Retro POY '68-69 (Voting Complete)

[ronnymac2]

I think Elgin this year is a Carmelo Anthony who played worse in the playoffs than the real Melo probably ever has. He isn't making my list.

then how come Wilt is on your list when in fact he regressed even more than Baylor ? 14 PPG 51% TS after 20/56 in RS ? really ? not to mention his epic choke in the finals. no impact on the game... and I'm not exaggerating all that much.

Lucas can't make my list because he would have needed tiebreaker help. This is a strong year. He needs mention though. 18/18/4 on 55% shooting. He led the league in TS%, was top five in offensive win shares, and was sixth in PER. Pretty crazy.

I think you're too much boxscore-dependant. I see Lucas as David Lee/Amare type player who has great boxscore numbers but performs poorly in +/- stats... meaning his numbers don't translate to real wins.

I think John Havlicek deserves to go ahead of Reed, Frazier, and Nate this year. They are all similar level players, but Hondo put up an amazing playoffs and Finals performance. His performance gets overlooked because it is Russell's last title, West's year for Finals MVP, the game seven Wilt fiasco, the Sam Jones heroics, etc. This may have been John Havlicek's best career moment. He gets the tiebreaker. Hondo will be in my top five, alongside Oscar, West, Wilt, and Russell. The gang is all here.

if you put a lot of emphasis on playoff performance (and I know you do), then Wilt shouldn't be included on this list. not only Hondo, but also Reed, Frazier and Thurmond outplayed him in the playoffs.

I mean Reed for example outscored him by 12 pts, playing 5 mins less, and outshot him by 5% (TS). that's a pretty significant difference.

Wilt may not have played as well, but he's starting from a higher place than Baylor to begin with, and he didn't nearly regress as much as Elgin did. Everything went down for Elgin. Scoring, rebounding, assists, free throw percentage, field goal percentage. Everything. The guy's main job was to score. He took the most shots for that team. Yet he's only scoring 15 pppg in those playoffs on bad percentages. And not helping anywhere else.

Lucas....whatever. Not like I put him on my list anyway.

I don't think Wilt had a bad playoffs. He led the playoffs in field goal percentage and grabbed 25 rebounds per game. His free throw shooting was awful, so his ts% went down.

Now should he have scored more? Probably. His biggest fault is that he doesn't understand how to play basketball. Like, he knows the technical aspects of it. Reads defenses well, great passer, skilled, etc. He just can't switch gears to give his teams what they need. He doesn't understand the game. 12 ppg in the finals is probably too little when you are the most talented player on the planet.

I'm not putting those guys ahead of Wilt because of what Wilt DOES give me this year. A defensive anchor who dominates the glass. He wasn't at his best on defense this season, but he still is a defensive anchor. Offensively, he's looking to be Dwight this year- with modifications. Make Dwight a worse free throw shooter, and a better passer. With the passing and the potential for big-time scoring, I'd say Wilt this year is more of an anchor offensively than Dwight is. Thing is, Wilt wouldn't use that scoring potential this year, so he only gets a small edge on offense.

Still....a better version of Howard who has a good playoff run and makes the finals. That sounds like a top five player to me, even in this strong year.



BTW....anyone else think that Laker team sucks? You have a team with a bad coach, little depth, and nobody outside of the big three really. Wilt and Baylor didn't mix well offensively. Wilt wasn't specifically programmed for defense-only before the season started, so he didn't turn in his best defensive season (though still great).

I need to put Jerry West first. That guy had to deal with so much crap this year. How the **** could they not give West an MVP in his career??

It seems his team did well without him in the regular season, but I'd expect that. On a team loaded with offensive talent at the top, injuries mean nothing in the REG SEA. A team like that can withstand injuries in the REG SEA because defenses aren't honing in on the best shot-creators like in the playoffs. You can get away with having one or two shot-creators against REG SEA defenses.

That Laker team probably gets mauled in five or six ugly games in the first round if West wasn't there. I keep reading about the finals and looking at the boxscores and thinking about LBJ in 09. No doubt West is the best.

[bastillon]

I'm not putting those guys ahead of Wilt because of what Wilt DOES give me this year. A defensive anchor who dominates the glass. He wasn't at his best on defense this season, but he still is a defensive anchor.

and what makes you think so ? Lakers were an average defensive team and they already had West who was an premier perimeter defender. that's like prime Hakeem joining Moncrief and forming average defensive squad.

defensive anchor that finished behind Rudy LaRusso/Bill Bridges on all-defensive selections ? or are you gonna start this media bias thing again ? seriously, there's NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that Wilt was an elite defender that season. not team defense, not media recognition, not anecdotal evidence, not nothin'.

Dwight Howard single-handedly makes his team elite defensively. I see no reason to compare the two when the effects are so drastically different in this particular situation.

and it's not like Wilt made any defensive team in '70 or '71 either. so there's that, too.

BTW....anyone else think that Laker team sucks? You have a team with a bad coach, little depth, and nobody outside of the big three really. Wilt and Baylor didn't mix well offensively. Wilt wasn't specifically programmed for defense-only before the season started, so he didn't turn in his best defensive season (though still great).

team that wins 60% of their games does not suck by any means. you can argue they were average or so-so, but no way they sucked. yeah, I mean, you have Wilt and Baylor there so no matter what this team won't suck.

It seems his team did well without him in the regular season, but I'd expect that. On a team loaded with offensive talent at the top, injuries mean nothing in the REG SEA. A team like that can withstand injuries in the REG SEA because defenses aren't honing in on the best shot-creators like in the playoffs. You can get away with having one or two shot-creators against REG SEA defenses.

Nash's Suns had 1 shot creator in the playoffs and their offense actually IMPROVED.

do you have any evidence to back up this statement or is it just an excuse for West so that you can justify his #1 rating ? what you say is basically that injury to top-notch player won't hurt your team in the regular season and is historically, factually incorrect. offensive powerhouse or not, this is felt for anyone. especially considering West's defensive reputation and his all-defense selection. this team theoretically should struggle both offensively and defensively if his impact is as immense as advertised.

That Laker team probably gets mauled in five or six ugly games in the first round if West wasn't there. I keep reading about the finals and looking at the boxscores and thinking about LBJ in 09. No doubt West is the best.

if LeBron missed 20 games, Cavs would struggle to play .500 basketball. actually their record without LeBron has always been much worse than .500.

[ElGee]

Elgee, any chance you'll calculate pre/post Debuscherre trade drtg ? at least rough estimation since there is no boxscore ? (assuming they play at the same pace all season long)
...
significant things to know:
-Lakers record without West
-Celtics record without Russell = 0-5
-Baltimore DRtg the year before
-Lakers DRtg the year before

I hope Elgee can solve some of these problems regarding DRtg. perhaps Regulator knows the answer to the first question.

(1) Baltimore defense 1968: 96.5 (0.5). 1969 91.6 (4.0). So they definitely jumped.

(2) Los Angeles defense 1968; 98.1 (-1.1). 1969 (95.8 (-0.2). So they definitely didn't jump.

(3) Interesting call on Debuscherre. I don't view him as a top-flight guy, but I think on really well balanced teams certain players can be the tipping point (eg Rasheed in Detroit in 04). It looks like that's what happened with him in 69:

First 35 games without Debuscherre - 108.7 ppg 107.8 opp ppg (18-17)
Last 47 games with Desbuscherre ---- 112.4 ppg 103.0 opp ppg (36-11)

(Assuming a constant pace, which obviously is pretty fuzzy, the improvement would be 96.1 to 91.9.)

(4) Also, thanks to Regulator (great finds!), if you plug in West's missed games his +/- number comes out to be +4.9 for 1969 (11 road, 9 home, average opp SRS -0.35.) Updated with new information from Regulator

(Bastillon, I believe the first thread I did this in was 1977 or 1978 (Walton vs. Kareem) and it's just a basic tally of team performance in games played vs. games missed. Because it's based on raw point differential, it's sort of asking the question "what was this team's approximate SRS with/without X player?" I've run it with modern players and sometimes it's really accurate and occasionally it's way off, but so are real +/- numbers. At the least it's a decent indicator of their value within that year.)

[ronnymac2]

Bastillion- There is very little video from this year, but from what I've seen, Wilt looks good defensively. Not at his best, but good. It's difficult to make all-d team with Thurmond and Russell still playing. Wilt is still blocking shots, playing man defense, and dominating the defensive glass. His team defense is the thing that may waver from year to year. He's like Shaq in that regard. You may be right about that.

He's always an intimidator in the paint.


And I obviously didn't mean the team sucks. But their three names definitely make the team overrated. It's like if Miami didn't put solid role players around their NWO. No Haslem, Miller, or House.

LA was poorly constructed. Talent wins in the REG SEA though. So Wilt and Baylor is enough for 20 games in the REG to get by and still seem like a very good team.


I'm not getting into a Nash argument here. Well, what do you think about Jerry West then? If LA played so well without him...why is he even in your top five? He should be in the dungeon with Wilt.

Lebron WAS CLE's only shot creator. We'll see about that team this year.

[ElGee]

I'm not putting those guys ahead of Wilt because of what Wilt DOES give me this year. A defensive anchor who dominates the glass. He wasn't at his best on defense this season, but he still is a defensive anchor. Offensively, he's looking to be Dwight this year- with modifications. Make Dwight a worse free throw shooter, and a better passer. With the passing and the potential for big-time scoring, I'd say Wilt this year is more of an anchor offensively than Dwight is. Thing is, Wilt wouldn't use that scoring potential this year, so he only gets a small edge on offense.

We're now in year 5 of Wilt Chamberlain, and I'm really wondering why some people are seeing him as a constant presence in any sense. Based on my research, I see Wilt very much as a player who changed his style of play and mood many times in his career. One moment he'd talk about retirement, the next about breaking records, the next about his teammates, the next about defense, the next about breaking records, then about fighting Muhammad Ali, and so on. He might, stylistically, be the most amorphous player in NBA history. My approach to Wilt, more than any player in this project, is season-to-season, and I see no reason why there should be much carry-over.

I think Wilt's defense in 1972-73 was fantastic. I'm going to give him credit in a season like 1968 for trying more of the "Russell impersonation" when the team defensive results were there (Philly had the top defense in 1968.) But I don't see any evidence to just treat Wilt as a defensive constant like Russell, Duncan, Howard, Robinson etc.

EDIT: To drive the point home further, Wilt is capable of playing a great defensive game in the playoffs (presumably what you would have seen on film, ronny) and not bringing that same effort for the regular season.

[ronnymac2]

That's possible. I guess LA should have been better on defense. In a league full of offensive minded players, defense stands out more.

Could you tell me how Thurmond's team did defensively this year?

[ThaRegul8r]

great job, we need more posters like you. would you mind doing the same for Oscar '70 and '68 just to put it all in context ?

(4) Also, thanks to Regulator (great finds!), if you plug in West's missed games his +/- number comes out to be +3.1 for 1969 (11 road, 9 home, average opp SRS -0.85.)

Thanks. I'm glad to be able to contribute to this project and be of some use. As I was looking for the last missed game I'd found I'd made an error, but now it's been corrected, and all of West's 21 missed games are accounted for. So ElGee, you might want to re-run the numbers on West's missed time since I've now found and corrected my mistake. Sorry.

[bastillon]

(1) Baltimore defense 1968: 96.5 (0.5). 1969 91.6 (4.0). So they definitely jumped.

so I guess Unseld really made some big impact defensively. did it improve their offense as well ? maybe Penbeast can elaborate on this as probably he's the most knowledgeable Bullets fan.

(2) Los Angeles defense 1968; 98.1 (-1.1). 1969 (95.8 (-0.2). So they definitely didn't jump.

makes Wilt look even worse. bad fit offensively is one thing, but not improving the defense over Mel Counts and Darrall Imhoff ? how can I assume Wilt was even a good defender under these circumstances ? I've heard TLAF call Lakers' bigs trash on multiple occasions, so now Wilt comes in and he can't make them a better defensive team while replacing this trash ?

(3) Interesting call on Debuscherre. I don't view him as a top-flight guy, but I think on really well balanced teams certain players can be the tipping point (eg Rasheed in Detroit in 04). It looks like that's what happened with him in 69:

First 35 games without Debuscherre - 108.7 ppg 107.8 opp ppg (18-17)
Last 47 games with Desbuscherre ---- 112.4 ppg 103.0 opp ppg (36-11)

(Assuming a constant pace, which obviously is pretty fuzzy, the improvement would be 96.1 to 91.9.)

IIRC his previous team regressed a lot as well, so that's probably DeBuscherre and his intangibles rather than some magical superfit. Rasheed is TOP10 on 00s decade APM according to Winston so I definitely wouldn't call him a tipping point either, he was just a great player underrated by the boxscore and providing a lot of little things.

makes Russell's title even more impressive. actually it was the Knicks, not the Lakers, who were their strongest rival.

I'd be interested in Reed vs Russell numbers h2h in the playoffs.

(4) Also, thanks to Regulator (great finds!), if you plug in West's missed games his +/- number comes out to be +3.1 for 1969 (11 road, 9 home, average opp SRS -0.85.)

great stuff. so it's now quite obvious that West's RS was a pretty big underachievement for his standards. I'm now having 2nd thoughts about putting him so high given games missed and how his team played well.

(Bastillon, I believe the first thread I did this in was 1977 or 1978 (Walton vs. Kareem) and it's just a basic tally of team performance in games played vs. games missed. Because it's based on raw point differential, it's sort of asking the question "what was this team's approximate SRS with/without X player?" I've run it with modern players and sometimes it's really accurate and occasionally it's way off, but so are real +/- numbers. At the least it's a decent indicator of their value within that year.)

yeah, I understood that. I called it magic because I have no clue how to do it by myself, but since you're here that won't be needed anyway so I'm good.

[bastillon]

2 things Ronny:

1) his rivals for 2nd team all-defense were Rudy LaRusso and Bill Bridges. Thurmond and Russell were on the first team. also, Thurmonds team ranked 4th in the league defensively and was 2.7 under league average, a lot different from Wilt's Lakers.

2) why did you give Wilt "great passing" argument for granted ? he only averaged 2.6 APG playing 46 MPG. his passing didn't seem to make any impact on the game.

14/25/2.6 in 46 MPG, 51% TS - is that seriously TOP5 player when he's not bringing top-notch defense either ?

[ElGee]

^^^The updated number for West (+4.9) is still pretty good, although I think by all accounts it wasn't his best regular season.

Baltimore's offense was virtually unchanged, from 96.2 (-0.8) to 95.2 (-0.5).

Btw, Doc, am I allowed to vote for Lew Alcindor?

[penbeast0]

Not sure how much Unseld improved the offense as a rookie; the defense was his main impact and I'm glad the numbers bear it out. He was more conventional when he came in, as his knees and ability to power over people slipped, he tended to move outside and set nasty screens plus he became a great passer but as a rookie, he was a more conventional center (a bit shorter and wider than usual).

[penbeast0]

There is one ABA team that dominated the year and that is Oakland. The trouble is that their star, Rick Barry, missed half the year with injury and they didn’t miss a beat with Warren Jabali, Doug Moe, etc. stepping up. So, no ABA guys on my list this year.

In the NBA, Boston was the NBA champion and, despite their less than usually impressive 48-34 record, they did have the second best SRS in the league to the Knicks (who also finished behind 2 other Eastern teams with lesser SRS for whatever reason). As almost everyone here has posted, Boston did it with defense and their defense was focused, for the last time, around Bill Russell – the GOAT. Even statistically, his 19 reb/game is more impressive than Havlicek’s 22 ppg (on poor efficiency, Havlicek didn’t become even an average efficiency player until the 70s).

New York had the best SRS and swept the Bullets who had the best record before losing to Boston. Their main offensive weapon was Willis Reed at 21/15/2 with DeBusschere and Frazier contributing to a strong team defense too.

The Bullets went from last place in the East to first for two reasons. The lesser one was a full year by Gus Johnson who had been injured much of 68, (I am wrong, this was the year he got injured -- oops) the main reason was rookie Wes Unseld who became one of two players to win MVP and ROY in the same year (Wilt). However, the playoff sweep tarnishes this a bit. Wes’s scoring numbers aren’t spectacular (14/18/3), just his impact on winning and Russell’s was greater.

This was supposed to be the Laker’s year with Wilt, Baylor, and West – but while as good as any of the other top teams, they didn’t stand out and lost in the finals. Wilt was the best in the regular season at 21/21/5 but again his scoring slipped badly in the playoffs (and again his rebounding went up) while West took over scoring 30/game through the postseason. Still, this was Wilt’s team for both the triumphs and disappointments.

The other good teams were Philadelphia and Atlanta. Philly was led by Cunningham and Greer (25/13/4 and 23/5/5) but Greer slipped in the playoffs. Atlanta was led by Zelmo Beaty and Lou Hudson (22/11/2 and 22/7/3).

Other big seasons for lesser teams included rookie Elvin Hayes (28/17/1 on a bad team) and Oscar Robertson (25/6/10 leading league in free throws made and Offensive Win Shares).

I have to give it to Russell though. The team around him was aging and while he had some solid players (Bailey Howell, Havlicek), Sam Jones had slipped and the depth was not as impressive – and yet he carried that team to a title again.

1. Bill Russell
2. Willis Reed
3. Wes Unseld

These three (-- all the posts have convinced me that Wilt was not a top 5 player this year) seem to me to be the clear favorites. Havlicek played great defense but was an inefficient scorer, West had the playoff heroics but came up short, Oscar’s great numbers didn’t translate into wins that effectively. I will give the #4 slot to Jerry West for another great playoff performance even if it wasn’t quite enough and just to give props to a great player that's been forgotten, #5 to Zelmo Beaty who was more impressive than Cunningham.

4. Jerry West
5. Zelmo Beaty

[ThaRegul8r]

great job, we need more posters like you. would you mind doing the same for Oscar '70 and '68 just to put it all in context ?

I'm starting with '68 first, since that's the very next season we'll be looking at, so I wanna get that out in time for voting.

Oscar played 65 games, missed 17. All 17 games are accounted for:

Suffered an injury in San Diego

1) 10/29/67 – 108-99 W @ San Diego. “Oscar Robertson missed the game because of a pulled left thigh muscle suffered Friday night” (The Dispatch, Oct. 28, 1967).
2) 11/1/67 – 101-96 L to St. Louis. “Ask not what the Cincinnati Royals can do without Oscar Robertson. Ask instead when Oscar’s coming back. Hurt in a game over the weekend, Oscar missed Cincinnati’s contest with St. Louis.... The Hawks took advantage of his absence to scored their 10th victory of the season against just one defeat .... Robertson has a thigh injury and may be ready for action again this weekend. The Royals’ shooting suffered mightily without him. Leading 55-48 at halftime, they took nine minutes and 10 seconds to get their first field goal in the third quarter. In all, the Royals got just 12 points in the third period, hitting on only that one shot from the floor out of 23 tries” (Lewiston Evening Journal, Nov. 2, 1967). (1-1)

Robertson played Nov. 4 against LA.

3) 11/7/67 – 113-103 L to Boston. Russell suffered dislocated shoulder late in the second half, popped it into place during halftime, then played all but two minutes of the second half (The Bryan Times, Nov. 8, 1967).
4) 11/8/67 – 122-110 L to Baltimore (1-3)

Robertson returned to action 11/9 against New York, “but sat out from midway through the third period because of a muscle pull” (The Times-News, Nov. 10, 1967).

5) 11/11/67 – 109-108 W @ San Diego. “With Oscar Robertson sitting out the game with a pulled hamstring muscle the Royals got a big lift from rookie Jim Fox” (Chicago Tribune, Nov. 12, 1967)
6) 11/14/67 – 122-102 L @ Philadelphia.
7) 11/17/67 – 120-119 W @ Boston. Hairston led Cincinnati with 26, “minus their injured star, Oscar Robertson, but it was Adrian Smith’s field goal with only four seconds left to play that won for Cincinnati” (The Pittsburgh Press, Nov. 18, 1967). (3-4)

Robertson played 11/22 in a 123-122 W over New York.

11/25 “The Royals played the last 36 minutes without Oscar Robertson” in a 133-123 L to Detroit (NY Times, Nov. 26, 1987).

8) 11/29/67 – 119-99 L to New York. “All 12 players used by the Knicks scored at least two points against the Royals, who were without the injured Oscar Robertson” (The Bryan Times, Nov. 30, 1987).
9) 12/1/67 – 123-109 L to Baltimore. “Robertson sat out the game with a pulled leg muscle” (The Free Lance-Star, Dec. 2, 1967). (3-6)

Robertson returned 12/2 in a 126-110 L to Chicago. “Robertson shook off a knee injury to return to the Royals lineup tonight” (Chicago Tribune, Dec. 3, 1967).

“Robertson was hobbled with a knee injury for the last month and the Royals became everybody’s favorite punching bag” (The Times-News, Dec. 14, 1967)

Robertson injured leg 2/3 against St. Louis.

10) 2/5/68 – 132-129 OT L to Seattle. “The Royals played without Oscar Robertson, sidelined with a pulled leg muscle” (The Pittsburgh Press, Feb. 6, 1968).
11) 2/6/68 – 146-102 L @ LA.“The last time the teams met here Oscar was sidelined because of a leg injury” (LA Times, Feb. 23, 1968).
12) 2/12/68 – 112-104 L to Chicago. “Jerry Sloan’s two jump shots in overtime led the Chicago Bulls to a 112-104 National Basketball Association victory ... over the Cincinnati Royals, who played without Oscar Robertson and scored only five points in over eight minutes at the end. Robertson, suffering from a pulled thigh muscle, stayed in Cincinnati” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Feb. 13, 1968).
13) 2/13/68 – 123-111 L to St. Louis. “Hudson wound up with 28 points while Jerry Lucas had 23 for the Royals who once again played without the injured Oscar Robertson” (Beaver Country Times, Feb. 14, 1968). (3-10)

Robertson played 2/15 against Seattle.

2/20, Robertson “aggravated an old leg injury in the opening minutes” of a 126-110 L @ Boston (St. Petersburg Times, Feb. 21, 1968).

14) 2/22/68 – 112-99 L to Baltimore. “The Royals again played without the injured Oscar Robertson” (The Bryan Times, Feb. 23, 1968) (3-10)
15) 2/23/68 – “The Lakers had an easy time with the Cincinnati Royals, who were minus Oscar Robertson, beating them 131-115 at the Forum” (LA Times, Feb. 24, 1968).
16) 2/24/68 – 127-114 L @ San Francisco
17) 2/27/68 – 117-106 L @ Los Angeles (3-14)

Robertson “returned to full-time duty” 2/29 @ San Diego to scored 27 in a 120-114 W (The Milwaukee Journal, Mar. 1, 1968).

In the 17 games Robertson missed, Cincinnati went 3-14 (17.6%).

[Warspite]

I learn so much reading the threads of this project. Wilts dad passed away this yr and I didnt know that. No doubt Wilts mind which was normaly unfocused was even more so this yr.

I see alot of similarites between Wilt/Baylor as Hakeem/Charles no doubt names brought about expectations that maybe never should have been. I have alwasy wondered if maybe the Lakers had sent Baylor to philly and brought back Walker how the Lakers would have done. Sometimes less is more and many time balance is better than talent.

[bastillon]

Oscar’s great numbers didn’t translate into wins that effectively

how can you tell ? they were great offensively. the reason why they weren't a very good team was the defense and this was hardly Oscar's fault as he was at the very least average defender (and I'd suppose more than that, since his rebounding clearly helped a lot and he could guard multiple positions with his strength and size).

DRtg

Code: Select all

    1.  Boston        88.4
    2.  Baltimore     91.3
    3.  San Diego     92.2
    4.  San Francisco 92.5
    5.  Chicago       93.0
    6.  New York      93.3
    7.  Philadelphia  94.0
    LEAGUE AVG.       95.2
    8.  Los Angeles   95.4
    9.  Atlanta       95.6
    10. Milwaukee     97.5
    11. Seattle       98.3
    12. Detroit       100.0
    13. Phoenix       100.5
    14. Cincinnati    101.4

ORtg

Code: Select all

    1.  Cincinnati    100.4
    2.  Los Angeles   99.0
    3.  New York      98.4
    4.  Philadelphia  98.2
    5.  Atlanta       97.6
    6.  Detroit       97.3
    LEAGUE AVG.       95.2
    7.  Baltimore     94.8
    8.  Seattle       94.3
    9.  Phoenix       93.1
    9.  Boston        93.1
    9.  Milwaukee     93.1
    12. San Diego     92.0
    13. San Francisco 91.2
    14. Chicago       91.0

boxscore stats are describing only offense so if Cincinatti was the best offensive team in the league, then his stats did translate into wins. the problem is the defense and boxscore has very limited data regarding the defense, so how can you be so sure his stats didn't translate into wins ?

seems like a myth made up by West supporters to make him look better in that debate.

[bastillon]

I see alot of similarites between Wilt/Baylor as Hakeem/Charles no doubt names brought about expectations that maybe never should have been. I have alwasy wondered if maybe the Lakers had sent Baylor to philly and brought back Walker how the Lakers would have done. Sometimes less is more and many time balance is better than talent.

Hakeem and Barkley played together when they were about to drive a wheelchair. Barkley was like 35, Hakeem 34.

[mopper8]

We're now in year 5 of Wilt Chamberlain, and I'm really wondering why some people are seeing him as a constant presence in any sense. Based on my research, I see Wilt very much as a player who changed his style of play and mood many times in his career.

While I think this is a fair point, I think you have to look at Wilt's coaches as much as Wilt himself when assessing responsibility for that. While I wouldn't dispute Wilt's rather fickle interest in the sport, it is true that he was asked to play a variety of different roles by a number of different coaches, and its hard to knock the guy as a total flake for doing exactly what his coach wanted him to do. The 50ppg season, for example, was a direct strategy of the coach at the time, as were many of the moves towards "Bill Russell"-like play

[ElGee]

We're now in year 5 of Wilt Chamberlain, and I'm really wondering why some people are seeing him as a constant presence in any sense. Based on my research, I see Wilt very much as a player who changed his style of play and mood many times in his career.

While I think this is a fair counterpoint, I think you have to look at Wilt's coaches as much as Wilt himself when assessing responsibility for that. While I wouldn't dispute Wilt's rather fickle interest in the sport, it is true that he was asked to play a variety of different roles by a number of different coaches, and its hard to knock the guy as a total flake for doing exactly what his coach wanted him to do. The 50ppg season, for example, was a direct strategy of the coach at the time, as were many of the moves towards "Bill Russell"-like play

Absolutely a fair point, and one I don't really disagree with based on what I've read. However, I've been clear from the start of this project that I'm not going to separate circumstance from player potential (again, the Steve Nash issue) too much, so if Wilt's coaches rendered him less effective than his optimal level of play, Wilt was still less effective in that year.

By the way, did he get along with any of his coaches?

[mopper8]

IIRC, he had a rocky relationship with Hannun until Hannum basically challenged him in the lockerroom to a fight, and then Wilt respected him. But later on I think they had another falling out. Pretty much hated all his other coaches lol, though they were pretty bad and again IIRC I think he was actually coached by someone (Dolph Schayes?) who actually elbowed Wilt in the face and knocked and some teeth and such back when Wilt was a rookie. Anyone remember that story?

edit: It was Clyde Lovelette, not Schayes, who elbowed Wilt. Schayes had often harassed Wilt, though, under Hannum's orders lol, when they were on opposing teams, so Wilt wasn't excited to be coached by either of them.

[Manuel Calavera]

We're now in year 5 of Wilt Chamberlain, and I'm really wondering why some people are seeing him as a constant presence in any sense. Based on my research, I see Wilt very much as a player who changed his style of play and mood many times in his career.

While I think this is a fair point, I think you have to look at Wilt's coaches as much as Wilt himself when assessing responsibility for that. While I wouldn't dispute Wilt's rather fickle interest in the sport, it is true that he was asked to play a variety of different roles by a number of different coaches, and its hard to knock the guy as a total flake for doing exactly what his coach wanted him to do. The 50ppg season, for example, was a direct strategy of the coach at the time, as were many of the moves towards "Bill Russell"-like play

The hypocrisy really reaches its peak when people are pretending like Wilt changing his game to match the teams needs can be seen as a bad thing.