967, minus missed games.
Thurmond had a 26/16/3 season. Then he held Kareem under 23 ppg on .405 fg after Kareem had one of the goat level regular season performances with 35 ppg on .574 fg.

1973;
Very similar season to the other 2, though slightly lower offensive production with return of Barry.
17/17/4 season with average efficiency. Then he held Kareem under 23 ppg once again (on .428 fg) after Kareem had another monster season with 30.2 ppg on .554 fg. This time around, the Warriors also upset the Bucks with Thurmond's defense on Kareem being the key. In the next round, Thurmond had another pretty successful individual series against Wilt (though Wilt was about to retire and he wasn't the player he used to be at this point).

I don't think it's given that Draymond Green is above Nate Thurmond in here. I mean Draymond Green is a top tier help defender in the 3 pt era and Nate Thurmond was a top tier low post defender in the low post era. I don't think Thurmond falls short of Green necessarily.

I view Thurmond as the better defender than Green. The only question is whether Green's offensive output is good enough to overcome Nate's defensive pressence. I don't know to be honest, but I don't think either one will make the list - Paul Arizin was damn good as well.

[Doctor MJ]

In all seriousness, the debate could be cool, but I'm not sure where to start. Clearly we could go offense vs defense, but I feel like the meaningful debate is more about Wilt's offense.

I think that Wilt's defense should be more meaningful in this debate - all of his offensive impact is only an addition to what he gave Warriors on defensive end. That's why he anchored by far the best defense in Warriors history (and the third one as well)

So, how do you view Wilt making mediocre offenses for the Warriors in an era where Oscar was the best offensive player in the world while still in college?

I don't deny that Oscar was better offensive player than Wilt, though it's important to note that rookie Wilt was far from finished product if you want to talk about college Oscar

What is also important is to look at how both teams fared without Wilt and Oscar:

Royals had +0.2 rORtg in 1959/60, before they got Oscar. Warriors had -3.5 rORtg in 1958/59 and they continued to struggle after they traded Wilt: they had -5.9 rORtg in 1964/65 (they missed Wilt for half of the season) and -2.3 in 1966 with addition of rookie Rick Barry.

Although it's true that Oscar was better offensive player than Wilt (and so is Curry), Royals simply seems to be clearly more talented offensive team. Warriors usually had some of the least efficient players in the league and it wasn't related to Wilt - they were terrible in other teams as well.

I'll champion 1963/64 season for Wilt due to his defense and the carryjob he made in postseason and 1964 SFW roster was just abysmal offensively - Tom Meschery was their only plus scorer and combination of Rodgers, Phillips, Hightower and rookie Thurmond more than neutralized everything Wilt scored when you look at TS Add. It's impossible to lead such a roster to good offensive results. Curry himself didn't do that in 2021, so why should we expect Wilt, an inferior offensive player, do to so?

Well for perspective, given that Wilt played mostly every minute, I think we can largely say:

Wilt, On-Court ORtg: 93.0
Curry, On-Court ORtg: 115.2

You're making the argument that these team performances are comparable because you're comparing them to their contemporaries, but Curry's contemporaries have such high ORtg's because teams have realized "Oh, we were trying to do this all wrong before."

I'll also say that I struggle with the whole "Wilt had to dominate the offense because his teammates sucked" argument, because he had played with some guys who were great offensive players in their prime who weren't that old when they played with Wilt.

As an example, I think prime Arizin was clearly a more effective offensive player than Warriors' Wilt, and while he wasn't his best self in the Wilt years, if Wilt were great at making use of talent around him, you'd expect he'd have had more success with Arizin.

That Arizin was gone by '63-64 of course, but the idea of an argument like "Well, Wilt sucked at making things work with Arizin, but by '63-64 they'd gotten rid of all their other offensive talent, so we should classify this as a 'carry job'" bothers me.

What I want to see from volume scoring Wilt is evidence that he could make use of better talent, and we don't see it.

[Doctor MJ]

I view Thurmond as the better defender than Green. The only question is whether Green's offensive output is good enough to overcome Nate's defensive pressence. I don't know to be honest, but I don't think either one will make the list - Paul Arizin was damn good as well.

Do you think Thurmond would be a better defender than Green today?

[Odinn21]

I view Thurmond as the better defender than Green. The only question is whether Green's offensive output is good enough to overcome Nate's defensive pressence. I don't know to be honest, but I don't think either one will make the list - Paul Arizin was damn good as well.

Do you think Thurmond would be a better defender than Green today?

Looking at their defensive value for respective times, I think it's reasonable to say Thurmond was a better defender than Green.

Thurmond wouldn't be a better defender than Green in 2010s, Green wouldn't be a better defender than Thurmond in 1970s. To me, it's not relevant to the topic at hand but I know that we see things differently.

Btw, I looked at ElGee's corp evaluations in the meantime. Here's some of the top candidates he has in corp page;
1964 Wilt; +3.00 on o, +3.25 on d, +6.25 total and -1 o-port
1967 Thurmond; -0.25 on o, +4.50 on d, +4.25 total and 0 o-port
1969 Thurmond; +0.25 on o, +4.50 on d, +4.75 total and 0 o-port
1975 Barry; +4.00 on o, +0.50 on d, +4.50 total and 0 o-port
2016 Green; +0.75 on o, +3.00 on d, +3.75 total and +2 o-port
2016 Curry; +6.25 on o, +0.25 on d, +6.50 total and +2 o-port (these are the numbers not downgraded for his injury worries)
2017 Curry; +6.00 on o, +0.25 on d, +6.50 total and +2 o-port
2017 Durant; +5.00 on o, +0.50 on d, +5.50 total and +1 o-port