Retro POY '67-68 (Voting Complete)

[Dipper 13]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/s ... rcy05.html

In his book "Values of the Game," former U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley credits Sonny Hill for helping him develop into a Hall of Fame player.

"I was, to put it bluntly, a failure," Bradley wrote. Twice a week, he commuted from New York to Philadelphia "to work on my game" in Hill's Baker League for pros.


Sports Illustrated

The Baker League quickly established itself as the country's top off-season showcase for pro basketball talent, a standing it retained for years. " Wilt Chamberlain, Guy Rodgers, Billy Cunningham, Luke Jackson, Chet Walker, Hal Greer, Wali Jones, Jim Washington, Bill Melchionni, Clifford Ray, Willis Reed, Darryl Dawkins, World B. Free, Joe Bryant—that was the Baker League," says Hill, 55, as he sits in his West Philadelphia "basketball office," a cozy, unassuming den decorated with trophies, yellowed newspaper clips and photos. "I can't even begin to name all the great players who've been in our league. Earl Monroe dropped out of an NBA tour of Japan just to come play. Of course, times have changed. The pro teams think their players will get hurt in these leagues—they see only dollars running around on the court—and it's harder for us these days. But players like Earl Monroe, Bill Bradley—these guys used to play just for the love of the game. Bill Bradley says that we saved his career."

Senator Bradley says exactly that. The former Princeton and New York Knick star remembers returning from England in 1967, upon completing his Rhodes Scholarship, and discovering that his basketball skills were badly rusted. "An abysmal failure" is how Bradley describes his rookie year in the NBA. The following summer he was working as a volunteer for the Urban League in Harlem when Hill called and invited him to come down for some Baker League competition. "I used to take the train to Philly," says Bradley. "We played in the basement of that church. I was still trying to play guard, and Sonny was very positive. He told me I could do it. That was an important summer for me in terms of restoring my confidence, getting back some of the skills I had lost, getting the chance to go against great players like Earl Monroe and Wali Jones, and, above all, making a good friend."

[Doctor MJ]

My probable final vote:

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

I've been agonizing over the Russell vs Wilt. I came into our 60s discussion sure I'd vote Wilt at #1 this year, and there was a part of me that wanted to stick with that even when I started changing my mind. I'm concerned that I'm letting myself get carried away with a particular type of thinking right now and that I'll regret this vote later, but it's pointless to not vote what you're feeling because you're afraid you're thinking wrong.

Part of what alarms me is that if I vote for Russell this year, I may end up voting for Russell 10 times and Wilt only 1 time, and that doesn't seem right. However, the purpose of this project is to look 1 year at a time. If two players are very close but the guy who comes out on top is very consistent, this project will make it look like a blowout. When doing all-time rankings a more holistic approach is warranted - but trying to tweak one's votes to make the results fit with your all-time rankings is dishonest.

I'll be continuing to listen to arguments for Wilt in this thread and in subsequent threads.

As to why I'm voting this way. My understanding previously was that Philly was the best team, and that through a combination of injury and just luck, Boston came out on top in the playoff series this time. The more I look at that, the more that seems incorrect.

The regular season series between these two teams was a 4-4 tie. Beyond that, Boston won 4 of the first 6 games, and the last two came at the end of the season when Philly had basically clinched the top spot and Boston appeared to be resting in preparation for the post-season. The previous year ('67), it's a similar story where Boston takes the series 5-4 while no one else wins more than twice against Philly. Granted Philly came out on top in the playoffs that year, but bottom line, during this whole time, Philly never could have felt they owned the Celtics. So why does it make any sense to look for excuses for Boston beating them in the playoffs?

If Wilt had played great against Boston in the series, I'd still be comfortable giving him the nod. He didn't though. I'm not trying to blame the series solely loss on him - but I don't feel comfortable with the argument that Russell won due to a drastically superior supporting cast.

There is a nice narrative in saying that this was the second year of Wilt's Russell-impression, and when he did that impression he was even better than Russell, but there's no one who would claim that Wilt this year was as impressive as he was in '67. In the end I'm left with a feeling that for Russell & Wilt, this was just another year where Russell's team came out on top when I don't see Wilt being WILT.

Something I will say: It is perhaps unfortunate that Russell-Wilt head-to-heads figure so prominently in judging Wilt. There are indications that against average teams, Wilt's teams in the later years were superior and that the Celtics championships are a reflection of the single-elimination playoff focus we have in the States. After all, you win the Premier league in England by being the best over a season - and there's no fundamental reason that that we couldn't have come to have a similar gold standards on this side of the Atlantic. In the end though, everyone here knows the ring is the thing, and because the Celtics could beat Wilt's teams almost every time they played in a series, we look at them as the great dynasty and their foes as disappointments. I have trouble looking at players with much different standards.

Oscar takes the 3rd spot. Superstar impact on a weak team.

I'm sliding Connie in at 4. In the end, I'm convinced that I'd rather have Connie than Baylor or Havlicek, and West did miss a lot of time.

West grabs the last spot. The bottom line is that like in '69, the Lakers got to the finals, and their best player in the playoffs was West easily. What about Baylor getting them to the playoffs? Well, as long as the Lakers had won 24 games this year, they'd have been in the playoffs. The big accomplishments this year that people remember are the playoff run.

Honorable Mention

The aforementioned Baylor.

Hondo. Hondo I actually feel bad about leaving off. I can definitely see a case for him over West. In the end though, if Hondo didn't have a significantly more valuable teammate, the Lakers win the title this year with West as the star.

[ThaRegul8r]

I'm still gonna put down West's games. But I was going over my notes on Wilt this year, and I noticed something I'd previously missed, despite having read Wilt numerous times before, and despite having posted this very quote in this thread:

After that three-game splurge in mid-December, I only had one other game all season where I scored more than 40 points. That game was against Los Angeles in the last week of the regular season. I got 53 points—and I wanted every one of them; I’d pretty much decided I’d like to play for the Lakers the next season, if possible, and I wanted to show them I could still score—just in case they had any doubts.

Wait...the regular season is winding down and you're about to enter the playoffs to try to defend your title and you've ALREADY decided you want to play for the Lakers next season? So, wanting to impress them, you drop 53 on them to make the idea of having you on their side more appealing.

But what happens if the 76ers had repeated??? He'd already made up his mind he wanted to play for the Lakers if there was any chance he could? So he would have walked away from the back-to-back NBA champions had they won? Left his teammates and robbed them of the opportunity to defend their title again? People talk about the possibility of the 76ers becoming a dynasty, but according to Wilt himself, he already wanted to go to the Lakers if it was at all possible long before what happened in the Eastern Division Finals ever took place. I'd never even noticed this myself before. I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this.

[TrueLAfan]

I'm going with

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Bill Russell
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Connie Hawkins
5. Elgin Baylor

I know the Hawkins pick looks funny, but I can't shake the idea that he's better at this point in the ABA than he was in the NBA, and he was awfully good in the NBA. And he won a title in the ABA this year, and was even better (30 ppg on 59% shooting!) in the post season. So that leaves Elgin at #5.

[ThaRegul8r]

Putting this here. Trying to find the six games ElGee couldn't account for.

1/25/68, West breaks nose in 118-116 win over Royals.

1/26/68 – 118-112 W @ Boston. “Baylor scored 24 of his 35 points in the first half as the Lakers broke a 76-76 tie in the third period, outscoring the Celtics 9-2” (Lawrence Journal-World, Jan. 27, 1968).
1/27/68 – 125-119 L @ Detroit. Dave DeBusschere leads Detroit with 33, Dave Bing has 23.

Would have been simple if the six games were in this stretch, but West plays 1/28 with broken nose and scores 22 points in 128-113 W over St. Louis.

3/3/68 – 121-114 W over Baltimore. “Once again the Lakers won their seventh straight without the services of the injured Jerry West who missed his fifth consecutive game and 23rd of the season” (LA Times, Mar. 4, 1968).

This is his 23rd missed game of this season, and since he missed 31 total, there are eight misses after this point.

3/6/68 – 112-96 L over St. Louis. [7 misses left]
3/7/68 – 119-102 W @ San Diego. San Diego center Henry Finkel scored a career-high 42 points in defeat. Baylor led LA with 35, Archie Clark had 28. “For the Rockets, who have won just 15 times in 76 games, the loss was their 29th at home, tying an NBA record set by the 1964-65 San Francisco Warriors. Earlier this season, the Rockets lost 17 straight, which tied a league mark held by those same Warriors” (The Tuscaloosa News, Mar. 7, 1968) [6 misses left]
3/8/68 – 130-122 W @ San Diego. [Five misses left]

Nice work. So West missed 2 games from March 9 to March 16, but who knows which two.

Let's see.

?) 3/9/68 - 137-132 OT W @ San Francisco.
?) 3/10/68 - 119-89 L to Baltimore.
?) 3/13/68 - 142-106 W over San Francisco.
?) 3/15/68 - 123-112 W over New York.
?) 3/16/68 - 135-108 W over Detroit.

Can't find the 3/9 game.

3/13, “West played 19 minutes against the Warriors in the 142-106 rout” (LA Times, Mar. 15, 1968). “Jerry West returned to the Los Angeles line-up after missing nine games with a pulled muscle but was held to nine points. However, Elgin Baylor and Archie Clark took up the slack with 25 and 20 points as the Lakers routed San Francisco 78-45 in the opening half” (Gadsen Times, Mar. 14, 1968). We can scratch that one. LA Times headline: “Injuries May Force West to Quit Lakers.” “Jerry West has lived with injuries during his eight-year NBA career. However, he indicated Thursday he may not put up with them much longer” (LA Times, Mar. 15, 1968).

3/15, LA beats NY 123-112, Baylor with 37 on 14-for-18 shooting (77.8%). Did West play? No mention.

3/16, “Things were rather uneventful Saturday night at the Forum. There were no bomb scares, Jerry West didn't re-injure his tender nose and the Lakers weren't even extended by their opponent, the Detroit Pistons” (LA Times, Mar. 17, 1968). There wouldn't have been an opportunity for West to re-injure his nose if he didn't play. We can scratch this off.

That leaves these three games:

?) 3/9/68 - 137-132 OT W @ San Francisco.
?) 3/10/68 - 119-89 L to Baltimore.
?) 3/15/68 - 123-112 W over New York.

Unfortunately, I cannot check the first game, as it's unavailable.

[ElGee]

Nice work. So West missed 2 games from March 9 to March 16, but who knows which two.

As for the other 28 games we now have:

w/out West: 115.6 ppg 114.1 opp ppg
with West: 124.1 ppg 116.3 ppg

For the typically sound Jerry West number of +6.4.
------
For 68 and 69 combined (49 missed games):

w/out West: 112.6 ppg 111.6 opp ppg
with West: 118.6 ppg 111.9 opp ppg

+5.7 with West. (missing 3 games)

[Sedale Threatt]

1. Chamberlain. There are just too many contributing factors for me to shoulder any more than partial blame on him for Philly's choke job. He didn't play as well as he could or probably should have, but neither did he get outplayed.

As one of the aforementioned articles asserted, it wasn't even that Boston played all that great. The Sixers -- the Sixers -- just blew it. He was clearly the best player in the game at this point, the repeat MVP, and I think he built enough of a lead during the RS to withstand his subpar performance against Boston. Call it a prequel to LeBron, 2010.

2. Russell. Great, as usual. But it seems like his strongest asset is Philly's choke job. I'm not reading any especially strong cases for him, as opposed to criticisms of Wilt. In politics, that's known as negative campaigning. And if your case isn't strong enough to stand on it's own, what does that say?

3. Robertson. Another brilliant season spoiled by a crap team. This will be a constant refrain for the remainder of his career.

4. Havlicek. I have a have a major problem leaving Hondo off for anyone, let alone Hawkins. I know, I know -- Hawkins was good. But you simply have to find a spot, somewhere, for arguably the best all-around wing in the game, an elite defender who was averaging a near triple-double at one point during the Philly series, went off for 40 during the Finals clincher and gave relentless effort every single night.

5. Baylor. West was better, but missed way too much time. That hasn't been priority for me in this project, but 31 games is way too many. Frankly, I'm surprised he's even a candidate for most considering even 20 games missed has been more than enough to knock other guys off in previous years.

Hawkins -- The numbers are great, and we know he went on to prove himself in the NBA. But I look over some of his contemporaries in the ABA at this point, and it's just...blah. Who are half these guys? Like second-team All-ABA forward Cincinnatus Powell. Who?

[Doctor MJ]

He was clearly the best player in the game at this point, the repeat MVP, and I think he built enough of a lead during the RS to withstand his subpar performance against Boston. Call it a prequel to LeBron, 2010.

2. Russell. Great, as usual. But it seems like his strongest asset is Philly's choke job. I'm not reading any especially strong cases for him, as opposed to criticisms of Wilt. In politics, that's known as negative campaigning. And if your case isn't strong enough to stand on it's own, what does that say?

A couple points here that made me think, so I thought I'd share.

I am someone who voted for LeBron at #1 this year, so if I felt the situation were the same with Wilt this year, that would be contradictory.

The big thing for me is that I end up feeling like the appearance of the regular season is an illusion. The Celtics did fine against the 76ers all year long, so the 76ers losing isn't because something miraculously changed. This makes it hard for me to think of Wilt having a "lead" over Russell, because it essentially means giving Wilt the nod based on what his team did against everyone except the Celtics, which seems bizarre to me because come the Eastern Conference final between these two clubs, their ability to defeat each other is all anyone cares about - and it seems clear that the Celtics getting to that point was inevitable.

Re: Negative campaign. It's an interesting point, and it's something that I've noticed before that when we do player comparisons we tend to spend a lot of time just torching Player B. I can't say I think that there's nothing more to it than that though - clearly Wilt is a fascinating figure who inspires tons of discussion.

However, let's be clear, Russell gets attacked generally in player comparisons all the time. He's arguably the only figure more polarizing than Wilt. In such discussions, I say a ton of positive things about Russell. Why are we not seeing them here? Well largely because we already had the big discussion about Russell in the previous thread. A variety of people said tremendous things about him in that thread, and it all still applies here. The change this year that people need to get their head around is most definitely Wilt, because his candidacy this year is very much different from in previous threads - so it makes perfect sense that people would speak mostly of their opinion on Wilt, because they are trying to map him into the context they've already been developing.

[ElGee]

To echo that, I have an established amount of value (think God Points) for Russell based on the discussion from the 1969 thread. From there, it's just a matter of adjusting that up or down a little depending on whether I think a given year was better/worse. I see him as a consistent player, so that's my approach.

Wilt almost demands a year-by-year look, although I see 67 and 68 closely linked in terms of style, at least. So for me, I see this as a down year of sorts from Russell in the regular season. And Wilt brought it defensively -- not the way Russell could, but that's a huge factor in jumping Wilt into Russell's ballpark -- so I've been leaning toward Wilt.

My reservations about voting Wilt are not necessarily because of some collapse or the bizarre G7 circumstances, but that Russell did all those little things, especially as a coach, to win in the postseason, and apparently didn't value the end of the regular season as much. I'm not going to vote for Russ over WIlt because Boston won, nor would I vote the other way simply if Philly won. I'm also not going to vote for Russ because "Wilt had a better team and still lost," which is a tempting trap, but it's predicated to heavily on head-to-head matchup and just plain variance/luck. Basically, if we were voting in May of 1968 for best player, I think it'd be really close and could see an argument either way, which makes voting on this in 2010 *really* hard.

[fatal9]

1. Russell
2. West - Russell vs. Wilt vs. West was close. Gave Russell the nod after reading the posts/recaps here. I feel West was defeated while Wilt lost. There's a big difference in that to me. As I've mentioned before, I don't penalize players for missed regular season time as much as others, especially if they step up in the playoffs like West did. 31/5/6 on 60 TS% in the playoffs, and I believe he was playing with an ankle injury in the finals too.
3. Wilt - discussed earlier
4. Oscar - close with Hondo, but he's just a better player in a less fortunate situation. The fact that his team collapsed without him showed me enough impact to put him here (similar situation to Kareem in '75 voting, but maybe even more impressive because teams don't have as wild of swings in w/l after losing a perimeter player when compared to losing a center).
5. Havlicek - probably would have won finals MVP. Had great playoff numbers (lead Celtics in scoring, assists, second in rebounding and stepped up at key moments), was instrumental in bringing Celtics back from the 3-1 hole vs. Sixers, and closed out the Lakers in the finals with a 40/10/7 game.

HM: Baylor, Bing, Wilkens, Hawkins

[shawngoat23]

When I was younger, well before RealGM, I would get my basketball from the local library. Those books were pretty much old (the "newest" ones were published in the early 1970s), but it exposed me to some of the names of the 60's legends. So I believed like many still do that Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest player of his era--if not of all time--but that Bill Russell was the greatest winner because he had such a stacked team.

On one level, I think that argument is true. But 1968 and 1969 are two seasons that undermine that notion, because even with an injured Billy Cunningham, I'd say Wilt had at least as good a supporting cast as Russell (if not better). And both years, Russell's Celtics emerged triumphant.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Wilt is the more talented, more skilled, and more influential player. But there is also no doubt in my mind that Chamberlain would not have won 11 rings even in Russell's place, whereas I believe Russell would have won at least two rings (probably more) in Wilt's place. To a certain extent, I let the legacies over they built over their careers influence how I vote in each year, which I try not to do for the RPOY project; but on the other hand, those intangibles are so essential to who Russell was and to his ability to match Chamberlain on the court, so I can't exactly separate those aspects either.

In any case, my logic is as follows. The Sixers went into the season with the goal of defending their championship (Chamberlain also had various other goals, such as leading the league in assists, but even despite the fact that he sometimes has misplace priorities, I would still contend that his main goal was to win the championship). The Celtics' only goal was to reclaim the championship. Russell led his Celtics to the championship, defeating Wilt's more talented Sixers squad in the process.

I do acknowledge that Chamberlain was statistically much more productive, that he was significantly more dominant during the regular season, and that his team performed better during the regular season; and if I knew nothing about these two players, I'd be inclined to vote Chamberlain first. On the other hand, what inherently makes Bill Russell so great are his intangibles and his winning. Normally, the former is difficult to quantify and it is often unclear how much a player contributes to the latter, which is why I'll relegate these factors to secondary (almost "tiebreaker" status). But Russell's proven his value in that regard many times over in his career to the point I'm confident that it's no fluke, and as such, I feel comfortable weighing it more heavily.

So in summary, Russell plays Chamberlain to roughly a standstill in the pivotal ECF. His less talented team upsets a stacked Sixers squad (even without Cunningham) and goes onto win the championship. Wilt plays extremely well but for whatever reason, is unable to exert his influence in the game's deciding moments. I'm inclined to believe that Russell's intangibles made the difference and vote accordingly:

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain

But no one else is close.

3. Oscar Robertson - Statistically productive, as always, and some of the posts by other judges have convinced me of his importance to his offense. I would have liked to see more team success, so this selection is with some reservation.
4. John Havlicek - For all the praise I heap on Russell, he wouldn't have 11 rings without the likes of Havlicek.
5. Jerry West - West would have been my #3 if he had played more minutes in the regular season, but even with the time he missed due to injury, he still had a higher WS than Elgin Baylor, who would have made my top 5 otherwise. Plus, he stepped up his game in an incredible way as he always does in the playoffs.

[ThaRegul8r]

Guess I'm gonna be the only guy to point out that Oscar Robertson became the first player in NBA history to lead the league in points per game and assists per game in the same season this year. It's disappointing that three people referenced Tiny Archibald doing it in 1972-73, yet not one mention of Oscar doing the exact same thing five years earlier—it's not his fault the NBA waited until 1969-70 to change the league leader requirements from totals to per game averages.

Oh, BTW, he also led the league in free throw percentage as well, so he's the only man in NBA history to lead the league in points per game, assists per game and free throw percentage in the same season.

[ThaRegul8r]

1. Bill Russell. 12.5 points, 18.6 rebounds (3rd [behind Chamberlain (23.8), Jerry Lucas (19.0)]), 4.6 assists in 37.9 minutes per game. Second in the league in defensive win shares, and Boston’s defensive was second in the league behind Philadelphia.

In the postseason averaged 14.4 points, 22.8 rebounds (2nd [to Chamberlain (24.7)]) and 5.2 assists (7th) in 45.7 minutes per game (3rd [behind Wilt Chamberlain (48.5) and Walt Bellamy (46.2)). Led postseason in minutes (869) and total rebounds (434), finished second in assists (99). Set NBA Finals record with most minutes played in a six-game series, with 292 (48.7 per game).

Comment: It's been said that the strongest case for Russell was Philadelphia's choke job rather than anything he did. People don't see the 17 points and 31 rebounds in Game 6 outplaying Chamberlain; that his strategy was key to the comeback as he thought about how to win; no one mentions Russell not letting the team feel that it was hopeless, that they could come back from 1-3 down, but take it a game at a time—win the next game, then the next game, then the next game. And they did it—it'd never been done before. Imagine the confidence of the team after having done the unprecedented; no one mentions what Robert Cherry said: “Yes, they shot poorly, but Boston’s defense, in particular Russell’s, had something to do with it. Russell blocked 10 shots and intimidated the 76ers on God knows how many others. The poor shooting against Boston was no aberration,” or that the 76ers shot 40 percent against Boston the whole year as opposed to 50 percent against everyone else but their offense suddenly went south rather than Boston ratcheting up the D; no one mentions the three crucial plays made by Russell in the final minute of Game 7 (probably because no one knows about them): a big free throw he hit, a clutch block of Chet Walker who he expressly focused on containing, or grabbing a big rebound (“Russell was the best clutch rebounder this game has ever seen,” Chamberlain said of Russell); no one mentions playing a record 292 minutes in the Finals; the near quadruple-double in Game 3; the game-saving block on Baylor in Game 5—blocked to Don Nelson (always to a teammate instead of out of bounds), which forced the Lakers to foul and ended the game (with 22 points and 25 rebounds). No, Russell didn't do anything to be deserving.

My criteria is doing whatever your team needs to win, whatever it may be. No one else did that better.


2. Wilt Chamberlain. 24.3 points on 59.5 percent shooting (1st), 23.8 rebounds (1st) and 8.6 assists in 46.8 minutes per game (1st). Led the league in PER (24.7), defensive win shares (10.7), anchoring the league’s best defense (est. 92.1 DRtg), win shares (20.4) and win shares per 48 minutes (.255). NBA Most Valuable Player.

In the postseason averaged 23.7 points (8th) on 53.4 percent shooting (6th), 24.7 rebounds (led playoffs) and 6.5 assists (4th [behind Lenny Wilkens (7.8), John Havlicek (7.5), and Al Attles (7.0)]) in 48.5 minutes per game (led playoffs). Led playoffs in defensive win shares (1.6), second in total rebounds (321), third in PER (22.7 [behind Jerry West (25.1) and Elgin Baylor (23.0)]), fourth in win shares per 48 minutes (.191). Averaged 20.7 points on 41.2 percent shooting and 42.7 percent true shooting in the last three games of the Eastern Division Finals.

Comment: My criteria for players is that they do what the team needs to win. I don't care HOW they do it, just THAT they do it. I'm concerned with what a player does that is within his control. A player will not be penalized for having a Westian game in which they did everything humanly possible. Wilt didn't have a Westian game. Hell, he didn't have a Bingian game (more on that later). He didn't do everything that it was within his own power to do. Since he's the MVP, he should have done so. He could step up in the regular season in meaningless games when it meant proving a sportswriter wrong, or impressing a team you want to go to next year when you should be worrying about defending the title. I cannot in good conscience vote such a player #1. Stats mean nothing if they don't result in wins. Fortunately, a season is upcoming in which he meets my criteria with flying colors.


3. Oscar Robertson. 29.2 points (1st) on 50.0 percent shooting (6th), 87.3 percent shooting from the line (1st) and 58.8 percent true shooting (2nd [to West (.590)]), 6.0 rebounds, 633 assists (3rd [behind Chamberlain (702) and Lenny Wilkens (679)]), 9.7 assists per game (1st) in 42.5 minutes per game (3rd [behind Chamberlain (46.8) and Lucas (44.1)]). First player in NBA history to lead the league in points per game and assists per game in the same season. Nate “Tiny” Archibald led the league in scoring and assists with 34.0 ppg and 11.4 apg in 1972-73 because the league changed its requirements for league leaders from totals to per game averages in 1969-70. Also led league in free-throw percentage, becoming the only man in NBA history to lead the league in points per game, assists per game and free-throw percentage in the same season. Led league in offensive win shares (11.1) and finished second (to Wilt Chamberlain) in PER (24.6), win shares (12.3), and win shares per 48 minutes (.214). 5th in MVP voting.

Comment: Missed 17 games, and the Royals were 3-14 in those games. Obviously it was what he was doing that won games for the team, because they were "a punching bag" without him.


4. Elgin Baylor. 26.0 points (3rd [behind Oscar Robertson (29.2) and Dave Bing (27.1)]), 12.2 rebounds (9th) and 4.6 assists (10th) in 39,3 minutes per game (6th). Fifth in PER (20.7). First Team All-NBA, Third in MVP voting.

In the postseason averaged 28.5 points (2nd [to Jerry West (30.8)]), 14.5 rebounds (6th) and 4.0 assists in 42.2 minutes per game (8th). Second in PER (23.0 [to Jerry West (25.1)]), third in rebounds (218), fourth in defensive win shares (0.8) and minutes (633), fifth in win shares (1.9).

Comment: The Lakers still won when West was out, and had the fourth-best record in the league despite West's 31 missed games. Baylor did what needed to be done for the Lakers to win even without West. That's what it's all about. Everything else is window dressing.


5. John Havlicek. 20.7 points (.429 FG%, .486 TS%), 6.7 rebounds and 4.7 assists (9th in the league) in 35.6 minutes per game. Third in defensive win shares (4.9). Second Team All-NBA.

In the postseason averaged 25.9 points (4th in the playoffs [behind Jerry West (30.8), Elgin Baylor (28.5), and Dave Bing (28.2)]) on .452 FG%, .521 TS%, 8.6 rebounds and 7.5 assists in 45.4 minutes per game (4th [behind Chamberlain (48.5), Bellamy (46.2) and Russell (45.7)]). Led playoffs in field goal attempted (407) and made (184), assists (142), second in minutes (862), free throws made (125), win shares (2.8), and offensive win shares (1.8), third in free throw attempts (151) and defensive win shares (1.1), fourth in minutes per game. Averaged 27.3 points in the NBA Finals. Would have been NBA Most Valuable Player had the award existed.


HONORABLE MENTIONS

Connie Hawkins. 26.8 points (led ABA) on 51.9 percent shooting (2nd) and 59.7 percent true shooting (led ABA), 13.5 rebounds (2nd) and 4.6 assists in 44.9 minutes (led ABA). ABA MVP. Led ABA in PER (28.8), win shares (17.9), offensive win shares (13.7) and win shares per 48 minutes (.273). In postseason averaged 29.9 points (led playoffs) on 59.4 percent shooting (led playoffs), 12.3 rebounds and 4.6 assists in 44.0 minutes per game. ABA Playoffs MVP.


Jerry West. 26.8 points on 51.4 percent shooting and 59.0 percent true shooting (1st in the league), 5.8 rebounds and 6.1 assists in 37.6 minutes per game. Second Team All-NBA. In the postseason averaged 30.8 points (led playoffs) on 52.7 percent shooting and 49.6 percent true shooting (3rd), 5.4 rebounds and 5.5 assists in 41.5 minutes per game. Led playoffs in PER (25.1), win shares (3.6), offensive win shares (3.1), win shares per 48 minutes (.278), free throws attempted (169) and made (132); second in points (462), third in assists (82).

Comment: I queried how much I should penalize for missed games in the last season we covered. Here, West missed 37.8 percent of the season. At some point, games played have to count for something. Baylor played 77 games, led the Lakers to a winning record while West was out, and was great in the postseason as well. Baylor gets the nod.


Dave Bing. 27.1 points (2nd in the league [to Oscar Robertson (29.2)]), 4.7 rebounds and 6.4 assists (4th [behind Robertson (9.7), Chamberlain (8.6), and Lenny Wilkens (8.3)]) in 40.6 minutes per game (4th [behind Chamberlain (46.8), Jerry Lucas (44.1) and Robertson (42.5)]). Led league in points (2.142). Fourth in MVP voting. In the postseason averaged 28.2 points, 4.0 rebounds and 4.8 assists in 42.3 minutes per game. Scored 44 points in the deciding game against the Boston Celtics, 37 in the second half.

Comment: How is ronnymac the only person who commented on Bing's performance against the Celtics? 44 points in the elimination game? 37 in the second half? This is an MVP-type performance. You can't blame Bing for Detroit losing, as he gave it his all. Had Wilt—the actual MVP—played like this in his elimination game, then the people who say it isn't his fault would be justified in putting Wilt #1. He didn't. Bing definitely deserves Honorable Mention. Fourth in the MVP voting during the regular season and played like it in the elimination game against the eventual champs.


Hal Greer. 24 points (6th in the league), 5.4 rebounds and 5.1 assists in 39.8 minutes per game (5th). Fourth in win shares (11.2), eighth in offensive win shares and defensive win shares. Second Team All-NBA. In postseason averaged 25.8 points, 6.1 rebounds and 4.2 assists in 42.5 minutes per game. Scored series-high 40 points in Game 6 of the Eastern Division Finals against Boston.


Lenny Wilkens. 20.0 points, 5.3 rebounds and 8.3 assists (3rd in the league [behind Robertson (9.7) and Chamberlain (8.6)]) in 38.6 minutes per game. Second in MVP voting. (Yet didn’t make an All-NBA Team. ) In postseason averaged 18.3 points, 6.3 rebounds and 7.8 assists (led playoffs) in 39.5 minutes per game.

[Sedale Threatt]

1. Wilt had, what, 14 and 34 in the final game? Have to assume he had his share of blocks as well. So no, that's not getting outplayed -- although that is clearly a great game by Russell. Same with the near-quadruple double. Insanity.

2. There's the Cherry passage. Then you have this, from ElGee's earlier post: Not to denigrate Boston's efforts, but the fact is the series with Philadelphia was extremely close most of the way and was decided in the end when the 76ers suddenly, unaccountably, forgot how to shoot. In the second half of the fifth game they started missing, and they never stopped missing.

3. Nobody ever seems to want to acknowledge that Wilt was seemingly dragging himself around on one leg out there. Russell himself even talked about it. And his supporting cast basically collapsed. Yet Philly still had a shot to win Game 7.

That happens, we aren't even having a discussion here. I mean, it's not even debatable. So that kind of sticks in the craw a little bit. Team results obviously matter an absolute ton, but a player's case should be able to stand just a little bit stronger than that, in my opinion.

[Optimism Prime]

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Oscar Robertson
4. John Havlicek
5. Elgin Baylor

HM: Jerry West, Connie Hawkins

[Doctor MJ]

Last call guys.

[ThaRegul8r]

1. Wilt had, what, 14 and 34 in the final game? Have to assume he had his share of blocks as well.

Uh... why do we "have to assume" anything? Why don't we go with looking at the evidence and seeing what that said rather than going on baseless conjecture? No account of the game says anything about blocks. Robert Cherry, a Wilt biographer said nothing about blocks. The Wilt biographer would have noted it had it happened. Why would he leave anything favorable about Wilt out when he's writing about Wilt?

2. There's the Cherry passage. Then you have this, from ElGee's earlier post: Not to denigrate Boston's efforts, but the fact is the series with Philadelphia was extremely close most of the way and was decided in the end when the 76ers suddenly, unaccountably, forgot how to shoot. In the second half of the fifth game they started missing, and they never stopped missing.

Why are we not looking at all the evidence rather than just the part that will support what we believe? Accounts of the game at the time also said, “Philadelphia Coach Alex Hannum called it a 'hard-fought game.' Hannum also gave credit where credit was due. 'You must give credit to their defense.'”

Against the other NBA teams the 76ers shot almost 50 percent during the season; against Boston, only 40.

Why are we acting like this is some isolated incident? And evidently Wilt forgot how to shoot too, seeing how he shot 41.2 percent the last three games.

3. Nobody ever seems to want to acknowledge that Wilt was seemingly dragging himself around on one leg out there.

I saw no mention of West playing with an injury and dropping 42/13/12 in Game 7 of the Finals in the last year we covered. And looking back, I saw no acknowledgment of McHale playing through a postseason with a broken foot. Zero mention from anyone about Isiah scoring 25 in a quarter in Game 6 of the Finals on a sprained ankle. Not even an Honorable Mention. Why is this? Why is the standard not being applied equally to everyone whenever it applies rather than selectively?

[Sedale Threatt]

Uh... why do we "have to assume" anything? Why don't we go with looking at the evidence and seeing what that said rather than going on baseless conjecture? No account of the game says anything about blocks. Robert Cherry, a Wilt biographer said nothing about blocks. The Wilt biographer would have noted it had it happened. Why would he leave anything favorable about Wilt out when he's writing about Wilt?

I don't know...maybe because he was arguably the most prolific shot blocker of his era? But fine, take it out -- that's still not getting outplayed.

Why are we not looking at all the evidence rather than just the part that will support what we believe?

Just throwing it back out there, man. Obviously, you have to give Boston a substantial measure of credit. At the same time, there was at least one observer who thought Philly's poor marksman ship had at least something to do with it. I mean, if we're looking at all the evidence, wouldn't you want that?

I saw no mention of West playing with an injury and dropping 42/13/12 in Game 7 of the Finals. And looking back, I saw no acknowledgment of McHale playing through a postseason with a broken foot. Zero mention from anyone about Isiah scoring 25 in a quarter in Game 6 of the Finals on a sprained ankle. Not even an Honorable Mention. Why is this? Why is the standard not being applied equally to everyone whenever it applies rather than selectively?

From Bill Russell himself: "His leg is hurting him. Everybody knows. A lesser man probably wouldn't be out there."

In the sake of looking at all the evidence, surely this deserves mention? Especially considering the source?

[ThaRegul8r]

Uh... why do we "have to assume" anything? Why don't we go with looking at the evidence and seeing what that said rather than going on baseless conjecture? No account of the game says anything about blocks. Robert Cherry, a Wilt biographer said nothing about blocks. The Wilt biographer would have noted it had it happened. Why would he leave anything favorable about Wilt out when he's writing about Wilt?

I don't know...maybe because he was arguably the most prolific shot blocker of his era?

That doesn't mean Wilt (or Russell) had "a fair share of blocks" in every single game they played. We can't just give them blocks when the evidence doesn't support it. I'll point out that I said:

“Celtics player-Coach Bill Russell scored 12 points, grabbed 26 rebounds, and blocked countless shots in what Chamberlain and other 76ers described as a magnificent performance” (Tuscaloosa News, Apr. 17, 1968) [Robert Cherry said he had 10, though I haven't found any corroboration yet]

I looked for corroboration from the evidence. I didn't "assume" anything, despite Russell being known for blocks.

Why are we not looking at all the evidence rather than just the part that will support what we believe?

Just throwing it back out there, man. Obviously, you have to give Boston a substantial measure of credit. At the same time, there was at least one observer who thought Philly's poor marksman ship had at least something to do with it. I mean, if we're looking at all the evidence, wouldn't you want that?

I posted a quote from the recap that said Philadelphia went cold when the recap stated so, and I also posted quotes about the Boston defense having something to do with it.

I saw no mention of West playing with an injury and dropping 42/13/12 in Game 7 of the Finals. And looking back, I saw no acknowledgment of McHale playing through a postseason with a broken foot. Zero mention from anyone about Isiah scoring 25 in a quarter in Game 6 of the Finals on a sprained ankle. Not even an Honorable Mention. Why is this? Why is the standard not being applied equally to everyone whenever it applies rather than selectively?

From Bill Russell himself: "His leg is hurting him. Everybody knows. A lesser man probably wouldn't be out there."

In the sake of looking at all the evidence, surely this deserves mention? Especially considering the source?

You completely sidestepped my query as to why you didn't do this for West in '69 (which we just covered), Isiah in '88, or McHale in '87. I searched. EDIT: I see no mention of Kareem's Game 5 in '80, either. I ask again: why was this standard not equally applied to whomever it applied to rather than selectively. I wouldn't have a problem had you mentioned other players in instances it applied? The fact that there was nary a mention, however, leaves me somewhat skeptical.

[ElGee]

My 1968 POY Ballot:

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Bill Russell
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Jerry West
5. Elgin Baylor

I'm still torn about the top spot. Not sure where to go for tiebreakers. I thought about giving Russell the nod based on Chamberlain's nagging injury -- as Sedale said, he was "dragging himself around." That's not good. He also, mostly due to the end of that series, had a decline in his offense again. I'm really flipping a coin here and giving Wilt the nod based a fantastic regular season. It's nagging me though because I do buy into the notion that all of Wilt's controversial uniqueness that has been hyper-analyzed makes him less likely to win and Russell's made him more likely, and that might have literally been the difference in their playoff series. Maybe. (Russell's always sparking the key rally or making the key block(s), while it's hard to find Wilt sparking a key rally or scoring the key basket.)

Third place was clearly between Oscar and West. I'm inclined to say that their race is about as close as Wilt's and West's. What a season. In my estimation, West was a shade better this year. Even more than a shade better. I also don't think either of these guys were too far behind Wilt and Russell. Injuries were the determining factor: O missed 17 games, West an enormous 31 games. In this case, I think the 14 extra games matter if you have Oscar Robertson.

The last spot I wavered on quite a bit. Lenny Wilkens was second in MVP voting, but I see no evidence that he's in the class of these players. The Hawks SRS was only 2.4 and it's not like Wilkens was surrounded by garbage. Dave Bing again feels underrated by this crowd, and I think his scoring and overall offensive abilities aren't really appreciated. Still, not as good as his 71 season and not good enough to make the list. Connie Hawkins has a reasonable case based on the stories and logic. I think we all buy that he was better in 1968 than in his rookie NBA season. Still, it was too fuzzy for me to give the nod to a player based on 1968 ABA competition. Lew Alcindor's probably better than rest as well in 1968.

That left Baylor or Havlicek. I just don't see Hondo the same way a lot of this panel does. He's a solid defensive player -- uses his body well, smart and works hard -- but he's clearly not Satch Sanders there. Offensively, he's sort of a precursor to the Reggie Miller-type. Constant motion, great shooter whose looking for an inch, will use that motion to find driving angles/backcut to the hoop, and he's a good passer to boot. But Havlicek didn't have a 3-point line, and shooting 38% on long bombs doesn't up his TS% it hurts it. Hondo's best asset is how clutch he is. Time and time again we keep reading "Havlicek made the key shot" or "Havlicek led all scorers in the decisive game." The result was a huge playoffs in 1968, a marvelous G7 of the Finals and enough to bring him near the top of this tier of players.

In the end, Elgin Baylor's regular season and playoffs were still enough to take him over Havlicek. I think Elgin's a better No. 1 option at this point than Havlicek, as he showcased to a degree without West. LA went 19-9 in the 28 games I can find w/out West. I'm not sure a team of that quality could do that with Havlicek in his place. Apparently, knees are overrated.

Is every season in the 60s going to be like this?