Is Walt Bellamy Underrated?

[penbeast0]

Still a poor fit on the Lakers for similar reasons . . . taking Baylor's offensive spot, not being a movement/passing type center, etc. Put Wes Unseld or Jerry Lucas in that spot and people might be talking about Butch Van Breda Kolff as one of the great coaches of his era.

[prolific passer]

Still a poor fit on the Lakers for similar reasons . . . taking Baylor's offensive spot, not being a movement/passing type center, etc. Put Wes Unseld or Jerry Lucas in that spot and people might be talking about Butch Van Breda Kolff as one of the great coaches of his era.

Idk about taking Baylor's offensive spot as during that time Walt was putting up 18 and 13 but the passing and ball movement would have been a problem. Still the lakers wouldn't have probably had to give up that much to get Bellamy like they did to get Wilt.

[kcktiny]

Bellamy had opportunity to play with talented team when he got on the Knicks and it didn't work.

Bellamy didn't always play with poor teams - he played in NYK with quite a lot of talent

The three years Bellamy was the starting C in New York (1965-66 to 1967-68) he lead the Knicks in minutes played, points scored, rebounds, FTAs, and shot - by far - the best on the team.

Those same three years among all Cs in the league Bellamy on the Knicks played the 3rd most minutes (only Chamberlain and Russell played more), scored the 2nd most points (only Chamberlain scored more), grabbed the 4th most rebounds (only Chamberlain, Russell, and Thurmond grabbed more), attempted the 2nd most FTs (only Chamberlain shot more), and was the league's 2nd best shooting C (again only Chamberlain shot better).

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Knicks didn't do well those 3 years because of Bellamy? As opposed to other Knicks players? Because the numbers certainly suggest otherwise.

Over Bellamy's first 7 years in the NBA, 1961-62 to 1967-68, when he was the starting C of the Packers, Zephyrs, Bullets, and Knicks, among the league's Cs he ranked:

- 2nd in points scored, and scored over 5000 more points than any other C other than Chamberlain
- scored 24.2 pts/g, and other than Chamberlain no other C scored even 20 pts/g
- 3rd in most rebounds, only Chamberlain and Russell had more
- 2nd in FTAs, and 1800 more FTAs than any other C other than Chamberlain
- shot 52%, when no other C other than Chamberlain shot even 49%

Those seem like the numbers of a star player.

I've always considered Nate Thurmond the 3rd best C of that era behind Chamberlain and Russell because of his defense, but Bellamy clearly has a case for 3rd best. Looking at the first decade of each of Bellamy's and Thurmond's careers, while I think Thurmond was the better (if not much better) defender, Bellamy scored better (21 vs. 18 pts/g) playing less minutes per game (38 vs 41 min/g), shot much better (52% to 42%), and averaged 200+ more FTAs per year.

[penbeast0]

Still a poor fit on the Lakers for similar reasons . . . taking Baylor's offensive spot, not being a movement/passing type center, etc. Put Wes Unseld or Jerry Lucas in that spot and people might be talking about Butch Van Breda Kolff as one of the great coaches of his era.

Idk about taking Baylor's offensive spot as during that time Walt was putting up 18 and 13 but the passing and ball movement would have been a problem. Still the lakers wouldn't have probably had to give up that much to get Bellamy like they did to get Wilt.

The spot thing was something writers talked about with why Wilt was a poor fit in BvBK's offense, Baylor liked to post in the same spot Wilt liked to camp out in.

As for the trade, they didn't give up that much. Archie Clark who was a very good guard (but not as valuable as Dave DeBusschere who Detroit dealt for Bellamy), but otherwise it was Darrell Imhoff, the kind of mediocre center who they didn't want to pay to back up Wilt, and Jerry Chambers, who never played in the NBA again. It was a money thing for Philly much more than a trade value thing.

[penbeast0]

Bellamy had opportunity to play with talented team when he got on the Knicks and it didn't work.

Bellamy didn't always play with poor teams - he played in NYK with quite a lot of talent

The three years Bellamy was the starting C in New York (1965-66 to 1967-68) he lead the Knicks in minutes played, points scored, rebounds, FTAs, and shot - by far - the best on the team.

Those same three years among all Cs in the league Bellamy on the Knicks played the 3rd most minutes (only Chamberlain and Russell played more), scored the 2nd most points (only Chamberlain scored more), grabbed the 4th most rebounds (only Chamberlain, Russell, and Thurmond grabbed more), attempted the 2nd most FTs (only Chamberlain shot more), and was the league's 2nd best shooting C (again only Chamberlain shot better).

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Knicks didn't do well those 3 years because of Bellamy? As opposed to other Knicks players? Because the numbers certainly suggest otherwise.

Over Bellamy's first 7 years in the NBA, 1961-62 to 1967-68, when he was the starting C of the Packers, Zephyrs, Bullets, and Knicks, among the league's Cs he ranked:

- 2nd in points scored, and scored over 5000 more points than any other C other than Chamberlain
- scored 24.2 pts/g, and other than Chamberlain no other C scored even 20 pts/g
- 3rd in most rebounds, only Chamberlain and Russell had more
- 2nd in FTAs, and 1800 more FTAs than any other C other than Chamberlain
- shot 52%, when no other C other than Chamberlain shot even 49%

Those seem like the numbers of a star player.

I've always considered Nate Thurmond the 3rd best C of that era behind Chamberlain and Russell because of his defense, but Bellamy clearly has a case for 3rd best. Looking at the first decade of each of Bellamy's and Thurmond's careers, while I think Thurmond was the better (if not much better) defender, Bellamy scored better (21 vs. 18 pts/g) playing less minutes per game (38 vs 41 min/g), shot much better (52% to 42%), and averaged 200+ more FTAs per year.

Bellamy was certainly a better offensive player but the idea that Nate Thurmond was not a much better defender goes against a lot of anecdotal and statistical data.

[70sFan]

Bellamy had opportunity to play with talented team when he got on the Knicks and it didn't work.

Bellamy didn't always play with poor teams - he played in NYK with quite a lot of talent

The three years Bellamy was the starting C in New York (1965-66 to 1967-68) he lead the Knicks in minutes played, points scored, rebounds, FTAs, and shot - by far - the best on the team.

Those same three years among all Cs in the league Bellamy on the Knicks played the 3rd most minutes (only Chamberlain and Russell played more), scored the 2nd most points (only Chamberlain scored more), grabbed the 4th most rebounds (only Chamberlain, Russell, and Thurmond grabbed more), attempted the 2nd most FTs (only Chamberlain shot more), and was the league's 2nd best shooting C (again only Chamberlain shot better).

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Knicks didn't do well those 3 years because of Bellamy? As opposed to other Knicks players? Because the numbers certainly suggest otherwise.

Over Bellamy's first 7 years in the NBA, 1961-62 to 1967-68, when he was the starting C of the Packers, Zephyrs, Bullets, and Knicks, among the league's Cs he ranked:

- 2nd in points scored, and scored over 5000 more points than any other C other than Chamberlain
- scored 24.2 pts/g, and other than Chamberlain no other C scored even 20 pts/g
- 3rd in most rebounds, only Chamberlain and Russell had more
- 2nd in FTAs, and 1800 more FTAs than any other C other than Chamberlain
- shot 52%, when no other C other than Chamberlain shot even 49%

Those seem like the numbers of a star player.

I've always considered Nate Thurmond the 3rd best C of that era behind Chamberlain and Russell because of his defense, but Bellamy clearly has a case for 3rd best. Looking at the first decade of each of Bellamy's and Thurmond's careers, while I think Thurmond was the better (if not much better) defender, Bellamy scored better (21 vs. 18 pts/g) playing less minutes per game (38 vs 41 min/g), shot much better (52% to 42%), and averaged 200+ more FTAs per year.

You know that you can be productive and not very impactful at the same time, right? Compare how Knicks did with Bellamy vs DeBusschere, who was much less productive from boxscore standpoint.

I never said that Knicks were bad because or Bellamy, but they weren't good and it's not like he lacked talent. Bellamy wasn't a huge negative or anything, but his boxscore numbers overstate his actual impact.

[kcktiny]

I did a thread about your video.
http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1409696#start_here
It's really amazing. He looks very talented and pretty athletic too. I think Cousins comparison isn't bad, but he looks more skilled than Demarcus.
I think he would be the best center in the league. He's underrated because he played mostly on poor teams. He is in top 10 GOAT offensive centers in my opinion. Great scorer, good passer, could play P&Rs and P&Ps.

Another amazing job from CavaliersFTW. Bellamy looks amazing - strong, big, athletic, skilled. He was very strong finisher with good midrange shot. Also, he looks like very good passer from the post, drive or outlets. Every people who think that 60s is a weak era should watch this.
I think he would be the best center in the league at his peak. Better than Cousins or past-prime Howard. Do you agree with it?

Whoever posted the above seemed knowledgeble.

[Bad Gatorade]

Without admittedly knowing too much about Walt Bellamy, I feel like there are definitely some points to consider.

* His "big stat" seasons occurred on an expansion team - note that out of 13 healthy NBA seasons, he only had 5 seasons averaging at least 20PPG; his first five. He ranked 2nd, 5th, 5th, 6th and 7th in the league in scoring these years. His next season was ranked 14th (in a league with only 10 teams) and he never ranked in the top 20 in scoring again. The team did appear to be good offensively in his later seasons there (and after he swapped teams), so there's a signal that he was a very good offensive player, albeit, one whose prime may not have been that long.

* Advanced catch-all stats were limited in earlier days, and didn't have steals, blocks and turnovers available, nor did they split offensive and defensive boards. I believe there are hints that he was turnover prone, but these were based on very early footage (his first game, even?) and I don't think that's an accurate representation. Does anybody have any more scouting on how his statistics look with regards to these stats?

* He seemed to be on consistently mediocre/poor defensive teams and his first two trades seemed to coincide with a sharp drop in defence for the arrival team, and improvement for the departed team. It seems like offence went the opposite way. The defensive shift seems larger than the offensive shift, but these stats aren't really accounting for context.

* In response to Bellamy being "awfully good", or somebody that should have been on the top 75 team, it's worth noting that in his time, he was basically never in the MVP conversation (although this could be poor team bias) and he only made 4 all star games, all within his first 4 years in the league. I'd imagine that playing centre handicapped his all star game count. He wasn't inducted into the Hall of Fame until 1993, so I feel the consensus was not high on Bellamy at the time. Of course, people can be wrong, too!

* Whilst there's an obvious caveat that Bellamy didn't miss many games (although a few midseason trades might help the equation), his WOWY scores have been regressed a few different times, and they all seem to point to him as a "small positive." For example, the 1954-1983 WOWY from ElGee puts Bellamy at +2.1, which is a decent enough score (and near some other good players), but quite far beneath the top guys (the top 10 scored ranged between +5.2 for Bob Lanier and +7.5 for Oscar Robertson). This provides another layer to the offensive/defensive shifts, where those shifts would paint him as a negative, but Bellamy himself did not rate as a negative.

* It's already been stated that Bellamy's "value" was quite low at certain points of his career, being traded for a nobody + having a coach relieved that he was gone.

* It's worth nothing that for his career stats of 21,000 points and 14,000 rebounds, the pace in the 1960s NBA was ridiculous, but it seemed like for a lot of his career, he was an exceptional rebounder nonetheless.

* A 13 year healthy career is pretty awesome given the era that he played in.

[70sFan]

I did a thread about your video.
http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1409696#start_here
It's really amazing. He looks very talented and pretty athletic too. I think Cousins comparison isn't bad, but he looks more skilled than Demarcus.
I think he would be the best center in the league. He's underrated because he played mostly on poor teams. He is in top 10 GOAT offensive centers in my opinion. Great scorer, good passer, could play P&Rs and P&Ps.

Another amazing job from CavaliersFTW. Bellamy looks amazing - strong, big, athletic, skilled. He was very strong finisher with good midrange shot. Also, he looks like very good passer from the post, drive or outlets. Every people who think that 60s is a weak era should watch this.
I think he would be the best center in the league at his peak. Better than Cousins or past-prime Howard. Do you agree with it?

Whoever posted the above seemed knowledgeble.

It was 7 years ago, yeah I knew less about that era back then. Bellamy was still a remarkable player, I never denied that. It doesn't mean that he's all-time great though. I wouldn't be surprised if he would be the best center in the league in 2015 by the way, it was horrible era for centers. He certainly wouldn't be the best today though.

[Johnlac1]

Still a poor fit on the Lakers for similar reasons . . . taking Baylor's offensive spot, not being a movement/passing type center, etc. Put Wes Unseld or Jerry Lucas in that spot and people might be talking about Butch Van Breda Kolff as one of the great coaches of his era.

Idk about taking Baylor's offensive spot as during that time Walt was putting up 18 and 13 but the passing and ball movement would have been a problem. Still the lakers wouldn't have probably had to give up that much to get Bellamy like they did to get Wilt.

The spot thing was something writers talked about with why Wilt was a poor fit in BvBK's offense, Baylor liked to post in the same spot Wilt liked to camp out in.

As for the trade, they didn't give up that much. Archie Clark who was a very good guard (but not as valuable as Dave DeBusschere who Detroit dealt for Bellamy), but otherwise it was Darrell Imhoff, the kind of mediocre center who they didn't want to pay to back up Wilt, and Jerry Chambers, who never played in the NBA again. It was a money thing for Philly much more than a trade value thing.

The deal might have never happened if Irv Kosloff had given Chamberlain a share of the Sixers he claimed was offered him by previous Sixers owner Ike Richman whom Wilt called his second father. Since it was a verbal agreement, it was not honored in court.
Supposedly, that made Wilt so mad he demanded a trade.

[Johnlac1]

The problem with Bellamy is that a number of coaches viewed him as a dog who only played hard when he felt like it. Which wasn't as often as it should have been.
Red Holtzman couldn't wait to dish off Bellamy.

Thank you for affirm [anecdotally, anyway] what I'd said previously about Holzman's delight in the Bellamy trade.

The idea that Bellamy was unfortunate to play on weak teams ignores that he played with the Hawks of Hudson and Maravich and still didn't produce.
Maybe a lot of the problem was Bellamy.

The season [half-season] before Maravich it was Joe Caldwell at SG, and had Walt Hazzard at PG too [not a bad player at all]; so the backcourt was pretty solid for those first 1.5 years.
Then he had Bill Bridges along with Lou Hudson in the frontcourt with him (and Jim Davis was a pretty nice back-up C, too).

I mean, yeah.....those Atlanta teams had talent [on paper]; A LOT of it.

But they never got anywhere.

The '72-73 Hawks took the league best Celtics to six games in the playoffs. The regular season record was a respectable 46-36, Caldwell staying with the Hawks might have put them up there the best of the East.
The next season was a flop at 35-47 despite Hudson and Maravich have excellent scoring seasons.
Maravich was dealt after the season.

[Owly]

The problem with Bellamy is that a number of coaches viewed him as a dog who only played hard when he felt like it. Which wasn't as often as it should have been.
Red Holtzman couldn't wait to dish off Bellamy.

Thank you for affirm [anecdotally, anyway] what I'd said previously about Holzman's delight in the Bellamy trade.

The idea that Bellamy was unfortunate to play on weak teams ignores that he played with the Hawks of Hudson and Maravich and still didn't produce.
Maybe a lot of the problem was Bellamy.

The season [half-season] before Maravich it was Joe Caldwell at SG, and had Walt Hazzard at PG too [not a bad player at all]; so the backcourt was pretty solid for those first 1.5 years.
Then he had Bill Bridges along with Lou Hudson in the frontcourt with him (and Jim Davis was a pretty nice back-up C, too).

I mean, yeah.....those Atlanta teams had talent [on paper]; A LOT of it.

But they never got anywhere.

The '72-73 Hawks took the league best Celtics to six games in the playoffs. The regular season record was a respectable 46-36, Caldwell staying with the Hawks might have put them up there the best of the East.
The next season was a flop at 35-47 despite Hudson and Maravich have excellent scoring seasons.
Maravich was dealt after the season.

The way this is phrased seems to imply Pogo Joe left in '73, rather than 1970.

[Johnlac1]

Still a poor fit on the Lakers for similar reasons . . . taking Baylor's offensive spot, not being a movement/passing type center, etc. Put Wes Unseld or Jerry Lucas in that spot and people might be talking about Butch Van Breda Kolff as one of the great coaches of his era.

You do know that the Lakers did win a title with Wilt and came close several other times, right?
In '69 Wilt's first year with the Lakers they lost in seven games because in game seven VBK wouldn't put Wilt back in the game after he twisted his leg and had it worked on. X-rays later showed Wilt had torn a muscle or ligament.
But in the fourth game behind by one point with a few seconds left Sam Jones took an inbounds pass at the top of the key and basically caught and shot the ball in the same motion. A normal player would have been lucky to hit the backboard or rim, but Jone's shot hit the back and front of the rim and rolled in.
If Jones doesn't make that shot, the Lakers win the title in five games after crushing the Celtics the next game.
In '70 in game three if Dave Debusschere's shot from between the foul line and the top of the key with a man draped all over him with three seconds to go doesn't go in or he gets fouled shooting and only makes one, West famous half court shot wins for the Lakers and they win the title in six games.
In '71 Jerry West missed the playoffs dooming the Lakers. They win the title in '72.
In 'the 73 finals against the Knicks Happy Hairston was hurt and only played a few minutes for the whole series. After winning the first game, West came down with an assortment of pulled leg muscles. The Knicks won in five games, but three games were very close and the last game they won by nine points. West's and Hairston's injuries played were key factors in the Lakers losing.
So Wilt basically was maybe the unluckiest great player ever.
There were a number of conference finals and league finals that were heartbreaking losses for Wilt. A little more luck, and he would have had five or six titles.

[Warspite]

Bellamy had opportunity to play with talented team when he got on the Knicks and it didn't work.

Bellamy didn't always play with poor teams - he played in NYK with quite a lot of talent

The three years Bellamy was the starting C in New York (1965-66 to 1967-68) he lead the Knicks in minutes played, points scored, rebounds, FTAs, and shot - by far - the best on the team.

Those same three years among all Cs in the league Bellamy on the Knicks played the 3rd most minutes (only Chamberlain and Russell played more), scored the 2nd most points (only Chamberlain scored more), grabbed the 4th most rebounds (only Chamberlain, Russell, and Thurmond grabbed more), attempted the 2nd most FTs (only Chamberlain shot more), and was the league's 2nd best shooting C (again only Chamberlain shot better).

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Knicks didn't do well those 3 years because of Bellamy? As opposed to other Knicks players? Because the numbers certainly suggest otherwise.

Over Bellamy's first 7 years in the NBA, 1961-62 to 1967-68, when he was the starting C of the Packers, Zephyrs, Bullets, and Knicks, among the league's Cs he ranked:

- 2nd in points scored, and scored over 5000 more points than any other C other than Chamberlain
- scored 24.2 pts/g, and other than Chamberlain no other C scored even 20 pts/g
- 3rd in most rebounds, only Chamberlain and Russell had more
- 2nd in FTAs, and 1800 more FTAs than any other C other than Chamberlain
- shot 52%, when no other C other than Chamberlain shot even 49%

Those seem like the numbers of a star player.

I've always considered Nate Thurmond the 3rd best C of that era behind Chamberlain and Russell because of his defense, but Bellamy clearly has a case for 3rd best. Looking at the first decade of each of Bellamy's and Thurmond's careers, while I think Thurmond was the better (if not much better) defender, Bellamy scored better (21 vs. 18 pts/g) playing less minutes per game (38 vs 41 min/g), shot much better (52% to 42%), and averaged 200+ more FTAs per year.

Being the 3rd or 4th best scorer or rebounder or Center might really seem impressive until you realize that this is a 10 team league . So being the 3rd best player at your position in a 10 team league is like being the 10th best player at your position in a 30 team league. So Bells is on par with the 10th best 3pt shooter or 10th best wing player. Certainly very good or even great but not elite. The simple fact is that the 5th best C is an avg C.

[HeartBreakKid]

Bellamy had opportunity to play with talented team when he got on the Knicks and it didn't work.

Bellamy didn't always play with poor teams - he played in NYK with quite a lot of talent

The three years Bellamy was the starting C in New York (1965-66 to 1967-68) he lead the Knicks in minutes played, points scored, rebounds, FTAs, and shot - by far - the best on the team.

Those same three years among all Cs in the league Bellamy on the Knicks played the 3rd most minutes (only Chamberlain and Russell played more), scored the 2nd most points (only Chamberlain scored more), grabbed the 4th most rebounds (only Chamberlain, Russell, and Thurmond grabbed more), attempted the 2nd most FTs (only Chamberlain shot more), and was the league's 2nd best shooting C (again only Chamberlain shot better).

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Knicks didn't do well those 3 years because of Bellamy? As opposed to other Knicks players? Because the numbers certainly suggest otherwise.

Over Bellamy's first 7 years in the NBA, 1961-62 to 1967-68, when he was the starting C of the Packers, Zephyrs, Bullets, and Knicks, among the league's Cs he ranked:

- 2nd in points scored, and scored over 5000 more points than any other C other than Chamberlain
- scored 24.2 pts/g, and other than Chamberlain no other C scored even 20 pts/g
- 3rd in most rebounds, only Chamberlain and Russell had more
- 2nd in FTAs, and 1800 more FTAs than any other C other than Chamberlain
- shot 52%, when no other C other than Chamberlain shot even 49%

Those seem like the numbers of a star player.

I've always considered Nate Thurmond the 3rd best C of that era behind Chamberlain and Russell because of his defense, but Bellamy clearly has a case for 3rd best. Looking at the first decade of each of Bellamy's and Thurmond's careers, while I think Thurmond was the better (if not much better) defender, Bellamy scored better (21 vs. 18 pts/g) playing less minutes per game (38 vs 41 min/g), shot much better (52% to 42%), and averaged 200+ more FTAs per year.

Being the 3rd or 4th best scorer or rebounder or Center might really seem impressive until you realize that this is a 10 team league . So being the 3rd best player at your position in a 10 team league is like being the 10th best player at your position in a 30 team league. So Bells is on par with the 10th best 3pt shooter or 10th best wing player. Certainly very good or even great but not elite. The simple fact is that the 5th best C is an avg C.

Not really because the two best centers were also the two best players during Nate's tenure.

Nate Thurmond isn't the equivalent of the 10th best player at his position. That's like saying David Robinson was only the third best center of his era, so he is about as good as Rudy Gobert. Or comparing Ewing and Mourning to DeAndre Ayton and Bam.

[Stan]

I want OP to explain why his expectations would be any different for this guy. Here's his factual resume

1. Never made an All-NBA Team
2. Never finished top 10 in MVP voting
3. Won 2 playoff series his entire career

You add on top of that he peaked SIXTY years ago, what is your expectation here lol. He frankly didn't achieve anything of note to stay relevant in league history after so many years. I'd say someone like Dwight has significantly more grievance not being included on the top 75 list.

[ty 4191]

I want OP to explain why his expectations would be any different for this guy. Here's his factual resume

1. Never made an All-NBA Team
2. Never finished top 10 in MVP voting
3. Won 2 playoff series his entire career

You add on top of that he peaked SIXTY years ago, what is your expectation here lol. He frankly didn't achieve anything of note to stay relevant in league history after so many years. I'd say someone like Dwight has significantly more grievance not being included on the top 75 list.

Here's another set of facts:

-Bellamy is 37th all time in Win Shares, in NBA HIstory.
-He's 25th in WS/48 all time.

But he's not a top 100 player? Seriously?

[ty 4191]

I want OP to explain why his expectations would be any different for this guy. Here's his factual resume.

More facts:

--He was 3rd all time in rebounds when he retired.
--He was 6th all time in points when he retired.
--He was 2nd all time in FG% when he retired.