Retro POY '67-68 (Voting Complete)

[Manuel Calavera]

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.

It should be obvious shouldn't it? When you question Wilt's heart and desire and bring up this series as an example to slander him it's extremely relevant that he was injured.

[ThaRegul8r]

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.

It should be obvious shouldn't it? When you question Wilt's heart and desire and bring up this series as an example to slander him it's extremely relevant that he was injured.

Right. I'm trying to "slander" Wilt because I have some agenda against him.



I gave him his lone #1 vote in 1971-72, and I was writing posts like this in defense of Wilt:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226

long before you were even a member of this board.

[Manuel Calavera]

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.

It should be obvious shouldn't it? When you question Wilt's heart and desire and bring up this series as an example to slander him it's extremely relevant that he was injured.

Right. I'm trying to "slander" Wilt because I have some agenda against him.



I gave him his lone #1 vote in 1971-72, and I was writing posts like this in defense of Wilt:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226

long before you were even a member of this board.

You completely sidestepped my query

[ThaRegul8r]

Right. I'm trying to "slander" Wilt because I have some agenda against him.



I gave him his lone #1 vote in 1971-72, and I was writing posts like this in defense of Wilt:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226

long before you were even a member of this board.

You completely sidestepped my query

Ah. Parroting me again, as you did in the '69-70 thread:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1048389&start=60

No originality. And you evidently don't even know what "query" means, because you didn't pose a question to me.

I point out to the mods for the record that Manuel Calavera is deliberately attempting to antagonize me again, for some inexplicable reason known only to him. It started with the parroting before he went into the "Adolph" bit.

You're incapable of "pushing my buttons," so it's a futile endeavor.

[Doctor MJ]

'67-68 Results

Code: Select all

Player             1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts   POY Shares
1. Wilt Chamberlain  9   6   1   0   0 137   0.856
2. Bill Russell      6   9   6   0   1 124   0.775
3. Oscar Robertson   0   0  11   4   0  67   0.419
4. Jerry West        0   1   2   2   3  26   0.163
5. John Havlicek     0   0   0   6   4  22   0.138
6. Connie Hawkins    1   0   0   3   1  20   0.125
  Elgin Baylor       0   0   2   1   7  20   0.125


[Manuel Calavera]

Right. I'm trying to "slander" Wilt because I have some agenda against him.



I gave him his lone #1 vote in 1971-72, and I was writing posts like this in defense of Wilt:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226

long before you were even a member of this board.

You completely sidestepped my query

Ah. Parroting me again, as you did in the '69-70 thread:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1048389&start=60

No originality. And you evidently don't even know what "query" means, because you didn't pose a question to me.

Actually I did

I point out to the mods for the record that Manuel Calavera is deliberately attempting to antagonize me again, for some inexplicable reason known only to him. It started with the parroting before he went into the "Adolph" bit.

You're incapable of "pushing my buttons," so it's a futile endeavor.

I don't know why you'd think I care enough about you to antagonize but ok. If you feel so antagonized by my posts that take very light jabs at the fact that you couldn't reply to my point without taking it as a major insult and flipping out (or worse yet - disagreeing with you about Bill Russell ) and that you feel the need to backseat moderate then I dunno maybe you should just relax? I mean that was kinda the whole point in calling you Adolf. I don't have a problem with your posts but if you can't take my responses to them then maybe you should just put me on ignore? I don't know what else to tell you man.

[Sedale Threatt]

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.

I didn't sidestep it, as much as ignored it, because I fail to see how it's pertinent.

I have absolutely, positively no idea why those players weren't mentioned. Nor do I care, frankly. There are 20-some people taking part in this discussion, and I am not the in charge of moderating. So take it up with everybody else as well.

Off the top of my head, Kareem won in 80 pretty much going away, with an air-tight case. So what's the issue there? The other two guys were not serious candidates for No. 1, so who was going to lobby for them? Certainly not me.

So it comes back to the same thing -- if we're going to look at all the proof, I would have guessed you'd actually have been grateful that a comment from Wilt's No. 1 rival was entered into the discussion.

[ThaRegul8r]

And you evidently don't even know what "query" means, because you didn't pose a question to me.

Actually I did

No, you didn't.

Query:

I ask again: why was this standard not equally applied to whomever it applied to rather than selectively.

There's a direct question being posed, to which I'm seeking an answer.

It should be obvious shouldn't it? When you question Wilt's heart and desire and bring up this series as an example to slander him it's extremely relevant that he was injured.

You posed a rhetorical question, and accused me of slander. No query there.

And see the difference? I accused no one of anything, I merely asked a question. As this is a discussion.

I don't know why you'd think I care enough about you to antagonize but ok.

I have no idea why you've chosen to respond to me in the manner you have.

If you feel so antagonized by my posts

First of all, I stated you were "attempting" to antagonize me. Big difference.

that take very light jabs at the fact that you couldn't reply to my point without taking it as a major insult and flipping out

Flipping out? I gave a calm, measured response. I'd like to see your definition of "flipping out." Evidently you haven't been on the internet long.

(or worse yet - disagreeing with you about Bill Russell )

Who was talking about Russell? Sedale Threatt and I were talking about Wilt. You don't seem to even know what's going on.

and that you feel the need to backseat moderate then I dunno maybe you should just relax?

How about you not tell me what I should do, and I continue my discussion with people that don't concern you.

I mean that was kinda the whole point in calling you Adolf.

Uncalled for. You see the screename there. Use it. I haven't called you anything else. Rationalizations are lame, particularly when in the last instance you were in the wrong. It's not my problem you weren't paying attention to what was going on, regardless of your excuse. If I make a mistake, I don't make excuses or call people names. I own up to it. It don't make me any less of a person.

I don't have a problem with your posts but if you can't take my responses to them ...

Interesting you're the only person responding that way, isn't it? Sedale Threatt and I might not agree on certain points, but you don't see either of us insulting the other. We're both having a civil discussion.

[Sedale Threatt]

Geez, that Hawkins No. 1 vote sticks out like a sore thumb.

[ThaRegul8r]

Geez, that Hawkins No. 1 vote sticks out like a sore thumb.

[Manuel Calavera]

And you evidently don't even know what "query" means, because you didn't pose a question to me.

Actually I did

No, you didn't.

Query:

I ask again: why was this standard not equally applied to whomever it applied to rather than selectively.

There's a direct question being posed, to which I'm seeking an answer.

It should be obvious shouldn't it? When you question Wilt's heart and desire and bring up this series as an example to slander him it's extremely relevant that he was injured.

You posed a rhetorical question, and accused me of slander. No query there.

And see the difference? I accused no one of anything, I merely asked a question. As this is a discussion.

I don't know why you'd think I care enough about you to antagonize but ok.

I have no idea why you've chosen to respond to me in the manner you have.

If you feel so antagonized by my posts

First of all, I stated you were "attempting" to antagonize me. Big difference.

that take very light jabs at the fact that you couldn't reply to my point without taking it as a major insult and flipping out

Flipping out? I gave a calm, measured response. I'd like to see your definition of "flipping out." Evidently you haven't been on the internet long.

(or worse yet - disagreeing with you about Bill Russell )

Who was talking about Russell? Sedale Threatt and I were talking about Wilt. You don't seem to even know what's going on.

and that you feel the need to backseat moderate then I dunno maybe you should just relax?

How about you not tell me what I should do, and I continue my discussion with people that don't concern you.

I mean that was kinda the whole point in calling you Adolf.

Uncalled for. You see the screename there. Use it. I haven't called you anything else. Rationalizations are lame, particularly when in the last instance you were in the wrong. It's not my problem you weren't paying attention to what was going on, regardless of your excuse. If I make a mistake, I don't make excuses or call people names. I own up to it. It don't make me any less of a person.

I don't have a problem with your posts but if you can't take my responses to them ...

Interesting you're the only person responding that way, isn't it? Sedale Threatt and I might not agree on certain points, but you don't see either of us insulting the other. We're both having a civil discussion.

[Doctor MJ]

Guys, let's make sure we cool it down. Reconciliatory conversation will be fine, but let's drop this heavy meta-debating before it has a chance to escalate.

Doc

[bastillon]

didn't make it on time:

1.Russell
2.Oscar (+/- says he had ridiculous impact, he had supporting "punching bag")
3.Wilt (1969 had influence on this decision, context matters, Wilt didn't make a lot of impact)
4.Connie
5.Baylor

Doc, could you perhaps count my vote even though it's late ? I didn't wanna rush my decision and last couple of days were kinda crazy so I couldn't vote on time either. I understand there's a deadline, but you know I was plenty involved in this discussion.

[Doctor MJ]

Hey bast,

I'm sorry, I'm not going to do re-counts at this stage in the game. Going through that process is a pain, and I set the project up with deadlines specifically so it wouldn't have to be done.

People haven't been abusing the "can you delay the deadline" request, so I'd encourage you to do that when needed.

Cheers,
Doc

[bastillon]

Hey bast,

I'm sorry, I'm not going to do re-counts at this stage in the game. Going through that process is a pain, and I set the project up with deadlines specifically so it wouldn't have to be done.

People haven't been abusing the "can you delay the deadline" request, so I'd encourage you to do that when needed.

Cheers,
Doc

yeah, but I didn't even have an opportunity to write a post. nevermind though. I'm fine.