Retro POY '64-65 (Voting Complete)

[fatal9]

Some stats from Sixers vs. Celtics, recaps already posted above by reg but I wanted to bold some crazy statlines.

pts/rebs/asts/blks/stls (FGA/FGM)

[...]

G7: 30/32/2/10 (12/15, 6/13). Russell 15/29/9/6 (7/16).

Where'd the 10 blocks for Chamberlain come from? Multiple sources corroborate he had one:

“Chamberlain had the edge in scoring 30-15 and rebounds 32-29 while arch-rival Russell was ahead in blocked shots 6-1 [...].”

There's quite a difference between 1 and 10.

I'll double check, I might have meant to put 1 and tacked on the 0 by mistake.

[lorak]

Philadelphia won Game 2 109-103 behind Chamberlain’s 30 points, 39 rebounds, eight assists and eight blocked shots. “He simply overpowered the Celtics’ Bill Russell, the NBA’s Most Valuable Player” (Ocala Star-Banner, Apr. 7, 1965), who had 12 points, 16 rebounds, and five assists (Reading Eagle, April 7, 1965).

I wonder how many voters reads only pro-Russell parts bolded by ThaRegul8r and miss non-bolded pro-Wilt parts like the one above

It will also be good if we have some Wilt fan like ThaRegul8r, who would be looking for pro-Wilt articles... because for now, however GREAT ThaRegul8r work is, it's rather one sided, pro-Russell stuff in every thread.

[ThaRegul8r]

Philadelphia won Game 2 109-103 behind Chamberlain’s 30 points, 39 rebounds, eight assists and eight blocked shots. “He simply overpowered the Celtics’ Bill Russell, the NBA’s Most Valuable Player” (Ocala Star-Banner, Apr. 7, 1965), who had 12 points, 16 rebounds, and five assists (Reading Eagle, April 7, 1965).

I wonder how many voters reads only pro-Russell parts bolded by ThaRegul8r and miss non-bolded pro-Wilt parts like the one above

It will also be good if we have some Wilt fan like ThaRegul8r, who would be looking for pro-Wilt articles... because for now, however GREAT ThaRegul8r work is, it's rather one sided, pro-Russell stuff in every thread.

Are you insinuating I'm biased? If I were going to be one-sided—as you've accused me of, I would have OMITTED what you quoted, wouldn't I have? Who would know the difference other than me if that were my agenda? Wouldn't that make more sense if I were deliberately looking only for everything pro-Russell? But, unlike some people, I give the full story. I don't "look for pro-Russell" anything—I just put whatever's there. People can read it for themselves and make their own decision.

And since you're talking about "one-sided," explain this:

4. Bill Russell. 13.3 points, 21.0 rebounds (3rd in the league [behind Chamberlain (24.2) and Thurmond (21.3)]), 5.8 assists in 40.7 minutes per game. Led the league in defensive win shares (9.2) anchoring the league’s best defense (est. 91.2 DRtg); fourth in win shares (12.2 [behind Chamberlain (21.9), Robertson (17.4), and Rick Barry (14.4)]). Third in MVP voting.

Guess I'm in the minority, other than ItsMillerTime, David Stern and ronnymac. Seems like Russell is being auto-selecting for a certain position just because he's Bill Russell, which isn't any more right than auto-selecting Wilt for a certain position just because he's Wilt.

Looks like you're being "one-sided" yourself, by leaving this out. How do you explain this, if I'm "one-sidedly pro-Russell?" I was being critical of Russell being voted too high when his season didn't warrant it.

(Oops.)

And speaking of "one-sided," in this very thread:

“The 7-1 Philly pivotman probably played what was his greatest series against the Celtics and almost realized a career ambition: to play on an NBA championship outfit” (Daytona Beach Morning Journal, Apr. 17, 1965).

Funny how you missed that bolded part. (And also how I bolded highlights of Nate Thurmond when I brought him up in the '66-67 thread and tried to present the case for him over—*gasp*!—Russell! [You'll note I voted Thurmond over Russell.])

1. KAJ
2. Wilt
3. Barry
4. Hondo
5. Frazier

1. Wilt Chamberlain. 14.8 points on a league-leading 64.9 percent from the field, led league with 19.2 rebounds, passed for 4.0 assists, played all 82 games averaging 42.3 minutes per (3rd in the league). Led league in true shooting percentage (.610) and defensive win shares (7.9); finished second in win shares (15.8). First Team All-Defense. Lakers go 69-13—which stood as the single-season record until the Chicago Bulls went 72-10 in 1995-96—after Wilt for buys into what former Celtic Bill Sharman wants.

In the postseason averaged 14.7 points on 56.3 percent shooting, 21.0 rebounds (led playoffs) and 3.3 assists in 46.9 minutes. Led playoffs in defensive win shares (1.8), led team in win shares (3.0). Held league MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to 33.7 points on 32.8 field goal attempts and 45.7 percent shooting in the Western Conference Finals, 2-for-8 in the last 10 minutes of the deciding Game 6 which Los Angeles won 104-100. NBA Finals Most Valuable Player, averaging 19.4 points on 60 percent shooting, 23.2 rebounds, 7.4 blocked shots and 2.6 assists in 49.2 minutes per game. In the deciding Game 5, scored 24 points on 10-for-14 shooting (71.4%), grabbed 29 rebounds, blocked 10 shots and passed for four assists. He did everything this year I criticized him for not doing the previous year we covered.

I was the only guy who voted Wilt for #1 that year. (You didn't, even though you sound "pro Wilt.") Yep. I'm "one-sided" against Wilt.



If I'm being "one-sided," perhaps I don't have to do anything. No one was doing this until I started doing it, and this project had gone along just fine. Or why don't YOU do it then instead of suggesting what someone else should do? What'd Gandhi say? "Be the change you wish to see...?"

[Sedale Threatt]

I think Reg's been pretty fair.

[TrueLAfan]

I don’t think The Regul8r is particualrly biased—not as biased as others are at other times about other players. But, like a couple of other people have noted, I do think the general tenor of the press (not so much the RealGM poster) is more pro-Celtics/Russell than pro-Wilt. And I’m with DoctorMJ here about this season…I think this year goes Russell, West…and then everyone else. Big gap. And Russell’s at #1. But I’m also sympathetic to the fact that on a team that won 22 less games during the regular season and playing against the best defensive player of all-time (and MVP), Wilt averaged 30 points and 31 rebounds a game in the playoffs. That’s 15 points and 6 rebounds more than Russell. I know (and I agree) that Russell had the better D and the much better intangibles…but Wilt did a lot and often seemed to get short(er) shrift for it.

For the record…it’s not like Wilt is going to be #3 for me this year. He’s probably going to slip into the top 5, though. We’ve talked about postseaosn performance upping your ranking…I’m not sure how leading your team to a first round upset, and then average 30 points and 31 rebounds against a peak Bill Russell qualifies as anything other than “great postseason.”

[Sedale Threatt]

But, like a couple of other people have noted, I do think the general tenor of the press (not so much the RealGM poster) is more pro-Celtics/Russell than pro-Wilt.

You know what they say, To the victors go the spoils. Also, Once a newspaper touches a story, the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonists. (Mailer, who also said one of the great myths of modern society is the notion of a truly objective press.)

I know it's not that easy to blurt this out, as there are many, many factors involved. But I have always found it interesting that West was portrayed as such a heroic loser -- and Baylor almost an afterthought -- while Wilt was just a loser, period.

[TrueLAfan]

No, I think you’re right. But I think part of that was mentality. Jerry West (and Bill Russell and John Havlicek) are not happy-go-lucky guys. They’re nice and polite--but firm--and aren’t really concerned with making others, whether fans or teammates, happy in non-basketball ways. I think they all see recognition as a by product of team success, and I also don’t think any of them particularly cared about that recognition—just the success. I don’t think any player in the history of basketball was harder on himself than Jerry West, and I think that’s a big part of the “heroic loser” mystique. And I think that Bill Russell was sometimes dismissive and cold but was accepted because of how driven and giving he was as a basketball player. He was willing to forego social niceties to achieve what he saw as a better goal.

Elgin and (especially) Wilt wanted favor and respect in different ways. They wanted to be liked. I think people sensed and saw that, and how it manifested itself off the court, and it has led to them perceived as “less serious.” It’s pointed out in Tall Tales that, in general, Wilt was much better liked as a person than Russell was. But I think it meant more to Wilt to b e that way…maybe he thought that if people liked him, they’d cheer more for him or play harder for him. Russell and West viewed it the other way; earn respect solely on the court. Russell receives accolades because of his teams’ successes; West is seen as the heroic loser because he kept coming thisclose. But they had similar mentalities. Baylor and Wilt weren't like that.

[Doctor MJ]

For my part, it might seem like I'm making Wilt out to be some anomaly of a personality, the issues I see with him are not at all uncommon. Gifted kids underachieve all the time and for a wide variety of reasons, I have personal experience with this. If you have talent in a place where you don't have enough interest, you'll underachieve in it. Wilt very clearly, being the best basketball player was not the greatest thing in the world to him. Part of it was that because of his size he didn't get praise that wasn't double edged, and part of it was that this is actually just a child's game, and one of many he felt he could do well in. It's completely understandable he wasn't as dedicated as he could be. (Now the various pissing contests he got in along the way are something else)

Also while I'm at it, speaking to the concerns about Wilt possibly not being proportionately represented here: I have these concerns as well. I wouldn't call guys like ThaReg biased, but given that the size of the group is not huge, it would be comforting if we saw some people with similar research prowess siding with Wilt more. With that said, more comforting isn't necessarily more correct. There is no "right answer" to be revealed at project's end, so we just have to do our best.

I personally have concerns that I'm being unfair to Wilt. Please be assured this isn't an intentional thing. I didn't start this project so that 40+ threads later I could take cracks at Wilt. However it's clear my opinion is more on Russell's side than average. Maybe I'm wrong, all I can do is vote with my conscious as it stands now, and strive to keep learning.

[Sedale Threatt]

I honestly think it's just the incredibly difficult nature of the discussion. Because I have concerns that I'm being unfair to Russell. There have been about 50 years of books, debates and all other manner of comparison between the two, involving people that are a hell of a lot smarter and more experienced with basketball than any of us, and there has yet to be a consensus opinion one way or the other. It's a very, very tough subject to tackle.

[Dr Positivity]

As a big Russell over Wilt pusher, I've actually voted for Wilt more than I expected coming in. And I feel he's getting a short end in this thread so far

[Doctor MJ]

Anyone want to take a swing talking about the Warriors? I understand that Wilt was hurting, but that drop off in the team was incredible. What's the whole story?

[Warspite]

Warriors record was 11-33 when they traded Wilt (1-5 in the games he missed, 10-28 overall with him), Sixers were 21-20 when they acquired him (they finished 40-40). Wilt averaged 39/24/3 on 50% during his time with the Warriors, if he was being held back due to injury, it didn't show statistically, or his play later on in the playoffs. After Warriors were winning more games the following season, there was an article I came across that commented on Wilt's Warrior season in '65 here: http://news.google.ca/newspapers?id=hTo ... 82,2609266. It's not very flattering.

That said, I think Wilt will make my top 5, unless the other candidates are just too strong, he played really well in the playoffs. Averaged 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, 3.3 apg vs. Celtics on what seems like good efficiency, led Sixers to within a game of beating the Celtics. I do think the whole luck factor is overstated for this series, people wonder, what if Hondo didn't steal the ball? Well, what if Hal Greer didn't make a 35 footer at the buzzer in game 4 (tied series)? Then the series likely ends in 5. It goes both ways. Wilt also seemed to play well defensively in this series, which is theme from most of the recaps I have read. Aside from game 3 of the Royal series (had only 17/15/6, 6/19 shooting...he shot 55% in rest of the playoffs, which is why I assume he had a good shooting series vs. Celtics), he played well overall.

Some stats from Sixers vs. Celtics, recaps already posted above by reg but I wanted to bold some crazy statlines.

pts/rebs/asts/blks/stls (FGA/FGM)

G1: Wilt - 33/31/3/6 (?/?). Russell – 11/32/6. Celtics win.
G2: 30/39/8/8 (?/?). Russell – 12/16/5. Russell had 6 blks combined in the first two games. Sixers win.
G3: 24/37/1 (7/?, 10/15). Russell 19/26/8. Celtics win.
G4: 34/34/3 (11/?, 12/20). Russell – 18/?/?. Sixers win.
G5: 30/21/2/2/0 (13/?, 4/8 ). Russell – 12/28/7/12/3. Celtics win.
G6: 30/26/4 (13/?, 4/8). Plays fourth quarter with 5 fouls. Russell had 22/21. Sixers win.
G7: 30/32/2/10 (12/15, 6/13). Russell 15/29/9/6 (7/16).

Wilt Chamberlain: Where 39ppg 24rpg 3apg 50% is not impressive.

[penbeast0]

Wilt Chamberlain: Where 39ppg 24rpg 3apg 50% is not impressive.

Yeah, pretty good point. I've certainly given votes to people for less impressive stat lines than that who had no team success. Let me think about my votes a little and whether I was too knee jerk about dismissing Wilt.

[Dipper 13]

Oct 3, 1964

A spokesman for the National Basketball Association club said an electrocardiogram examination did disclose a slight heart irregularity. It was, however an irregularity Chamberlain has had since school days in Philadelphia.


Oct 22, 1964

With Chamberlain still in a Philadelphia hospital, the winless San Francisco Warriors dropped their third straight decision last night 108-104 to the Detroit Pistons.


Dec 6, 1964

Wilt Chamberlain, scoring star of the San Francisco Warriors of the National Basketball Association, will be sidelined all next week with a broken nose. Chamberlain, who sat out nearly half of Friday night's game after receiving the injury, faced the Celtics again Saturday night wearing a noseguard. The fracture will be repaired Sunday.


Jan 15, 1965

These are some of the reasons Chamberlain will quit pro basketball when this season is over and his two year contract runs out. His health is another. There are other reasons, but Wilt is keeping them to himself for the time being.

Everything I've done since I first started playing basketball," said Wilt, "I've done under orders. Nobody can the ball in the hole better than I and that's what every coach I've played for has wanted me to do. This is getting to be a damned joke. Year after year, depending upon how my team is going, that's the amount of abuse I get. Last season, when we won the western division in San Francisco, people started saying I'd become a team player. This year I've been selfish. How do you figure it?"

This season, of course, the Warriors are in last place in their division. They virtually gave him away in the trade for Connie Dierking, Paul Neumann and Lee Shaffer, a player who has been out of basketball as a holdout. The Warriors just wanted to rid themselves of Chamberlain's salary for the next three months.

There was no money involved in the deal, no matter what anybody says. Both the Warriors and the 76ers know Wilt will only play three more months.

Few people realize how close Wilt was to not playing at all this season. The doctors advised him to rest for three to four months before the season started and then to come back for another examination and they would tell him if he should play.

"People say I take the easy way out," said Wilt. "What easier way could there have been for me than not to play this year. I have chronic pancreatitis and I'm worried about my health. I could have laid out for the year and they'd have to pay me under my contract. But they needed me, so I played. Who else would have? I appreciate what basketball has done for me, there's got to be some appreciation for me, too."

[lorak]

Elgee, could you run +/- for Wilt in SFW? Warriors were 1-5 without him and 10-28 with him, and then, after trade, they were 6-30.

[bastillon]

1.Russell
2.Oscar (getting disrespected every thread)
3.West
4.Hal Greer (Sixers were .500 team, 3rd in the league, even before Wilt got there)
5.Sam Jones

[penbeast0]

Bastillon. Obviously Oscar is a worthy candidate. I'm the only other one to post a top 5 this year so far and I have him third but . . . how do you pick him over West this year? In the regular season it is close -- Oscar has the assist edge, West the defensive edge plus a slight edge in scoring and efficiency. Each played with a star big though Lucas outplayed Baylor and Oscar's team was superior. But in the playoffs, Oscar was good, if not quite as good as the regular season, but West was a monster exploding for 40/game and taking his team to the finals with Baylor completely out of it. I think it's a clear edge to West this year.

[TrueLAfan]

Part of it was team makeup; the Warriors had no perimeter scoring. Really, that had no perimeter shooting; they were playing Al Attles and Guy Rodgers and Gary Phillips at guard before Wilt got traded...that's 14 points per 36 on 37.6% shooting. Their second best player (by far) played at the same position as Wilt. Meschery was pretty good, but the team was out of balance in a pretty big way. I have a bigger problem with how the Sixer splayed once Wilt got there; they remained a .500 team...although, to give them (and Wilt credit), they turned it up when necessary.

And it wasn't that Wilt was unhappy with the Warriors. Wilt told the Sixers that they were making a risky trade. “I told Ike Richman, who is my lawyer as well as the 76ers counsel that it could be a bad trade … I have no agreement play with Philadelphia next season. I might retire, which means that the 76ers may have given up a lot just to have me for three months. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=yJUOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GYIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4251,661528&dq=wilt+chamberlain&hl=en

Prescott Evening Courier, January 16, 1965.

Clearly there was something else going on Wilt's life that was making him consider retirement. And you know what that means to me? Nothing. His team underperformed and, no matter what, if you're the main guy on the team, you bear the brunt of responsibilty for that. Some of it can be team make up. Some can be coaching. In a shorter number of games, you can have a player or group of players all slump. But the majority is with a player. If a team seriously underperforms...and Wilt's teams were 35-40 win teams with him on board this year and, frankly, weren't that bad (especially the Sixers)—I don't see how you can put a player in the superelite, top 3 group. This, even though as notged the Sixers got it together in the playoffs, upset Cincinnati and took Boston to 7, losing by one in game 7 in the last part of the season. And Wilt averaged 30 and 31 against Russell in the playoff series, and 30 and 32 in Game 7 on 12 for 15 shooting. You've got to give Wilt credit for the postseason...but not enough to deny what happened in the RS, not for me. He's almost certainly #4, maybe even #5. Right now I'm thinking I'm going with

1. Russell
2. West
(gap)
3. Oscar

with 4 and 5 between Jones/Wilt/Bellamy/Thurmond/Zelmo...probably Jones and Wilt, and I'm having a tough time deciding between them.

For the record, I think we're handling the Wilt/Russell debate pretty damn well...it was a debate then, it's a debate now. It should be. Great players that had totally and completely different personalities and career structure. Anyone who thinks it isn't a debate is a person who isn't doing a good job with the question.

[Sedale Threatt]

Bastillon. Obviously Oscar is a worthy candidate. I'm the only other one to post a top 5 this year so far and I have him third but . . . how do you pick him over West this year?

That's easy enough to figure out. Oscar came up huge in these +/- figures a few threads back, so he's reached the conclusion that West was overrated and O was the second coming. And he just might have been; Oscar was obviously great. But that's where it's coming from.

[bastillon]

Bastillon. Obviously Oscar is a worthy candidate. I'm the only other one to post a top 5 this year so far and I have him third but . . . how do you pick him over West this year?

That's easy enough to figure out. Oscar came up huge in these +/- figures a few threads back, so he's reached the conclusion that West was overrated and O was the second coming. And he just might have been; Oscar was obviously great. But that's where it's coming from.

sort of. plus I didn't vote in '66 when I feel Oscar got disrespected and should've been over West. consider this a 2-year voting in that regard.

but yeah, I just think Oscar was measurably better player. not a huge gap, but clear.

btw. West played 74 games that year. Elgee ? Regulator ?