Retro POY '72-73 (Voting Complete)

[Manuel Calavera]

I really think the people that are arguing this ask yourself if you would want your player to completely do the opposite of what the coach (HOF coach Bill Sharman) wanted him to do.

See what Bill Sharman said in the above post in the quoted incident. And you DO WHAT'S NEEDED TO WIN. Is that so hard? Other players have done it. Just look at this year's NBA Finals. Look at what Ron Artest did in Game 7. The thing is... Artest isn't known for that. But he stepped up because it was what was needed for the Lakers to win. He didn't say, "Well, during the regular season I did this, so I'm not going to go against that." And this is Ron Artest, not the caliber of player we're discussing. Great players and read the situation and do what's necessary.

I read your post after I had already posted but....meaningless regular season games are different than the NBA finals. I have no issue with Chamberlain having fun with his personal stats during the RS, it's not like it cost them the #1 seed (well I guess it did but it wasn't like they were passing Boston). Adolph, if you can find me a quote from Sharman during the playoffs about him wanting to score more and Chamberlain going against that then I'll take back my point but until then I still disagree that Chamberlain should have changed his game for the finals just because West was injured.

[ThaRegul8r]

I read your post after I had already posted but....meaningless regular season games are different than the NBA finals.

Meaningless? Homecourt advantage in the playoffs was riding on it.

I have no issue with Chamberlain having fun with his personal stats during the RS, it's not like it cost them the #1 seed (well I guess it did but it wasn't like they were passing Boston).

Boston didn't make it to the Finals, so they're irrelevant.

Adolph, if you can find me a quote from Sharman during the playoffs about him wanting to score more and Chamberlain going against that then I'll take back my point but until then I still disagree that Chamberlain should have changed his game for the finals just because West was injured.

Chamberlain changed his game for the finals in the next season we're going to discuss because West had his worst postseason, and it won them the title and he was rightfully named Finals MVP. And Bill Sharman didn't have to tell him to do it. Are players mindless automatons who can't do anything without being told first? You do what needs to be done to win. That's what players meant about Wilt being inflexible in that he'd decide before the season how he was going to play and then not deviate from it, except in 1967 and 1972, which, not-so-coincidentally, resulted in two titles with the two best records in NBA history at the time. I ask again, why would you change from what won titles when it worked?

[fatal9]

1. Kareem - tough to put him #1 for reasons I mentioned earlier, but there really is no one else who did enough to take the spot away.
2. Frazier
3. Wilt
4. Archibald
5. Cowens

HM: Thurmond, Havlicek, Erving, West

I'm having reservations about Wilt Chamberlain. I'm generally high on his 72 and 73 seasons, but this year his scoring is soooo low. Now, that wouldn't really be an issue if he could score more and just didn't, but he became infatuated with setting the FG% record, and stopped shooting everything unless it was basically a layup or dunk.

Wilt actually did this quite a lot it seems...

In late '67 for example, there was a game where Thurmond held him to 0 points - because Wilt took took 0 shots. Wilt normally did not shoot well against Thurmond and was held well below his ppg numbers, so either Thurmond played amazing ball denial or he chose to not shoot. This was at a time where he was setting FG% records, but it seems odd that someone who averaged 17 fga that season and 24 ppg, to not take a single shot over the entire game. There's a game against Kareem at the end of the '73 season (when Wilt had set a record for FG% with 72.7%) where he took 0 shots (Kareem would keep him under his typical shooting percentages most of the time, though Wilt would also do the same to Kareem). It was last game of the season (and winner got #1 seed), why shoot against a good defender when you've already set the record? I don't think he did it in the playoffs, but there have been cases where he has been suspiciously passive (several games vs. Celtics in the 60s, especially the game 7 in '68). I don't think the reasons were statistical though, I think he was genuinely afraid at times of failing in big games and figured if he wasn't involved or didn't shoot a lot of shots, he'd see less of the blame.

[fatal9]

Should be noted that West used to create a lot of Wilt's offense when they were teammates, especially in the 70s (Wilt exclusively a finisher on offense). The fact West was hurt may have played a part in Wilt's inability to produce offensively (like taking Nash away from Amare). That and the fact that he was 36 at the time. Might be seeing too much of the blame for this series, though there are several other series in his career where you can rightly criticize him.

[Manuel Calavera]

Adolph, if you can find me a quote from Sharman during the playoffs about him wanting to score more and Chamberlain going against that then I'll take back my point but until then I still disagree that Chamberlain should have changed his game for the finals just because West was injured.

Chamberlain changed his game for the finals in the next season we're going to discuss because West had his worst postseason, and it won them the title and he was rightfully named Finals MVP. And Bill Sharman didn't have to tell him to do it. Are players mindless automatons who can't do anything without being told first? You do what needs to be done to win. That's what players meant about Wilt being inflexible in that he'd decide before the season how he was going to play and then not deviate from it, except in 1967 and 1972, which, not-so-coincidentally, resulted in two titles with the two best records in NBA history at the time. I ask again, why would you change from what won titles when it worked?[/quote]
I'm still not convinced. It's convenient that the same years Chamberlain wins the championship are the same years Chamberlains failures as a individual player somehow magically disappear. It's also convenient that Jordan was able to win championships only because he trusted his teammates or that the 04 Pistons were able to defeat the heavily favored Lakers by playing as a team as opposed to the selfish LA team or how the little engine that could was able to climb over a mountain if he just kept believing in himself. Basketball is a complicated system of non-linear equations all interacting with each other in ways that are unpredictable. We can't sum up a teams failures by looking at an individual player and attaching amorphous and indefinite descriptions like "he didn't trust his teammates" or "he should have read the situation better".

Sometimes you can, to a limited extent, for instance sometimes a player will rush a play, or take an early shot because he was nervous. Sometimes this carries over in consecutive players, even a quarter and if it's really really really bad it will go through an entire game (John Starks says hello). A good coach will probably bench the player early if he's just a roleplayer, and if he's a major contributor he'll take a timeout and try to fix the issue by talking directly to the player. It happens a lot. But you're arguing it happened over an entires series. Not only that, but you're also arguing that for whatever reason nobody in the entire defending champion LA Lakers organization including their HOF coach Bill Sharman ever felt the need to tell Chamberlain that he should score more, that Chamberlain should just know that because "great players read the situation". Either that, or you're arguing Chamberlain directly disobeyed Sharman by stubbornly sticking to his plan of breaking his own FG% record costing himself a third championship and proving once and for all he cared about his stats more than anything else. And if so, I want proof. And I don't want the same style of quote you had before where Sharman just said "Wilt should have shot more", because that could mean anything, I want him to say "we kept passing the ball to Wilt but he kept passing the ball back, that **** doesn't want to shoot because of his record, what a jerk that guy is".

[Manuel Calavera]

1. Kareem - tough to put him #1 for reasons I mentioned earlier, but there really is no one else who did enough to take the spot away.
2. Frazier
3. Wilt
4. Archibald
5. Cowens

HM: Thurmond, Havlicek, Erving, West

I'm having reservations about Wilt Chamberlain. I'm generally high on his 72 and 73 seasons, but this year his scoring is soooo low. Now, that wouldn't really be an issue if he could score more and just didn't, but he became infatuated with setting the FG% record, and stopped shooting everything unless it was basically a layup or dunk.

Wilt actually did this quite a lot it seems...

In late '67 for example, there was a game where Thurmond held him to 0 points - because Wilt took took 0 shots. Wilt normally did not shoot well against Thurmond and was held well below his ppg numbers, so either Thurmond played amazing ball denial or he chose to not shoot. This was at a time where he was setting FG% records, but it seems odd that someone who averaged 17 fga that season and 24 ppg, to not take a single shot over the entire game. There's a game against Kareem at the end of the '73 season (when Wilt had set a record for FG% with 72.7%) where he took 0 shots (Kareem would keep him under his typical shooting percentages most of the time, though Wilt would also do the same to Kareem). It was last game of the season (and winner got #1 seed), why shoot against a good defender when you've already set the record? I don't think he did it in the playoffs, but there have been cases where he has been suspiciously passive (several games vs. Celtics in the 60s, especially the game 7 in '68). I don't think the reasons were statistical though, I think he was genuinely afraid at times of failing in big games and figured if he wasn't involved or didn't shoot a lot of shots, he'd see less of the blame.

The '68 series in particular has been talked about before and what I got from it is that the 76ers weren't passing Wilt the ball in the second half and just randomly chucking the ball. Alex Hannum blamed himself for the loss because they went away from what made them successful.

The other stuff is pretty interesting though and I've never heard it either. I'd have to see the games or read something about it though to make some kind of an opinion. However if true it is a bit more damning than the examples ThaRegul8r was bringing up.

[ThaRegul8r]

1. Kareem - tough to put him #1 for reasons I mentioned earlier, but there really is no one else who did enough to take the spot away.
2. Frazier
3. Wilt
4. Archibald
5. Cowens

HM: Thurmond, Havlicek, Erving, West

I'm having reservations about Wilt Chamberlain. I'm generally high on his 72 and 73 seasons, but this year his scoring is soooo low. Now, that wouldn't really be an issue if he could score more and just didn't, but he became infatuated with setting the FG% record, and stopped shooting everything unless it was basically a layup or dunk.

Wilt actually did this quite a lot it seems...

In late '67 for example, there was a game where Thurmond held him to 0 points - because Wilt took took 0 shots. Wilt normally did not shoot well against Thurmond and was held well below his ppg numbers, so either Thurmond played amazing ball denial or he chose to not shoot. This was at a time where he was setting FG% records, but it seems odd that someone who averaged 17 fga that season and 24 ppg, to not take a single shot over the entire game. There's a game against Kareem at the end of the '73 season (when Wilt had set a record for FG% with 72.7%) where he took 0 shots (Kareem would keep him under his typical shooting percentages most of the time, though Wilt would also do the same to Kareem). It was last game of the season (and winner got #1 seed), why shoot against a good defender when you've already set the record? I don't think he did it in the playoffs, but there have been cases where he has been suspiciously passive (several games vs. Celtics in the 60s, especially the game 7 in '68). I don't think the reasons were statistical though, I think he was genuinely afraid at times of failing in big games and figured if he wasn't involved or didn't shoot a lot of shots, he'd see less of the blame.

The '68 series in particular has been talked about before and what I got from it is that the 76ers weren't passing Wilt the ball in the second half and just randomly chucking the ball. Alex Hannum blamed himself for the loss because they went away from what made them successful.

The other stuff is pretty interesting though and I've never heard it either. I'd have to see the games or read something about it though to make some kind of an opinion. However if true it is a bit more damning than the examples ThaRegul8r was bringing up.

What? The game against Kareem is the exact same game I mentioned on the previous page. So when someone else says it, then it becomes "pretty interesting?" I also said, "There are other instances that can be found." The game against Thurmond fatal mentioned is one of those "other instances" I was talking about. How is it "more damning," when it's corroboration of the very instance I was talking about? Evidently you didn't actually read a word I typed.

[Manuel Calavera]

The '68 series in particular has been talked about before and what I got from it is that the 76ers weren't passing Wilt the ball in the second half and just randomly chucking the ball. Alex Hannum blamed himself for the loss because they went away from what made them successful.

The other stuff is pretty interesting though and I've never heard it either. I'd have to see the games or read something about it though to make some kind of an opinion. However if true it is a bit more damning than the examples ThaRegul8r was bringing up.

What? The game against Kareem is the exact same game I mentioned on the previous page. So when someone else says it, then it becomes "pretty interesting?" I also said, "There are other instances that can be found." The game against Thurmond fatal mentioned is one of those "other instances" I was talking about. How is it "more damning," when it's corroboration of the very instance I was talking about? Evidently you didn't actually read a word I typed.

I misread what you quoted, I thought it was talking about just another regular season game. I skimmed over it, my bad, it's 5AM though and I've been studying for an exam.

Edited - Manuel, check your PM. ~Doc

[ElGee]

Hmmm - maybe I'm not being quite clear (fatal and regul8r are certainly making interesting points).

When good players play with other good players their usage naturally drops. In Wilt's case, that's a fine role to take with Goodrich, West and McMillan. What I'm trying to figure it how good Chamberlain's offensive contribution is despite the obvious fact that his usage will decline in such a setting.

Here, the usage declines more than we would expect. Why? Maybe he wanted the FG% record. Maybe his coach thought he was a terrible option. It's not terribly important to me why. What is important is if he's still capable of being a ~20 ppg scorer on good efficiency when context dictates he needs to be. It seems that very situation arose in the Finals.

Consider in 1972 he averaged 7.9 FGA's/36. In the Finals against New York, he averaged 9.5 FGAs/36.
But then in 1973, he averaged 6.0 FGAs/36. In the Finals against New York, he averaged 6.3 FGAs/36.

So, the question is, with West hobbled and no Hairston, why didn't Chamberlain produce more on offense? If the answer was "he couldn't," or "he was afraid," or "he relied on Jerry West," those are all equally problematic for me in evaluating his contributions as a player.

I'm not really interested in "blame." Nor do I think "coaching strategy" is a big factor here, unless we're suggesting that Sharman decided it would be best to rarely use Chamberlain on offense, which is equally problematic for me.

From what I've seen, his defense is ridiculous in this period, but I'm surprised others aren't more concerned about this. Even Wilt himself talked about how he wasn't as good of a shooter as he used to be because he stopped shooting.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Zw ... %2C1127334

Reed was right on target. His contribution to the Knicks' victory was greater than his statistics—16.4 scoring average, .493 shooting percentage and 9.2 rebounds a game—indicated. On defense he frustrated Wilt Chamberlain, whose scoring outburst over Jerry Lucas led the Lakers to the title last year. Against Reed, who is taller, stronger, heavier and quicker than Lucas, Chamberlain's attempts to back under the basket for his finger rolls and dunks yielded almost as many traveling calls, three-second violations and offensive fouls as they did goals. And Lucas' presence on the bench was an asset. The Knicks' plan was to foul Chamberlain whenever he seemed sure to score, and Reed and Lucas had an average of 7.2 personals a game, more than either one could have afforded individually. The luxury of having two men available to clobber Chamberlain permitted New York to hold him to a measly 22 field goals in the series. Wilt made the strategy look even better by missing 24 of 38 free throws.

[ThaRegul8r]

The '68 series in particular has been talked about before and what I got from it is that the 76ers weren't passing Wilt the ball in the second half and just randomly chucking the ball. Alex Hannum blamed himself for the loss because they went away from what made them successful.

The other stuff is pretty interesting though and I've never heard it either. I'd have to see the games or read something about it though to make some kind of an opinion. However if true it is a bit more damning than the examples ThaRegul8r was bringing up.

What? The game against Kareem is the exact same game I mentioned on the previous page. So when someone else says it, then it becomes "pretty interesting?" I also said, "There are other instances that can be found." The game against Thurmond fatal mentioned is one of those "other instances" I was talking about. How is it "more damning," when it's corroboration of the very instance I was talking about? Evidently you didn't actually read a word I typed.

Adolf I misread what you quoted, I thought it was talking about just another regular season game. I skimmed over it, my bad, it's 5AM though and I've been studying for an exam.

Drop the "Adolph/Adolf" bit. It's not my name, nor is it conducive to having an actual discussion.

[semi-sentient]

Alright, I'm taking Wilt out of my top 5. I have no tolerance for players that do selfish crap like that. This is the first I've heard of this incident (not shooting so his streak stays in tact) and I'm sure there's many more like it (the 100-point game is a joke). How many of his other records are a result of him doing crap like this? Ugh.

I also didn't know that the Knicks strategy was to send him to the line like that. Missing 24-38 free throws now becomes a much bigger deal to me.

Jerry West replaces him in the top 5.

[Sedale Threatt]

I think the answer to the Wilt conundrum is two-fold.

1. No question he tailored his game to meet certain statistical goals. There are just too many examples of this to argue otherwise.

Van Breda Kolff (a total clown, but that's besides the point) asked him to play defense like Russell when he was first traded to the Lakers. Wilt's response: "I already do. I block more shots than he does." I have a huge amount of respect for Wilt, and will probably end up championing him as we get deeper into the 60s, but even his biggest fans have to admit that sometimes he just didn't get it.

2. Likewise, there cannot be any debate that Wilt's body had deteriorated pretty significant at this point. Here is an excerpt from "Wilt: Larger Than Life."

For the first time, he talked about aches and pains associated with 20 years of running up and down basketball courts. He suffered shin splints and muscle cramps, and his knees ached. Not surprising for a man who carried 275 pounds on relatively thing legs. He was scoring less. There were whispers he didn't have his old offensive moves, or worse, was washed up.

This was written about 31-year-old Wilt, before the 1967-68 season. So you can probably imagine how he felt five years later, especially suffering a major knee injury that wiped out most of his 1970 season.

And another thing to consider -- this isn't a guy who took tremendous care of himself in terms of eating habits and the hours he kept. I think all that caught up to him in his 30s.

So, as usual with Wilt, it's not an easy answer. There are a lot of different factors. As ElGee notes, it might not matter as the bottom line is, through a combination of factors in and out of his control, he wasn't as effective as he used to be offensively.

Personally, I'm still leaning pretty strongly towards No. 2 or 3, and can't see how he can be left entirely out of the top 5. But this is definitely a weird year. About the only thing I can say with any conviction is that Clyde Frazier was not the best player in basketball.

[Sedale Threatt]

The '68 series in particular has been talked about before and what I got from it is that the 76ers weren't passing Wilt the ball in the second half and just randomly chucking the ball. Alex Hannum blamed himself for the loss because they went away from what made them successful.

I'll get into this more when the time is right, but a Sixers team scout did an evaluation of this game that showed Wilt touched the ball something like five times in the third quarter and twice in the fourth quarter, as compared to 23 total in the first half.

Not as in, touched the ball in scoring position. But touched the ball, period. Yet after the game, all anybody wanted to know was why Wilt didn't shoot more. Certainly, he bears responsibility as he himself admitted he never demanded the basketball.

But you have to wonder what the rest of the team was thinking, especially Hannum, who was one of the few good coaches Wilt played for.

[Sedale Threatt]

1. Abdul-Jabbar. Would have stuck him at second if we had a Walton or Dr. J powerhouse to pick, but nobody else is doing much for me.

2. Chamberlain. Don't feel great about this pick, as some of the criticisms levied are valid. In the end, I still value the dominant defense/rebounding/efficiency he brings.

3. Frazier. Great player, I'm just not the biggest fan. I wanted to see more dominance for a guy getting the praise he is, and I just didn't see it. Or enough of it, rather.

4. Erving. Doesn't look like he's doing anything significantly different to me from the years he was getting voted No. 1 or 2. I'm not going to punish him for being on a crappy team.

5. Cowens. Didn't deserve the MVP, but I think he was better than Hondo. The accounts I've read make his defense sound like Duncan without the shot blocking -- agile, active and strong.

[ElGee]

My 1973 POY Ballot:

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Walt Frazier
3. Julius Erving
4. Tiny Archibald
5. Dave Cowens

In a number of other years, Kareem would have 2-3 players on his level and drop behind them because of his postseason. I'm a little concerned about his mental state after the DC murders, and I certainly don't think this Kareem is better than the one we'll see in a few years (or maybe even next year). But I also don't think there's really another elite player this year, so he's first.

Frazier is comfortably second. He's a great basketball player, getting to the hole on offense, making sound/above average passes, and of course killing people with his midrange pullup. Defensively, I think he's carrying a lot of value during this time period; he guards his man well, has quick and disruptive hands and has mastered the art of jumping someone else's man when they turn his back to him. Since so much of the offense was centered around the top of the key area, I'm gathering Frazier does this a lot. His huge ECF's shores up this spot.

The next spot boiled down to Erving or Archibald. Dr. J was better in 1974, and I like the argument about young impact players typically developing over time. Statistically he was better and the praise he receives in 74 is higher. Still, he's really good in 1973 and I'll take him over Tiny. I'm confident that Julius can help an elite team better than Archibald and have a similar impact on a poor team like KC-Omaha.

Originally, I thought Tiny wouldn't crack my ballot, but his overall team offense and individual performance is a hard to deny. I think Doctor MJ's point about the team strategy sacrificing defense a bit is a valid one -- even Tiny was reported to try and race down court on offense, as his 3.2 TRB% would suggest -- but I buy that he's adding tremendous value to a bad team and I'm not sure how many players could do this.

Maybe my remaining contenders could, but they all have serious issues. First, West missed 13 games and flamed out of the Finals, injured again. HIs team didn't really miss him when he was gone in the RS, which says more about his team IMO. Chamberlain's concerns have been outlined in the thread. For Boston, I'll take Havlicek over Cowens, but Hondo's shoulder injury is a concern, significantly more so than West's. As such, I'm leaning toward Cowens from that group. His series against New York was quite good (the same team Wilt didn't do much against), his defense is quite good (although not on Wilt's level, Boston's team D was the best) and he "anchors" a rebounding front which is historically good: +582 in team differential in 75, +717 in 74, +844 (!) in 1973.

Rick Barry had a down year, in some regards, and had 3 injuries bother him in the playoffs. A young Artis Gilmore might be an option, although I still think I'd lean toward Cowens. Might change my mind at last call on this final spot, depending on further arguments about those players.

[semi-sentient]

Just in case the votes have been counted, I added Dr J and Hondo to my top 5 in place of Cowens and West. This is a tough year and I find myself not comfortable with anyone that I put at the 4/5 spots. Lots of candidates for the lower half of the rankings.

[Manuel Calavera]

I guess the discussion is over so I'll put my vote in:

1. Kareem
2. Wilt
3. Erving
4. Frazier
5. Cowens

[ItsMillerTime]

1. Kareem
2. Frazier
3. Erving
4. Cowens
5. Archibald

HM: Hondo, West, Wilt

[JordansBulls]

Hard to imagine a guy who is 4th on his team in scoring and averages 10 ppg in the playoffs and 13 ppg in the season as the 2nd best player in the league.
That is just silly.

[Doctor MJ]

Reed was right on target. His contribution to the Knicks' victory was greater than his statistics—16.4 scoring average, .493 shooting percentage and 9.2 rebounds a game—indicated. On defense he frustrated Wilt Chamberlain, whose scoring outburst over Jerry Lucas led the Lakers to the title last year. Against Reed, who is taller, stronger, heavier and quicker than Lucas, Chamberlain's attempts to back under the basket for his finger rolls and dunks yielded almost as many traveling calls, three-second violations and offensive fouls as they did goals. And Lucas' presence on the bench was an asset. The Knicks' plan was to foul Chamberlain whenever he seemed sure to score, and Reed and Lucas had an average of 7.2 personals a game, more than either one could have afforded individually. The luxury of having two men available to clobber Chamberlain permitted New York to hold him to a measly 22 field goals in the series. Wilt made the strategy look even better by missing 24 of 38 free throws.

That bold part is very telling, because the Knicks must have caused the Lakers to turn the ball over a ton.

The most glaring example was in 1970 (but it applies to 1973). In that finals, the Lakers had the rebounding edge 374 to 342, yet the Knicks attempted 722 FGA while the Lakers only 611. Now the Lakers a big FTA edge, but if consider .44*FTA to be the equivalent of one FGA, that still gives the Knicks an edge of 69 shots for the series. If we assumed equal offensive rebounds, that would mean the Lakers were turning the ball over 7 more times per game - and as mentioned, the Lakers were skilling the Knicks on the boards, so the TO differential was probably significantly bigger. The Lakers had a big FG% in this series, so they very much lost the series because of turnovers.

All this leads to the question: Who on the Lakers was turning the ball over so incredibly much? SI seems to be implying, Wilt was the culprit, even when he was still very much in his prime.

This also gives some answer to the question of how the hell the '67 Sixer offense could be so much better than the '66: Wilt the volume scorer was turning the ball over at astonishing levels.