Doctor MJ wrote:So, I want to clarify some things:
1. You're talking about him getting traded to the 76ers from the Warriors, right?
2. You're talking a Warrior team that lost 11 games in a row with Wilt right before they traded him.
3. You're talking a 76ers team that went 22-23 before Wilt arrived 18-17 after Wilt arrived.
4. You're talking about a team capable of .500 ball without Wilt, and it being an ultimate carry job because they fought the eventual champs hard in the 2nd round of the playoffs.
In general I'm not one to talk about the biggest "carry jobs" of all time - I don't think it's impressive as others do - but '64-65 from Wilt really wouldn't even be on the list if I did.
Jokic on the other hand, well, what he's doing this year really does fit as an extreme "carry job" perhaps beyond what I've ever seen before - though first Cavs LeBron is not easy to top.
ty 4191 wrote:1. Yes, I am.
2. Yep, his teammates were absolutely atrocious. They had one player (Thurmond) that was even league average based on PER and WS/48. The rest of the team was absolutely awful, highlighted by their -600 TS Added for the season, sans Wilt's contributions.
3. Fair enough. However, are you seriously stating that Wilt didn't have an outstanding season in 1965? 33.5/24.6/5.2 while setting the all time record for FG% isn't impressive?
4. "Capable of playing .500 ball" isn't exactly a very high bar to set, especially when you're talking about losing by 1 point against a 62-18 team (arguably, the greatest ever to that point), in Game 7 of the ECF.
5. Agreed on Jokic this season without MPJ and Murray for even 1 minute of the season. They (also) only have 1 player (Gordon) who is even league average, and they're still 29-24 in a very strong conference.
Worth noting:
“Jokic is second in the NBA in rebounding, and he’s also the best passer in the league. Denver has been thrashed by injuries, but it still plays like a historically dominant team (plus-12.8 points per 100) as long as Jokic is on the court; when he’s not, the Nuggets play like the worst team in NBA history (minus-15.2 per 100).”
2. I would encourage you to compare the supporting cast from '63-64 to '64-65. I find it to be impossible to justify the team going from 48-32 to 10-28 (what they were with Wilt) based solely on a drop in supporting cast, and in my experience I've never heard anyone try. It's widely stated that Wilt was hurt that season and that's why he was less effective than he'd been the previous year.
3. Didn't have an outstanding season? All depends on what the standards were for "outstanding", but it was a poor Wilt season where he most definitely did not break a FG% record, given that his FG% was less than the year before while scoring less.
Is it amazing he can still put up such big counting stats even when circumstances aren't at the best? Yes...but this goes both ways. If he can keep putting up such big numbers while the team's effectiveness falls off a cliff, then these numbers aren't about impact but simply about how the team chose to play building everything around Wilt being Wilt.
To be clear, I'm happy to say that Wilt at his best had MVP impact, so I'm not saying Wilt was drastically worse across the board than people think, but we do see evidence that his impact varied wildly from year to year with much seeming to vary based on his enthusiasm.
4. .500 not a high bar. I agree, and it's telling that the team continued on at about the same winning rate after Wilt got there. Generally when we talk about "carry jobs", we're talking about a situation where the team is drastically better with him compared to without him, and this wasn't the case for frankly either of Wilt's team's that season.
You're putting a ton of stock in them almost beating the Celtics in the playoffs, and I get why you're enthusiastic about that, but I personally am always reluctant to put too much stock in almost-not-losing as an underdog. In this case, I particularly object because Wilt was on the team as they were playing .500 ball, and all those other guys were on the team when they almost beat the Celtics. To me you're talking as if he showed up on a team that was utterly stuck in mediocrity and immediately transformed it, but the reality is more like a team that began finding its groove...and let's note it wasn't until not one but two years later when they were truly able to break through together playing a style where Wilt scored less, and from there the rest of the core continued to be a strong winning team after Wilt left them.
So yeah, in general, while it is worth pointing out the tough fight the '64-65 76ers gave the Celtics in the playoffs that year, I'm very reluctant to see this as an outlier of a year unless you consider every Wilt year an outlier of a year. I would consider it to be among the worst years Wilt played in his prime.
But we do agree on Jokic.
