Retro POY '65-66 (Voting Complete)

[shawngoat23]

I have a hard time differentiating between Russell and Wilt this year. The same factors that have been influenced my decision for several other seasons are still in play, but this time, I'm inclined to go with Wilt by a hair:

1) Wilt Chamberlain
2) Bill Russell
3) Jerry West
4) Oscar Robertson
5) Sam Jones

Someone (drza?) made a good point whether it would be more appropriate to use "intangibles" as the primary comparison between two players and using "box score" as a secondary tiebreaker, rather than the reverse which is what most people do nowadays. I'm a big fan of intangibles, but I hesitate to use that argument to say uncategorically that Russell > Chamberlain. Excellent Celtic role players such as Havlicek, Sanders, K.C. Jones, etc.--guys who meant more than their box score--deserve a share of the credit for their "intangible" contributions as well. On one level, the Sixers and Celtics supporting casts were evenly matched, but the latter was a much more experienced team geared to perform in big situations.

I felt Wilt Chamberlain was clearly the best player in the regular season, and his ability to lead the Sixers to the best record in the East helps to reinforce that notion. He also performed excellently in the playoffs, as these posts seem to have suggest, although his production seems to have fallen ever so slightly (no doubt influenced by the terrific Celtic defense). Russell ups his production slightly in the playoffs, but I'm not sure that's enough for me to reverse my top 2.

I will say that the two are neck-and-neck though, and it's essentially a tossup to me. I honestly feel that if I had voted for Wilt earlier (in more recent seasons) or if I anticipate voting him above Russell more (in more distant seasons), I might be inclined to switch the two. Admittedly, it is not to my credit that I'm a bit fickle and inconsistent with my voting pattern in this regard, but I attribute it to the same sense of "voter" fatigue that prompted voters in the 70's to vote for someone other than Kareem or in the 90's to vote for someone other than Jordan. In some ways, it's to hedge my bets--I don't feel that Russell deserves something like a 11-2 disparity over Wilt over the span of their careers, so this is my way of accounting for that. It's cheating in that it's less internally consistent from year-to-year, but it averages out over the course of the project.

Jerry West is a strong #3. His Lakers are not a well-constructed team, but win the West and come within 3 points of winning the championship against a much stronger Celtic squad because Mr. Clutch brought it like few others when it mattered. To be honest, I don't think it would be that ridiculous to have West in one of the top 2 slots if your ultimate criterion is "how much closer does player X bring his team to a championship?"

Oscar Robertson is clearly #4, but in my opinion, well behind West despite having better "statistical" production. Sam Jones rounds out my top 5.

[ThaRegul8r]

If anybody knows how that STL vs. LAL series went to seven games, I'd appreciate the info. My guess is that STL went all 2010 Boston on them, using a nice collective effort to nearly take down the team with far greater top-end talent. Maybe like Boston vs. Cleveland, actually. Bridges and Beaty hammering away inside while LA's average C and an injured Elgin Baylor (likely playing PF) try to defend them. Then you have Geurin and co. on the perimeter trying to equalize Jerry West. Looks as though West and Baylor needed to do a lot of work on offense.

Western Division Finals - Los Angeles Lakers (45-35) vs. St. Louis Hawks (39-41)

Game 1 @ LA: LA 129, St. Louis 106. “The Lakers never trailed in the bitterly contested game, but until the Hawks caved in late in the first period, the Laker lead was never secure” (Daytona Beach Morning Journal, Apr. 2, 1966). Jerry West led the Lakers with 28 points, “but Baylor was the most spectacular player on the floor” (Daytona Beach Morning Journal, Apr. 2, 1966).

Game 2 @ LA: LA 125, St. Louis 116. Elgin Baylor led LA with 42 points and Jerry West had 36 as the Lakers took a 2-0 lead. “Baylor’s performance was probably the greatest clutch performance I’ve seen in three years,” said Lakers coach Fred Schaus” (St. Petersburg Times, Apr. 5, 1966). “Baylor was the difference,” said St. Louis player-coach Richie Guerin. Zelmo Beaty led St. Louis with 36 points, and Guerin had 23.

Game 3 @ St. Louis: St. Louis 120, LA 113. Bill Bridges led St. Louis with 27 points on 12-for-17 52 percent from the field, 64 percent in the first half (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Apr. 9, 1966). Jerry West led LA with 32 points. “They just outhustled us,” said Lakers coach Fred Schaus.

Game 4 @ St. Louis: LA 107, St. Louis 95. Jerry West had 42 points as the Lakers take a 3-1 series lead. Elgin Baylor had 26, and Walt Hazzard had 15. Zelmo Beaty led St. Louis with 22 points, Cliff Hagan had 19, and Bill Bridges had 17.

Game 5 @ LA: St. Louis 112, LA 100. Lenny Wilkens led St. Louis with 29 points, and Cliff Hagan had 23. Jerry West led LA with a game-high 31 points. “The Lakers played their poorest game of the playoffs, consistently missing easy shots and hitting only 38 per cent of their shots from the floor. St. Louis, on the other hand, got 16 fewer shots than Los Angeles, but hit 46 per cent from the field. Also adding to the miseries of the Lakers was another poor effort from Rudy LaRusso. The rugged forward missed all eight field goal attempts and managed to hit only five free throws while playing 29 minutes. […] Elgin Baylor had his poorest night of the series, netting only 21 points as he missed 13 of 20 field goal attempts” (Lodi News-Sentinel, Apr. 5, 1966).

Game 6 @ St. Louis: St. Louis 131, LA 127. St. Louis won Game 6 to tie the series at 3-3. Both teams were hot, St. Louis shooting 52.5 percent from the floor, and the Lakers shooting 50.5 percent (Times Daily, Apr. 13, 1966). Bill Bridges led a balanced St. Louis attack with 29 points on 13-for-23 shooting (56.5%), Zelmo Beaty had 28, Joe Caldwell had 21, Richie Guerin had 20, Cliff Hagan had 18, and Lenny Wilkens had 11 points and a game-high 13 rebounds (The Milwaukee Journal, Apr. 14, 1966). Jerry West led LA with a game-high 38 points on 14-for-25 shooting (56%). “I believe the pressure is on them,” said St. Louis player-coach Richie Guerin. “We played two good games with our backs to the wall. Los Angeles played a heck of a game tonight but still lost. Now they have to win” (The Milwaukee Journal, Apr. 14, 1966).

Game 7 @ LA: LA 130, St. Louis 121. Jerry West had 35 and Elgin Baylor had 33 as the Lakers wrapped up the Western Division title 4 games to 3. “It helps when you have great pros like West and Baylor on your side when you need some clutch points to be made,” said Lakers coach Fred Schaus. “They make the shots and get the rebounds when you need them.”

[fatal9]

1. Jerry West - Great RS, 31/7/6. Led Lakers to best record in conference with Baylor. 34/6/6 on 52 FG% and 58 TS% in the playoffs, while leading Lakers to within 2 points of winning (seems like he lit it up in the second half of game 7 too). Like in '68, I am putting West over Wilt specifically because he was defeated while playing well and he also clearly had a superior playoff run while playing better against the Celtics. Aside from game 2, he seems to have really done everything in his power to win and came damn close to pulling off the upset.

2. Bill Russell - As is usually the case with him, best player on the champion. Intangibles, clutch, defense, leadership blah blah, you get the point

3. Wilt Chamberlain - My problem with Wilt like usual is that his play dropped off significantly in the playoffs and again, he lost more than he was defeated (unlike West) . Look, you can blame his teammates, but you expect his teammates to go hard after the type of leadership he showed in the playoffs? Changing team scheduling, not going to practices, poor demeanor, you think teammates are going to play balls out for him after all that? Think that had any sort of a positive impact on team chemistry? He had what he needed to beat the Celtics but showed terrible leadership (guys on the team were getting "irked" by him according to several articles). The reason Sixers went down 1-3 in the first place was because of Wilt's relative poorly play in those games (especially in comparison to the regular season). In those four games he averaged 23.5 ppg on 48.6 FG%, 46.5 FT% - from a guy who averaged 34 ppg on 54% in the RS (that's while statpadding at the end of game 1 too). So, while his teammates could have played better, Wilt himself wasn't exactly playing like a world beater when Boston was running away with the series. Great game 5, 46/34 but going 8/25 from the FT line, which is awful by even Wilt's standards. I know it sounds harsh to criticize, but if Shaq or LeBron or anyone had a 40/20 game and shot like that from the line while losing a close game, would they not see criticism? I won't blame him for that game though, rest of the team was awful as they shot 30.3% in the game. The series was basically lost before this game though.

4. Oscar Robertson - The clear pick here. Loved watching him go to work in that game 5 vs Celtics.

5. Sam Jones - led Celtics in scoring, some great playoff performances in crucial games like usual particularly against the Royals.

[ronnymac2]

Thanks Reg. Appreciate it.

I'll keep my final rankings for now, but I'll sleep on it. Maybe West moves into the top two.....

[Doctor MJ]

My vote:

1. Russell
2. Wilt
3. West
4. Oscar
5. Sam

Y'all probably know by me well enough by now to know my thinking on the top spot. I see lots of evidence that Wilt's impact is much less than it would be the next year. I've got no qualms about putting '67 Wilt up there with any season in history, but I don't think that a much less effective version of Wilt is better than Russell.

Thinking along those same lines is why I could see putting Wilt as low as 4th here. I think you could make a great case that West & Oscar did more with less than Wilt this year. I'm not comfortable going that far though. In a Celtic-less league, Philly probably wins the title with Wilt putting up even bigger numbers. Hard to imagine Wilt below #1 in a scenario like that, and the Celtics existence shouldn't confuse things.

I'll give West the nod over Oscar. I think this season really shows why it's wrong to make any big judgment against West when Baylor was able to carry the team in his absence. Put West on a team with around the same talent as Oscar's, he'll give you as much talent & skill, with a significantly more inspirational personality.

Giving Jones the nod for the 5th spot. At this point we're in a 4 superstar league, and Jones did great things helping one of those 4 get over the top.

Shout out to Tickle Me Zelmo.

[drza]

Final vote time. And this one is a double-doozy. Let's start from the bottom and work our way up.

My fifth slot is going to be Sam Jones, almost by default. The vast majority of my efforts have gone into ranking the top 4 players, and there just isn't a lot left over as far as information or energy for me to try to isolate out the best from the rest. Jones was the leading scorer on a champion and I haven't seen any strong arguments for anyone else in this slot.

My 3rd/4th place will come down to West and Oscar. And once again, from what I can tell the difference between them is razor thin. In the regular season both averaged 31.3 ppg, were 2/3 overall in PER, and 2/3 overall in win shares. Both led their teams to 45 - 35 records in the regular season. But here is where their differing circumstances start to play in a bit. The Lakers' reward for their 45 - 35 finish was a first round bye and a second round matchup with the 36-win Hawks. The Royals' reward for their 45 - 35 finish was a first-round matchup against the 7-time defending champion Celtics. A bit of inequity there.

As such, I can't really give West much credit for his team making the Finals while Oscar's went out in round 1. That's just luck of the draw. Fortunately, the Lakers and Royals both faced a common opponent in the postseason to help make some direct comparison of how they performed possible. And again, from what I can tell, there was little-to-nothing to separate them as individuals or in team results. From reading the articles that ThaRegul8tor posted, I see that West averaged 33.1 points against the Celtics. We already knew that Oscar averaged 31.8 points, and because this was his only playoff round we also know he averaged 7.8 assists, 7.6 boards, and shot 41% from the field. As far as I know, we don't have any of that peripheral info for West against the Celtics. But from those articles, I do get the feeling that on a game-to-game basis West and Oscar ultimately performed at a similar level both to each other and to what we might have expected from them based upon their regular seasons and the caliber of their opponents. And both squads stretched the Celtics out to the maximum number of games before their teams fell in the deciding game.

It's just too close for me to call definitively, based upon what info seems to be available from the time. Which leaves tie-breakers. And while even those are close, I can't escape the notion that Oscar was relied upon more heavily to drive the Royals offense than West was to drive the Lakers. Their scoring loads were similar, but while West led the Lakers in assists he shared the distributing duties more equally with Baylor and Rahman while Oscar was just about the only offense generator for the Royals. Seems to me that let West be set up for some of his offense, let him attack from the wing on occasion, while Oscar was almost always the one setting up either himself or others. With this being the case, I don't see enough of a separation in scoring/efficiency or even perimeter defense for West to make up for Oscar carrying the heavier load for the team's dominant unit. The gap is thin, but it's all that I have to try to separate the two.

And now, for the main event. Wilt and Russell. I have flip-flopped on my choice repeatedly over the course of this thread. Initially I thought it might be Wilt, as he was at least somewhat in his "defensive mode" and leading his team to similar success with better stats.

Then I started delving further, and toying with the concept that I mentioned earlier about whether or not in a comp like this Russell should be thought of as the default better player with the onus on Wilt to prove otherwise...that essentially, based upon the box scores' obvious inability to properly characterize what he brings to the table (or late 1970s Walton, or Celtics KG for other examples), perhaps in cases like this box scores should become more tiebreaker than default.

But Wilt does have such a compelling case (stats, team success, seeming teammate abandonment), and repeatedly seeing people address the issue and come down on Wilt's side started swaying me again...I mean, 46 and 34 in an elimination game would suggest strongly that Wilt was doing all he could do, right? But then, I'm reminded in Fatal's post that there were 4 OTHER games in the series as well, in which Wilt averaged 23.5 points on 48.6% FG, which is more similar to Russell's postseason scoring level...but back to Regul8tor's articles, and I see Russ was "only" averaging 13 and 25 in those games vs Wilt's 23.5 and 29...in other words, even here, the box score stats stay strongly in Wilt's favor so it won't make my decision any easier on me.

In the end, it comes down to whether or not I am so certain of my defense/"intangibles" (I really kind of hate that word in this context, but at least it makes for easy identification) vs offense/box score stats theory that I am willing to base my vote purely on it. In '08 I voted KG over Kobe, but I did so after having watched almost every game that both players played that year and the majority of their career games before that. I had also done the same for their teammates. There were also advanced box score stats and a family of +/- stats to work with. Enough info that I was utterly confident in my choice. In the late 70s I voted Kareem over Walton, despite knowing that Walton couldn't be accurately characterized by the box scores, specifically because I didn't have enough peripheral info or enough of a track record to put Walton on top. Wilt vs Russell is like a harder combo of the two, because there is even less peripheral info available but there is such a long track record between them that it lends itself to the notion that Russell really might just have been the better individual player, despite what the box scores say.

It's an impossible choice.

But right now, at this second, I'm just not quite positive enough to vote for Russell. I have been several times in this thread...I was even earlier in this post...but at this second, those that argue that Wilt did his thing and his team just failed him...I just don't know enough to say for sure that you're wrong. I kind of think you're wrong. If I keep typing long enough I'll probably change my mind again. But the fact that Wilt did lead the strong defense, that he did have good team success while posting the big stats, and as Shawn pointed out I don't want to just vote Russell every year and I fear that I might from here...but Wilt did miss those FTs even in his big game 5, and he was well below his averages in the previous 4 games... and he was skipping the practices and living out of the city...and Russell was playing injured and still dominating...and I definitely have seen how a great defensive big can play a big role in making opposing wings shoot poorly so I don't think it crazy to crdit Russell some for Wilt's support disappearing in game 5...

ARGH!

Screw it. I'm picking Russell.

1. Russell
2. Wilt
3. Oscar
4. West
5. Sam

[Sedale Threatt]

1. Chamberlain
2. Russell

Every year I think, OK, I'm finally going to start voting for Russell. He is certainly deserving, not only this year but just about every other. But, and I can't figure out if this is my pre-convieved bias or what -- I make no apologies about being sympathetic to Wilt -- I just can't do it.

I just think he was that dominant, with Russell's contributions being so much more difficult to rate, that he's able to withstand just about any criticism, a la LeBron last year. The peripheral stuff is totally legit; the "anarchy" ideas, not so much. Not from the standpoint that it doesn't matter, because I think it very well might have. But because, as that nut job who swooped in last night said, that was more of a system flaw than a player flaw. I don't hold Wilt accountable for that. Maybe I don't hold Wilt accountable enough; I don't know.

I just wish we had more footage to actually watch some of these games go down. Was Boston's defense THAT good -- and it very well could have been -- or was it, as one of the newspapers stated in a previous year, a case of Philly just missing? Almost certainly combination of the two, but it would be nice to be able to actually watch and chart. Not only that, but what the rest of the Celtics were doing to contribute on that end.

So, in the same spot again. Not saying I'm right, just how I'm going to vote.

3. West. Heroic in defeat. Again.
4. Robertson. Quietly spectacular.
5. Jones. Might have been his best season.

[Optimism Prime]

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Jerry West
4. Oscar Robertson
5. Sam Jones

[semi-sentient]

Admittedly, I didn't do much research this week (busy @work + Starcraft @home) outside of reading this thread, so my vote looks like the majority (I think).

1) Wilt Chamberlain
2) Bill Russell
3) Jerry West
4) Oscar Robertson
5) Sam Jones

[Optimism Prime]

Admittedly, I didn't do much research this week (busy @work + Starcraft @home) outside of reading this thread, so my vote looks like the majority (I think).

1) Wilt Chamberlain
2) Bill Russell
3) Jerry West
4) Oscar Robertson
5) Sam Jones

Maybe it's just me, but I think the second reason is better than the first.

[Doctor MJ]

Last call.

[Doctor MJ]

'65-66 Results

Code: Select all

Player             1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts   POY Shares
1. Wilt Chamberlain  8   5   1   0   0 120   0.857
2. Bill Russell      5   9   0   0   0 113   0.807
3. Jerry West        1   0  11   2   0  71   0.507
4. Oscar Robertson   0   0   2  12   0  46   0.329
5. Sam Jones         0   0   0   0  14  14   0.100


[semi-sentient]

Site updated: http://www.dolem.com/poy

Wilt passes up Moses Malone for #12 and will leap frog Kobe, Hakeem, and Malone after the next round of voting. Bill Russell enters the top 15, knocking off David Robinson. Jerry West should make an entrance to the top 15 after the next round of voting as well, knocking off LeBron in the process.

Code: Select all

1.  Kareem Abdul-Jabbar  10.221
2.  Michael Jordan        9.578
3.  Magic Johnson         7.114
4.  Tim Duncan            6.153
5.  Larry Bird            6.147
6.  Shaquille O'Neal      5.910
7.  Julius Erving         5.046
8.  Karl Malone           4.649
9.  Hakeem Olajuwon       4.380
10. Kobe Bryant           4.326
11. Wilt Chamberlain      4.299
12. Moses Malone          3.478
13. Kevin Garnett         3.388
14. LeBron James          3.083
15. Bill Russell          2.973

[bastillon]

'65-66 Results

Code: Select all

Player             1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts   POY Shares
1. Wilt Chamberlain  8   5   1   0   0 120   0.857
2. Bill Russell      5   9   0   0   0 113   0.807
3. Jerry West        1   0  11   2   0  71   0.507
4. Oscar Robertson   0   0   2  12   0  46   0.329
5. Sam Jones         0   0   0   0  14  14   0.100


this is ridiculous how Wilt is much higher than West or Oscar. basically, Wilt's supporting cast = 76ers '69 + better coaching (55W team). Walker, Cunningham, Greer, Luke Jackson... this is league's best supporting cast and Wilt couldn't get it done. he tried hard not to win first by ruining their chemistry (this is making Allen Iverson look like a great leader ) and then by his annual postseason drop off.

the best part was TLAF arguing about some G7 performance that never happened and not even acknowledging they lost the series already before that.

both West and Oscar pushed the Celtics to elimination game, all while having drastically worse supporting casts than Wilt. I'm not even talking about Russell who eliminated all of them. how Wilt won is a testimony to people looking at boxscore and ignoring the rest.

"hey he was a 30/25/5, he's #1 easily"... Mufasa presented this ridiculous approach most accurately. I'm also baffled by people even mentioning Wilt's defense in the same breath as Russell's when the Celtics were twice as much dominant (literally).

but hey, most fans regard Allen Iverson as a superstar player because all they see is boxscore and his high usage. who, in reality, focuses on small things... transition defense, pick and roll defense, playing within a flow on the offense etc ? how can Russ be perceived as better when there's no statistical evidence for those contributions ? (expect of course our +/- model which people seem not to take into account anyway)

I wonder if we could do the intangible project in the future. seeing which players lifted their teams the most (missed time, trades, rookie years etc.). how would that coincide with POY ratings ?

btw. Darkjaws welcome back. thought you were banned. oh wait, you are but it doesn't matter anyway.

[Deus_DJ]

Yes bastillon, because someone who rebounds that much is somehow akin to Allen Iverson(let's not forget clogging up the lane and preventing any layups). Oh, and how would you describe a ball dominant center? How does that work again??

[bastillon]

my point wasn't to compare Wilt to Iverson. I meant that Wilt's boxscore stats didn't translate into wins as evidenced by his teams not suffering whenever he missed time or after joining/leaving them. it's important to look at his stats within that context what most people just dismiss.

I don't care if you're a 100/50/20 player, when you're joining a team and you're considered a superstar, your team should benefit a lot because of your impact. that's not what happened in reality. Sixers and Lakers weren't a lot better/worse. every major holder of MVP Shares has had a significant impact when changing teams/going down for a year. everyone but Wilt.

and there's a big sample we're talking about here:

*65 when changing teams
*69 when changing teams
*70 going down for a year
*71 coming back

why weren't these changes affecting team W-L ?

come up with million excuse, but it happened too many times to flat out ignore it.

[Dr Positivity]

Just look past what his teams did without him, and look at what they did with him:

Wilt goes to the Sixers and they become contender (1 pt from Celts in 65, best record in 66, dominance in 67, should've won in 68)

69 Lakers make Game 7 of the Finals. 70 Lakers make Game 7 against 70 Knicks who finish 7 SRS points ahead and start 23-1 with GOAT hype. 71 Lakers Wilt is on his own, gets blasted by Bucks. 72 Lakers are GOAT level. 73 Lakers are 60 W 8+ SRS again

I understand his teams survived without him for a handful of reasons. But every Wilt team from the 65 trade onwards is contending for a title. He's not stat-stuffing on 40 W teams. Wilt anchoring elite teams is what I care about, not that they held up without him.

[JordansBulls]

'65-66 Results

Code: Select all

Player             1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts   POY Shares
1. Wilt Chamberlain  8   5   1   0   0 120   0.857
2. Bill Russell      5   9   0   0   0 113   0.807
3. Jerry West        1   0  11   2   0  71   0.507
4. Oscar Robertson   0   0   2  12   0  46   0.329
5. Sam Jones         0   0   0   0  14  14   0.100


this is ridiculous how Wilt is much higher than West or Oscar. basically, Wilt's supporting cast = 76ers '69 + better coaching (55W team). Walker, Cunningham, Greer, Luke Jackson... this is league's best supporting cast and Wilt couldn't get it done. he tried hard not to win first by ruining their chemistry (this is making Allen Iverson look like a great leader ) and then by his annual postseason drop off.

the best part was TLAF arguing about some G7 performance that never happened and not even acknowledging they lost the series already before that.

both West and Oscar pushed the Celtics to elimination game, all while having drastically worse supporting casts than Wilt. I'm not even talking about Russell who eliminated all of them. how Wilt won is a testimony to people looking at boxscore and ignoring the rest.

"hey he was a 30/25/5, he's #1 easily"... Mufasa presented this ridiculous approach most accurately. I'm also baffled by people even mentioning Wilt's defense in the same breath as Russell's when the Celtics were twice as much dominant (literally).

but hey, most fans regard Allen Iverson as a superstar player because all they see is boxscore and his high usage. who, in reality, focuses on small things... transition defense, pick and roll defense, playing within a flow on the offense etc ? how can Russ be perceived as better when there's no statistical evidence for those contributions ? (expect of course our +/- model which people seem not to take into account anyway)

I wonder if we could do the intangible project in the future. seeing which players lifted their teams the most (missed time, trades, rookie years etc.). how would that coincide with POY ratings ?

btw. Darkjaws welcome back. thought you were banned. oh wait, you are but it doesn't matter anyway.

What do you mean? There were 2 celtics in the top 5.

[bastillon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX8urOgwEBM

Celtics-Royals Game 5 elimination game.

Just look past what his teams did without him, and look at what they did with him:

Wilt goes to the Sixers and they become contender (1 pt from Celts in 65, best record in 66, dominance in 67, should've won in 68)

69 Lakers make Game 7 of the Finals. 70 Lakers make Game 7 against 70 Knicks who finish 7 SRS points ahead and start 23-1 with GOAT hype. 71 Lakers Wilt is on his own, gets blasted by Bucks. 72 Lakers are GOAT level. 73 Lakers are 60 W 8+ SRS again

I understand his teams survived without him for a handful of reasons. But every Wilt team from the 65 trade onwards is contending for a title. He's not stat-stuffing on 40 W teams. Wilt anchoring elite teams is what I care about, not that they held up without him.

arbitrary criterions. in 65 you're using their postseason surprising record against the Celtics, but in 66 you're dismissing they lost 4-1, because they had the best record, the same you did in 68 where you just wrote "should've won". it's not like they were dominating Celtics at any point of any season so why should they won ? based on RS when Celtics rested and were injured ?

but the bolded part is the most interesting to me. you're simply ignoring that Wilt had by far the most talented supporting cast in the league at the time. first he was playing with all-star team in Philadelphia and then joined West playing at HOF level and Baylor, although old, still performing like an all-star... and mentioning the 70s is beyond me as he wasn't even the best player on his own team.

so yeah, those teams were contending for a title with Wilt. they were borderline contenders without him too. don't forget Sixers won 55 without him (and without their 2nd big), Lakers won 52 without him and lost G7 in the finals before he got there, were still one of the best teams in the league when he went down for a year in 70, then they stayed at that "one of the best" level in 71 and then collapsed in the playoffs without West... but that was West's team from ~65 on so why would you mention Wilt as an anchor anyway ?

you can't simply look at those arbitrary results, ignore how well his team did without him and conclude that Wilt's making those teams great. they were great even without him. 65-73 is the worst possible argument for Wilt. if anything, it's testimony to his overrated reputation... winning only 2 titles in that period while he had the best cast almost every year. no excuse for that. none.

[Dr Positivity]

65 he didn't have the most talent. Russ had Jones, Hondo, Heinsohn and a better coach. Greer, Walker, Jackson, and Schayes is clear downgrade from that IMO.

66 is much closer with the Sixers getting Cunningham and the Celtics losing Heinsohn. I still feel like if you go past Russ-Wilt and Greer-Jones, both pairs which are near draws, Havlicek is by far the best of the remaining players and of course the Celts had years of title experience, compared to the Sixers going into the playoffs an elite seed for the first time. Nevertheless very hard decision between the two that year

67, 68, 69 Wilt had more talent. No excuse there, though I feel in 68 it was the poor shooting of the rest of the Sixers that most swung Game 7. 68 and 69 are so close that it's hard to put *huge* weight against Wilt for them, especially in 69 when he's left out of the final minutes but had otherwise kicked Russell's ass in that Game 7