Retro POY '68-69 (Voting Complete)

[TrueLAfan]

I don't think Oscar necessarily put up empty stats—and he was obviously, a terrific offensive player. I think Oscar's weakness(es) when he was younger largely fall into the area of intangibles. He was, by and large, not a pleasant guy to play with or for. The best way of putting it would be “respected rather than liked.”

In 1969 and 1970, Oscar was helped in one sense and handicapped in another by having a horrible pro coach. Bob Cousy was terrific at the college level but was the epitome of a guy whose personal style didn't mesh well in the pros. And one player he really didn't mesh well with was Oscar Robertson. In terms of Xs and Os, Cooz wanted to run a more open offense with lots of room for individual freedom. Oscar didn't really want that; Oscar wanted a more formal offensive structure. Oscar was, to put charitably, unhappy with both Cousy and the Royals decision to move him.

That being said...All of Oscar's team relied on his tremendous offensive skills in every way; as primary scorer and primary distributor. It's kind of natural that when that player goes down that the team will suffer. And Oscar Robertson, for better or worse, usually was teamed with excellent perimeter offensive players--guys like Jack Twyman, Jerry Lucas, Adrian Smith, and Tom Van Arsdale. The Royals usually had decent bigs too; Lucas banged on defense (especially on the boards...although Jerry Lucas was a true stat hound is his peculiar, mnemonic way) and the Royals had Wayne Embry for a long time, and Bob boozer and Happy Hairston and Connie Dierking who were physical players that were okay on the offensive side as well.

But they underachieved. They underachieved pretty much every year. I am sure that the Royals were worse without Oscar in 1968. They were only a little over .500 with him. And this is a team that had Oscar, a peak Jeery Lucas, good years out of Adrian Smith and Connie Dierking, a SF combo of Bob Love and Happy Hairston, and a bench with John Tresvant, Walt Wesley, and Tom Van Arsdale. Ed Jucker was a poor coach (in his own way, as poor of an NBA coach as Cousy)...but the team underperformed. And this is the crux when dealing with Oscar. Oscar ran an offense where he was the main scorer and main distributor and was terrific at those things on a statistical level. He had, by and large, good teammates and well-balanced teams. And his teams underperformed in the RS and the playoffs...and Oscar was a part of that. Not only did his teams not go anywhere, Oscar had his share of unmemorable playoff series.

I enjoy and respect the work ElGee is putting in on Offensive and Defensive Stats prior to 1971. I'm not sold 100% on their accuracy--but I do think they provide a reasonable guideline. But if Oscar's Robertson's teams are always at the top on offense, then players who had otherwise good defensive reputations like Wayne Embry, Bob Boozer, Tom Hawkins and Happy Hairston went completely south on D with Cincinnati. Guys who were okay, like Jack Twyman and Jerry Lucas and Tom Van Arsdale went bad too. Because if Oscar was an okay defender—which I've always assumed—he must have had minimal help from pretty much everyone else for such offensively strong teams to win only half their games...and the Royals won only 52% of their games when Oscar was there. At some point, something has to give in terms of analysis.

[bastillon]

Interesting with your estimates, here's the stars who've been on the most #1 ORtg teams:

Oscar 9 (6 Cincy, 3 Milwaukee)
Kareem 9 (3 Milwaukee, 6 Lakers)
Magic 7
Nash 6 (3 Dallas, 3 Phoenix)
Jordan 4
Dirk 4

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1049514

offense:
1.Nash
3.Magic
7.KAJ
9.Dirk
10.Oscar
11.Pippen
13.Bird
18.Barkley
20.Payton
22.West
25.KJ
35.Ray
40.Dr J
43.MJ
46.Drex
50.Shaq

[ronnymac2]

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 ?

Damn. Didn't see that. Well that's not very good.


But yes, I do think Wilt is still a top five player this year. 14/25 while leading the playoffs in field goal percentage is still nothing to scoff at ito production. West and Wilt did a lot of heavy lifting to get LA as far as they did. You said yourself that NY was the bigger challenge to Boston. I tend to agree actually.

[ronnymac2]

Final Rankings:

Jerry West
Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
Oscar Robertson
John Havlicek



Robertson is impressing me more and more. I'm starting to think he was a revolutionary player. I know Baylor revolutionized the game in a sense that wings went vertical, but I think Oscar invented the modern concept of a small playing the role of lead facilitator AND scorer. He was Wade and Lebron before Wade and Lebron. Maybe not in style- but in role.

Now I know why people respect him so much. Aside from everything he did socially and with regards to race in the 60's and 70's, they respect him for his ability to carry such a load and lead a team in a way that had never been done before. I mean, Cousy could direct a team as well as anybody. But he couldn't score like Oscar. He simply wasn't as talented. Oscar was the first phenom. The first true do-it-all small. Well, Oscar and West I guess. I think West's style is less domineering- obviously in a physical sense, but also in a sense of controlling a game. Oscar's way of doing it all is more demonstrative.

Like I said, Oscar was ball-dominant for those times. He wouldn't be too ball-dominant today.

Being revolutionary doesn't earn you more points in a single season from me. Being **** good does. I almost put Hondo above Oscar, but I can't. Oscar is just better. I'm actually still wavering with Wilt over O.

I put Russell at two because he put up Jordan's 98.

[bastillon]

He was, by and large, not a pleasant guy to play with or for. The best way of putting it would be “respected rather than liked.”

so what about his Milwaukee teammates ? they seemed to love him.
how would you respond to this:
also, from what I've learnt by reading comments about Oscar, Cin teammates hated him because they sucked. if you actually remember Lakers back in the day when Smush and Kwame were starters, there was some talk about how they disliked Kobe. he couldn't stand their scrub presence on his team and I believe it was the time when Kobe said things like "teach these mother****** how to play". seems like Oscar was hard on his teammates as well, and because they sucked so badly, nobody really liked him. once he played for the Bucks, opinion about him changed drastically and that's probably because of team quality, he no longer played with scrubs.

But they underachieved. They underachieved pretty much every year. I am sure that the Royals were worse without Oscar in 1968. They were only a little over .500 with him.

so I understand that Bucks '75 underachieved as well, didn't they ? because actually Cincinatti had worse record without Oscar than Bucks without Kareem.

It's kind of natural that when that player goes down that the team will suffer.

if this kind of drop-off is in any way shape or form "natural" then show me other historical examples of teams with 4 "excellent" (as you put it) offensive players and guys with good defensive rep performing the way Royals did (3-14, described as punching bag in the article).

clearly, you're overrating Oscar's teammates. if they had been any good, then they'd have played much better without him. team with 3-14 record hardly has any excellent players.

Because if Oscar was an okay defender—which I've always assumed—he must have had minimal help from pretty much everyone else for such offensively strong teams to win only half their games...and the Royals won only 52% of their games when Oscar was there. At some point, something has to give in terms of analysis.

or... Oscar was an average/slightly above average defender and made little impact on defense... but he was the best offensive player of the generation and that's why Royals were so great on offense. yeah, he probably had to have some offensive help, but it doesn't diminish his accomplishments, especially with this enormous impact of over +10 at offense alone.

and in fact, Oscar's teammates sucked defensively, which is far more likely story than the mis-truths told time and time again on this forum. if they were all close to average then there's no way they could be dead-last on defense. and this story is quite probable given which players were their bigs. Wayne Embry reminded me of Big Baby, poor rebounder, no shotblocking whatsoever. not known for his defense at any point of his career. Lucas was probably like David Lee or Troy Murphy on defense. put up huge boxscore stats with no impact on the game. nice quote about Lucas that I found earlier scanning through old SI articles:

"People began saying I was the only retired active player in
existence," Lucas said last week. A San Francisco observer
close to the Warriors put it more astringently before this
season began. "Until Lucas got here," he said, "I never
realized how good Oscar Robertson was. If Lucas played like
this in Cincinnati, then Oscar must have been carrying him on
his back into the All-Star game every year."

yeah, Lucas was a great defensive rebounder... but so is Troy Murphy and yet he has a huge negative impact on team defense as evidenced by his consistently poor APM ratings.

there is no such possibility like these guys were all average defenders and them having the worst defense in the league. someone had to be awful/terrible. it wasn't Oscar, no matter how you want to stress it.

[bastillon]

But yes, I do think Wilt is still a top five player this year. 14/25 while leading the playoffs in field goal percentage is still nothing to scoff at ito production. West and Wilt did a lot of heavy lifting to get LA as far as they did. You said yourself that NY was the bigger challenge to Boston. I tend to agree actually.

you do realize that most of his field goals were assisted as West averaged 7.5 APG, Johny Egan 3.9, Baylor 4.1 and Keith Erickson 2.2 in 25 MPG, too ? (all playoffs numbers) so Wilt probably made tons of easy shots created by his teammates and you're giving him free pass for being vastly outplayed by guy like Thurmond in the first round ?

as Nash fan I know exactly how production can vastly overvalue your actual input. see: Marion, Shawn; Stoudemire, Amare. Marion had like 3 moves, and that's including dunk and lay-up off the glass, and still scored like 23 PPG on 57% TS one year. production is one thing, but when it comes without making the difference, why would you even bother ?

and even if you do appreciate his scoring, 14 PPG is still WELL below average for those mins. assuming every position scores the same (and centers scored MORE that year), and given teams scored about 110 PPG, then average scoring for center would be about 25 PPG in Wilt's mins.

so his scoring never really impacted the game. he had rebounding, I'll give you that. but he just didn't make a difference outside of rebounding. not defense, not passing, not scoring and well, certainly not by intangibles or, IMO, quitting in G7.

[ElGee]

Oscar 9 (6 Cincy, 3 Milwaukee)
Kareem 9 (3 Milwaukee, 6 Lakers)
Magic 7
Nash 6 (3 Dallas, 3 Phoenix)
Jordan 4
Dirk 4

That is interesting. Certainly on the short list of offensive GOATs. And reminds me of this list: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7225

Bird only had one top-ranked offense, but he's right there too. Indeed, the superstars on that list go (offensive average relative to mean):
1. Nash (6.84)
2. Magic (5.65)
3. Kareem (4.40) *overlapped w/Magic
4. Dirk (4.28) *overlapped w/Nash
5. Oscar (4.28) *small overlap w/Kareem
6. Bird (4.00)
7. Barkley (3.88)
8. Payton (3.67)
9. West (3.52)
10. Allen (3.11)
11. Erving (3.05) *small overlap w/Moses
12. Jordan (3.01)
13. Drexler (2.96)
14. Shaq (2.84) *overlap w/Kobe
15. Kobe (2.76) *overlap w/Shaq
16. Gervin (2.67)
17. Moses (2.58) *small overlap w/Erving
18. Ervin Johnson (2.43). Just kidding.

No Malone/Stockton. Didn't include "No. 2's" like Amare (2nd), McHale (24th), Kemp (28th). Jordan would be 10th (3.38) without his Wizard years.

EDIT: Haha - I see Bastillon beat me to this. That's what happens when you leave "reply to post" open for hours...

I think Oscar's weakness(es) when he was younger largely fall into the area of intangibles. He was, by and large, not a pleasant guy to play with or for. The best way of putting it would be “respected rather than liked.”

Hmmm, I've heard you allude to these types of qualities before. How many players in NBA history have had these intangible qualities that really get the most out of their teammates? How many have fallen on the opposite end of the spectrum? And do you think it was easier in the period we're in to get more out of teammates in that sense than it is in today's league?

I enjoy and respect the work ElGee is putting in on Offensive and Defensive Stats prior to 1971. I'm not sold 100% on their accuracy--but I do think they provide a reasonable guideline.

Thanks. I agree completely. The farther back in time we move the less accurate the estimate of the pace becomes and the wider the confidence intervals and so forth. However, the method is a pretty good ballpark, and as always it's just something to add to a puzzle lacking many pieces. I hope people aren't too dependent on the stat-hunting sojourns I've taken, just as I hope people aren't too dependent on APM in 2010.

[Manuel Calavera]

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Bill Russell
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Willis Reed
5. Wes Unseld

[ronnymac2]

But yes, I do think Wilt is still a top five player this year. 14/25 while leading the playoffs in field goal percentage is still nothing to scoff at ito production. West and Wilt did a lot of heavy lifting to get LA as far as they did. You said yourself that NY was the bigger challenge to Boston. I tend to agree actually.

you do realize that most of his field goals were assisted as West averaged 7.5 APG, Johny Egan 3.9, Baylor 4.1 and Keith Erickson 2.2 in 25 MPG, too ? (all playoffs numbers) so Wilt probably made tons of easy shots created by his teammates and you're giving him free pass for being vastly outplayed by guy like Thurmond in the first round ?

as Nash fan I know exactly how production can vastly overvalue your actual input. see: Marion, Shawn; Stoudemire, Amare. Marion had like 3 moves, and that's including dunk and lay-up off the glass, and still scored like 23 PPG on 57% TS one year. production is one thing, but when it comes without making the difference, why would you even bother ?

and even if you do appreciate his scoring, 14 PPG is still WELL below average for those mins. assuming every position scores the same (and centers scored MORE that year), and given teams scored about 110 PPG, then average scoring for center would be about 25 PPG in Wilt's mins.

so his scoring never really impacted the game. he had rebounding, I'll give you that. but he just didn't make a difference outside of rebounding. not defense, not passing, not scoring and well, certainly not by intangibles or, IMO, quitting in G7.

He "probably" made easy shots created by teammates. That isn't enough to sway me. And I don't think he quit in game seven either. He drops 18/26 or whatever, then decides to fake an injury? I'm not buying that. His dumbass coach who clearly had problems with him didn't let him back in the game. He probably should have shoved the dude out of the way, said "I'm Wilt Chamberlain, bitch," and gotten back into the game. Wilt was too much of a good soldier. That is a fault of his, but that isn't the same as quitting. I don't think he quit. His fault isn't as bad as being a quitter.

[Doctor MJ]

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Bill Russell
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Willis Reed
5. Wes Unseld

I'd really like to hear your reasoning on Wilt at #1 this year. The Lakers basically did the same thing they did before without Wilt - don't you expect a bit more of a guy having the best year of anyone in the league?

[Doctor MJ]

I'll just chime in: Russell & West are my two top candidates. Still waiting for my epiphany putting one ahead of the other, looking increasingly likely that said epiphany will not come before I have to make my vote.

[shawngoat23]

Note: Ballot changed. Ignore this one for voting purposes.

What a deep year. It's also an especially interesting year to tackle because there are so many players with different cases. It's difficult for me to rank players based on my usual criteria of team success, accolades, intangibles, and statistics since there is relatively little agreement between those factors. It was an unusually challenging year to rank, but I came up with the following:

1. Jerry West
2. Bill Russell
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Wes Unseld
5. Oscar Robertson
HM. Willis Reed, Billy Cunningham

For example, my #1 guy (Jerry West) led his team within a bad bounce of Los Angeles' first title (team success) and provided incredible leadership, stability, and toughness for a team that needed those qualities (intangibles). But he received no MVP votes and was in fact a second-team All-NBA selection (accolades). Even the statistics are somewhat conflicting. In the regular season, he leads the league in PER but is nowhere to be found among the WS leaders. That being said, you could make a solid case that he was the best player in the regular season, and I think it is without dispute that he was the best player in the playoffs.

Bill Russell exits with his 11th championship, and the second as a player-coach. I have to admit that if I were looking at this season in a vacuum with no knowledge of who Bill Russell was, I would not have him nearly this high because his team wasn't especially dominant and neither his statistics nor accolades were particularly impressive. But when I look at everything in the context of his career--the Celtics never losing when Russell was fully healthy (save for the 1967 against arguably the GOAT team), the USF Dons going on a remarkable two-year run with Russell at the helm, the Celtics only beginning to win when Russell joined and losing after he left--and I consider how remarkable it was to beat two much more talented teams on paper (Knicks and Lakers) with a bunch of old veterans, I begin to appreciate his intangibles, which were unlike those of any player who's ever lived. I don't think I will ever be able to separate each individual season from the context of his career for the duration of the RPOY project, but I think that's precisely what made Russell such a special player. So he gets my #2 nod.

I put Wilt Chamberlain at #3. He's also someone I'm very conflicted by. I believe that WIlt was by far the most talented and dominating player to ever play the game. He was incredibly physically gifted and also extremely versatile and skilled, but I contend that he isn't nearly as mentally tough as the other greats of the game (the Jordans, Birds, Russells, Wests, etc.), and for that he "falls back" to the rest of the field as a player. Despite his incredible talents, he never "figured out" how to win the same way Bill Russell did, even when the latter had a weaker supporting cast. I believe that whereas someone like Russell brings incredible intangibles beyond his stats, Wilt brings relatively little, and for that I want to dock him, but I acknowledge that he's dominant enough to deserve no less than #3.

Some posters have said that Wilt was made a scapegoat for the shortcomings of his teams in 1968, 1969, 1970, etc. It may be unfair, but at some point, when these things happen repeatedly to the same person in the biggest stage of the game (on different teams, all very talented, with different coaches as well), I think you must acknowledge the common denominator. I think that what transcended in the final minutes of Game 7 is a huge black mark on Wilt's career when you compare him to the other greats of the game, even if his coach was an idiot, but in the end, it's not enough to drop him lower than #3.

Wes Unseld earns the #4 spot for being a poor man's Russell and winning the MVP. He's one of those guys who helps a team more than his stats would suggest. He'd be higher if his Bullets showed up stronger int he playoffs.

WIllis Reed gets my nod at #5 over several competitive candidates for leading a strong Knick squad.

[ElGee]

I feel like I'm missing something with the really high Wilt Chamberlain votes.

I scanned through the top 50 MVP Share players, and only a handful of players changed teams before their twilight years (King and Walton not included because of injury gaps, Barry because he changed leagues and missed a year). Wilt and Shaq changed twice. A crude look at those situations -- the team the star left and the new team he joined -- shows that most players do have a sizeable impact and/or leave a noticeable void.

(The efficiency figures are the change in the team's from rating from one year to the next. So, for Elvin Hayes, his old team's change from 1972 (his last year there) to 1973 (the first year without him) was -2.8 to +1.3, or an ORtg change of 4.1, and a DRtg decline from 1.6 to -2.8, -4.4 total. Simply put, they were 4.1 pts better on offense and 4.4 pts worse on defense without Hayes.)

Code: Select all

        OLD ORtg   DRtg   NEW ORtg   DRtg   NET ORtg   DRtg   *Total*   
================================================================== 
Garnett    -1.1   -2.3        6.0    9.0        7.1    11.3 |  18.4
Erving     -1.0   -3.3        5.5    5.9        6.5    9.2  |  15.7
Shaq II    -0.6   -6.9        4.8    1.8        5.4    8.7  |  14.1
Moses      -9.1   -2.2        0.9    0.8        10.0   3.0  |  13.0
Kidd        1.5   -4.5        2.5    7.5        1.0    12.0 |  13.0
Nash       -5.0    6.5        9.9    1.6        14.9  -4.9  |  10.0
Webber     -1.2   -1.2        4.7    1.0        5.9    3.0  |  8.9
Oscar       1.4   -1.7        3.3    3.5        1.9    5.2  |  7.1
Shaq I     -6.4    0.0       -2.2    2.0        4.2    2.0  |  6.2
Kareem     -1.3   -0.3        2.2    1.7        3.5    2.0  |  5.5
Barkley    -3.5   -0.9        1.4   -0.7        4.9    0.2  |  5.1
Hayes       4.1   -4.4        0.9    3.3       -3.2    7.7  |  4.5
Wilt II     0.8   -3.6       -2.0    0.9       -2.8    4.5  |  1.7
McGrady    -1.0    6.3        2.1    0.5        3.1   -5.8  | -2.7


Not worth getting into the roster turnover outside of those key players -- I imagine we all know them anyway -- but the point is all of them made some kind of impact and received high praise for it...except Tracy McGrady and Wilt Chamberlain. Wilt didn't make an all-nba team, an all-D team, or receive an MVP vote.

(Btw, Wilt's first switch was in midseason in 1965. We'll get to it then, but the change during the season to his old team and new team was nearly identically uninspiring.)

[fatal9]

1. West
2. Russell
3. Havlicek
4. Reed
5. Frazier

HM: Oscar, Unseld, Billy C, Wilt, Thurmond

[ThaRegul8r]

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Bill Russell
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Willis Reed
5. Wes Unseld

I'd really like to hear your reasoning on Wilt at #1 this year. The Lakers basically did the same thing they did before without Wilt - don't you expect a bit more of a guy having the best year of anyone in the league?

He already gave his reasoning:

I'll be putting Wilt #1 practically every year, and Russell #2. I don't buy that Russell wasn't a great player and that he's just required to be on top 5-10 lists because he won a 11 rings. He was a great great player who I think is the fourth greatest player of all-time.

He already made it known that his mind is already set, and he's doing what he said he would. There's zero rationale for putting Wilt at #1 in this particular year if we're actually looking at what happened in this year. (Interestingly enough, I gave Wilt his lone #1 vote for '71-72, a season that you could actually have made an argument based on what he actually did on the court that year.)

[bastillon]

don't bother regular, he's a homer. it's like convincing JordansBulls that someone is better than his idol, when MJ led the league in PER and WS. not possible.

elgee, I'll admit I don't understand your results fully. does it include the new team's change ?

That being said, you could make a solid case that he [Jerry West] was the best player in the regular season, and I think it is without dispute that he was the best player in the playoffs.

what case is that ? he missed 20 games and his team was 14-9 without him. meanwhile his boxscore stats don't put him at the top either (that'd be Oscar).

I'll just chime in: Russell & West are my two top candidates. Still waiting for my epiphany putting one ahead of the other, looking increasingly likely that said epiphany will not come before I have to make my vote.

don't you think that Celtics 0-5 record without Russell, Lakers 14-9 record without West, Celtics winning the title because of Russell's dominating defense over West's offense, Russell having worse supporting cast out of the two, West missing a lot more games in the RS and, on top of all of this, Russell both playing AND coaching which makes his intangibles this year insane... don't you think that's enough to sway your opinion ?

I mean really what does West have against Russell ? boxscore stats. that's all, that's it. but then Russell is merely an all-star, and you know that is not true. there's a tangible evidence Russell's impact was superstar-esque.

He "probably" made easy shots created by teammates. That isn't enough to sway me.

if he had been creating for himself then his assists would have been a lot higher. high FG%, low APG, a lot of guys on his team being high APG guys (including West who almost led the league). all logic points out to this conclusion.

you can name other historical example of player creating for himself under these circumstances. that's pretty tough challenge IMO. I've always liked reading your posts because of how you appreciated intangibles and watching these guys play. I'm now confused if your opinion isn't too much dependant on their rep. Wilt was simply nowhere near his best that year.

I don't think he quit in game seven either. He drops 18/26 or whatever, then decides to fake an injury? I'm not buying that. His dumbass coach who clearly had problems with him didn't let him back in the game. He probably should have shoved the dude out of the way, said "I'm Wilt Chamberlain, bitch," and gotten back into the game. Wilt was too much of a good soldier. That is a fault of his, but that isn't the same as quitting. I don't think he quit. His fault isn't as bad as being a quitter.

he was healthy all season long, playing close to 48 MPG, and suddenly he injures himself in the most important moment of the season, while his team is losing ? doesn't look like legit to me.

his coach wasn't that bad either. look at his '68 season. despite health issues on all of his roster, he took them to the finals when they put up a good fight against the Celtics.

Wilt - good soldier is another myth that I'm not sure where it came from. reading through old SI articles there are numerous accounts of Wilt feuding with nearly every coach. how is that supposed to be good soldier ? where's the evidence to support the notion that he changed his game to adjust to his team and not because he wanted to stat-padd assists for example (which, in fact, was what he admitted to). I'm not buying this at all.

meanwhile, I have no idea why Oscar isn't on anyone's ballot. he has the best boxscore stats out of EVERYONE (25/10/6 while shooting almost-league's best 58% TS) and his impact is undeniably great given the context ('68 season). where's the knock on the guy ? how is Havlicek even remotely comparable to this guy when neither his boxscore value wasn't anywhere close to Big O, nor his own teams performed better when he was made a leader. does anyone doubt that Celtics would vastly improve if Hondo and Oscar changed places ?

I'm not sure what to do with LA's Big Three. seems like Baylor was their best player during RS given his MVP shares, stats and record without West. admittedly he regressed badly in the playoffs, but still he was an all-star caliber player regardless... and a legit TOP10-15 player. now West was probably underachieving through RS, but in the playoffs he exploded. Wilt on the other hand didn't receive any accolades and he made no impact on the Lakers, but his boxscore stats were great, though drastically lessened in the playoffs. still, if there are 3 TOP15 players on the same team and they underachieve so much, I'd imagine I have to knock them off my list.

for example, no matter how you want to stress how bad Lakers' coaching and role players were, they still got to the finals the year before and weren't a lot worse. so West had solid cast that went to the finals and then added one of the best players in the league, admittedly overrated, but still. it hurts his value a lot as a top-notch player. his cast was pretty good and a lot better than Russell's or Oscar's.

[ThaRegul8r]

I'll just chime in: Russell & West are my two top candidates. Still waiting for my epiphany putting one ahead of the other, looking increasingly likely that said epiphany will not come before I have to make my vote.

don't you think that Celtics 0-5 record without Russell, Lakers 14-9 record without West, Celtics winning the title because of Russell's dominating defense over West's offense, Russell having worse supporting cast out of the two, West missing a lot more games in the RS and, on top of all of this, Russell both playing AND coaching which makes his intangibles this year insane... don't you think that's enough to sway your opinion ?

This. A thousand times this. If after everything that's been posted in this thread regarding this season—by both myself and others—if none of that does it, then I'm afraid I just don't know what will. And regarding the last thing bastillon said, ronnymac said that Russell "put up Jordan's 98"... but... Jordan didn't coach the team on top of everything else. No other superstar in NBA history ever did that. People just aren't considering that—to do everything Russell did for the team and then coach it as well. Go out and guard Willis Reed and Wilt Chamberlain back-to-back, and then coach the team too. Are you serious?

And another thing to add to what bastillon said, Russell was 4th in the league in MVP voting, and West was unranked. Russell played in the toughest division in the league. The top records in the league all came from the Eastern Division. The top four SRS in the league came from the Eastern Division. Wilt said, “by all logic Boston shouldn't be in the finals.” But they were. Everyone knows why.

[TrueLAfan]

I've decided to move Oscar up to #5, with considerable resevrations. So my ballot is now

1. Jerry West
2. Bill Russell
3. Wes Unseld
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Oscar Robertson

I think the Lakers drastically underachieved...but they went to game 7 of the Finals, lost by a basket, and were hampered by a bonehead move by a coach that is still considered among the most foolish NBA acts of all time. One thing I keep thinking is this: what if Van Breda Kolff had been rational in the final three and half minutes of game 7? I think there's a (much) better than even chance that the Lakers would have won. What would have been the headlines/talk/sound bites?

I think Wilt's reputation would have gone up markedly. Wilt outplayed Russell in Game 7. I think there was a mild pro-Celtics bias in the press (that, for a few years, grew after Russell retired); I think Wilt and Russell were relatively equal in the Finals going into Game 7. And I think Wilt was pretty clearly better in that final game. But Wilt had no control over Van Breda Kolff's actions in the final 200 seconds of the game, and it's a bit of a double whammy here. In terms of individual player time, it was only about three minutes. Does three minutes of non-play dictate such a substantial loss in total player value? I have a problem with that.

And I say that as someone who is being hard (well, harder than a lot of people here) on Wilt. But there are problems with the reasoning against Wilt. I absolutely think he he was less focused and committed on D this year because of his spats with his coach and personal issues in his life. I don't think he was a top 2 or 3 defensive C in the league. But the idea that he was anything less than very good, even having a lesser year, is wrong. We are talking about a mobile 7'1” shot blocker who could body up with any C in a league that had few perimeter shooting 5s. I drop Wilt in rank because I think his personal dislike of Van Breda Kolff affected his play and, while that's far from uncommon, it's just not something you should see in a Top 3 player.

I also think that Van Breda Kolff's dislike of Wilt was the prime issue behind Wilt's getting fewer shots in the postseason. The coach simply didn't want the guy who led the league in shooting in the RS and the PS getting more shots. I think Van Breda Kolff's dislike of his player was far, far more damaging that Wilt's dislike of his coach.

Wilt often said that he made the most adjustments to his game to accommodate Baylor and West. The play of the other two Lakers seems to bear this out. But I don't think he was happy with the shift—the way he was happy with McGuire choices on how Wilt should his game, or Alex Hannum's, or Bill Sharman's. So I'm not really giving him extra juice for that either.

The only other spot I'm struggling with is #5. From a statistical perspective, Bily Cunningham's shooting percentage is bad, bad, bad. But he was the team leader of a good team—and his team did not underachieve. Oscar's team was better than their record...and, at some point, the blame goes to the primary playmaker and scorer, and that's Oscar. I do think that part of that is Zucker's poor choices, however...and I'm not dinging Wilt for Van Breda Kolff being lousy. I think Van Breda Kolff was (much) worse than Zucker in 1969 and I think the Royals underacheived more (if you follow me) than the Lakers, or anyone in the league. But that's why I've got Oscar at 5 and Wilt at 4, I suppose.

I may change this back to Cunningham at the last minute. I think overuse of statistics and statistical analysis is bad and I'm essentially giving Oscar a leg up for having better individual numbers that didn't translate well into the W-L column. There have been instances where other players have overcome this issue, but most of them didn't have Jerry Lucas and Tom Van Arsdale, with a decent frontcourt and bench. I suspect I'm going have plenty of years with Oscar in the top 3 in future voting, but that's not affecting the issue at hand. I'd probably have Reed over Oscar this year as well.

[bastillon]

I think overuse of statistics and statistical analysis is bad and I'm essentially giving Oscar a leg up for having better individual numbers that didn't translate well into the W-L column. There have been instances where other players have overcome this issue, but most of them didn't have Jerry Lucas and Tom Van Arsdale, with a decent frontcourt and bench.

do you have ANYTHING to support that Royals underachieved relatively to their talent, but their record without Oscar suggests that you're severely overrating this group of guys. show me ANY talented team that goes 3-14. that's really making your statements look silly.

and then there's opinion about Lucas after his first season outside of Cincinatti which states that if Lucas played this poorly in Cincinatti then Oscar had to carry him on his back all the way to the all-star game. given that San Francisco regressed by 9 wins in Lucas' 1st season there, it's kind of reasonable opinion.

you keep saying over and over that Oscar had great support, good frontcourt and everything, but you're not providing us with anything but your personal opinion. you might just as well say that Oscar's overrated without any reasoning and the persuasive strength of your argumentation will probably stay at the same level. you've gotta be more specific, because all facts are against you.

the notion that Oscar's numbers didn't translate into wins is, after all of this discussion, ridiculous. best offense in the league, huge difference when he wasn't playing, contemporary accounts saying that with injured Oscar (whether limited or not playing at all) Royals became everybody's punching bag and then on top of it his huge impact in Milwaukee and anecdotal evidence of Kareem going and saying on the record about how great intangibles Oscar provided. if anything, Oscar's impact, very much like that of other great PGs extended way beyond the boxscore and his intangibles are UNDERrated. no evidence to the contrary.

honestly, I'm starting to think that the only reason why you're complaining about Oscar's intangibles is to make West look better, because there's nothing that could decisively change people's opinion about Big O in their debate.

[Manuel Calavera]

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Bill Russell
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Willis Reed
5. Wes Unseld

I'd really like to hear your reasoning on Wilt at #1 this year. The Lakers basically did the same thing they did before without Wilt - don't you expect a bit more of a guy having the best year of anyone in the league?

If you asked me who had the best year or accomplished the most Wilt wouldn't be #1, he may not be top 5. But my criteria has always been given one year which player gives you the best shot at a title and in this year I feel Chamberlain gives me the best shot.