Retro POY '63-64 (voting complete)

[semi-sentient]

Good points, but do you have proof that Russell isn't better than a lab created super player that combines both Wilt and Thurmond?

[ElGee]

Man, that DRtg is so telling. Will be very interested to see the Warriors DRtg over the next few years.

Warriors DRtg 59-63 (relative to league avg.) -- rank
1959 87.8 (+1.4) -- 2 of 8
1960 85.9 (+4.5) -- 2 of 8 *Wilt joins team
1961 90.2 (+1.4) -- 4 of 8
1962 92.5 (+0.9) -- 3 of 9
1963 97.1 (-1.0) -- 6 of 9
1964 88.6 (+5.9) -- 2 of 9 *Thurmond joins team

I think people might be overlooking other changes involved in some of these big-picture looks, so I'll include the top rotation guys outside of Wilt:

Final Year. New Acquisition

59 - Arizin, Sauldsberry, Graboski, Gola, Rodgers, Johnson, George, Beck
*70 missed games from 8 players
---------------------------------------------

60 - Arizin, Gola, Rodgers, Sauldsberry, Johnson, Graboski, Hatton (new coach Neil Johnston)
*24 missed games from 7 players

61 - Arizin, Rodgers, Gola, Johnson, Attles (R), Conlin, Graboski
*21 miss games from 7 players

62 - Arizin, Rodgers, Meschery (R), Attles, Gola, Conlin (new coach Frank McGuire)
*37 missed games from 6 players

63 - Rodgers, Meschery, Attles, Phillips, Naulls, Hightower (R), Lee (new coach Bob Feerick)
*94 missed games from 7 players + 59 missed games from Gola

64 - Rodgers, HIghtower, Meschery, Attles, Phillips, Thurmond (R), Hill (R) (new coach Alex Hannum)
*43 missed games from 7 players

[bastillon]

mopper, so what you're saying is that Wilt played so much better individually that they won 18 more games based on his improvement alone ?

at no point in my post I was arguing that Thurmond had more impact than Wilt. I was saying that he, along with Hannum's coaching, were the reason why Warriors improved. it just happened that the only variables that changed were them and suddenly Warriors started winning a lot more games.

plus what makes me even more confident in this theory is the fact that they improved only defensively (and they improved ridiculously) while Thurmond anchored a lot of great defenses and generally was viewed as better defender than Wilt at least later in his career. that's not saying Wilt wasn't great defensively nor that Thurmond was better than him as a rookie. that, however, indicates that Warriors defensive improvement wasn't coincidence, it was caused by Thurmond to a large degree.

[penbeast0]

Yeah, wow @ the Warriors being 5 points head of everyone but Boston in DRTG. Once again Wilt's pre Lakers defense is impressing me more than I expected coming in. During 64-69 I think you can put his d impact near Kareem's

Yes but Boston's is 5 points better than the Warriors and 10 points better than the rest of the league! It's nice that there is at least some statistical support (not completely sold on DRTG) for the contemporary observation that Russell dominated the league defensively despite Wilt's individual success against him.

[ElGee]

Yeah, wow @ the Warriors being 5 points head of everyone but Boston in DRTG. Once again Wilt's pre Lakers defense is impressing me more than I expected coming in. During 64-69 I think you can put his d impact near Kareem's

Yes but Boston's is 5 points better than the Warriors and 10 points better than the rest of the league! It's nice that there is at least some statistical support (not completely sold on DRTG) for the contemporary observation that Russell dominated the league defensively despite Wilt's individual success against him.

Aren't Wilt's numbers, in almost every series (and regular season?) down across the board against Russell? Especially with regard to ppg and TS%?

I've never really seen a good year-by-year breakdown of this, so if anyone has it it would be interesting. My impression was his numbers always went down against Russ, and in certain playoff game summaries posted so far in this project, there have been reports of Wilt really struggling at times against him.

For example, 1962 Wilt averages
v Boston 39.7 ppg 28.8 rpg 2.1 apg 46.8% FG
v League 51.9 ppg 25.2 rpg 2.4 apg 51.0% FG

[penbeast0]

Could be . . . of course, if a guy is being lit up for 40/30/2 on 47% shooting I still think of it as individual success, lol.

[Warspite]

Could be . . . of course, if a guy is being lit up for 40/30/2 on 47% shooting I still think of it as individual success, lol.

Thats always the point that gets missed. A bad night for Wilt was a carrer night for 99% of the league. Why wouldnt Wilt have lower stats vs Bill Russell as opposed to the rest of the league? If WIlt put up similar stats wouldnt that suggest Russell was an avg defender and if he put up better stats wouldnt that suggest hes a below avg defender? I fully expect someone to have lower stats in a 7 game series vs the Celtics than he would in a 7 game homestand vs sub .500 teams.

One of the biggest theories to beating the Celtics is to slow the game down. If you can take away the Celtics fast break pts there mediocre offense cant produce enough pts. Of course this sounds counter productive because the Celtics have the best def and so it plays into there hands but what else can you do? The 60s celtics are basicly Showtime Lakers and Duncans Spurs at the same time.

[mopper8]

mopper, so what you're saying is that Wilt played so much better individually that they won 18 more games based on his improvement alone ?

I think its fair to say that everyone played better in large part because Wilt played better. [see below for more on that]

at no point in my post I was arguing that Thurmond had more impact than Wilt. I was saying that he, along with Hannum's coaching, were the reason why Warriors improved. it just happened that the only variables that changed were them and suddenly Warriors started winning a lot more games.

plus what makes me even more confident in this theory is the fact that they improved only defensively (and they improved ridiculously) while Thurmond anchored a lot of great defenses and generally was viewed as better defender than Wilt at least later in his career. that's not saying Wilt wasn't great defensively nor that Thurmond was better than him as a rookie. that, however, indicates that Warriors defensive improvement wasn't coincidence, it was caused by Thurmond to a large degree.

See, it certainly seems like you're saying that, given what's bolded at the end. Again, just because Thurmond was able to anchor great defenses later on in his career when he's in his prime and playing 35 mpg or more doesn't mean that as a 26mpg rookie he could.

Look, my thinking is this: its been said numerous times in this project that perhaps Wilt's effect offensively is overstated by his raw offensive #s because sometimes by passing the ball instead of shooting, you make the rest of your team better, or at least raise them to your level of efficiency. What we see when Hannum joins the Warriors is that he wants Wilt to score less, focus on getting his teammates involved more, and be better on the defensive end. Hannum specifically says this the main change he wants to make in Wilt, and that's his focus as coach.

And what do we see? Wilt's FGA per game drop (35 to 29). His FGA per 36 drops (26 to 22). His PPG drops (45 to 37). His APG increases (3.5 to 5). He gets credit throughout the season for playing better defense. His teammates credit him for "protecting the basket" (see my quote above). Articles are written about the "new Wilt" that mainly credit him for trying to play more like Russell. The media largely credits Wilt's new style of play for the Warriors' improvement, both in the aforementioned articles and in MVP voting. Quotes from his contemporaries on his team bare this out.

Meanwhile, there is little to no evidence that anybody credits Thurmond in any large way for the improvement. He didn't win Rookie of the Year. He didn't get any MVP consideration. His coach didn't see fit to play him more than 26 mpg, 7th on the team, during the regular season. I don't see how the conclusion you draw from this is that Thurmond is responsible "to a large degree" for the defensive improvement. I'm not sure how anyone in 26 mpg can have that much of an impact on team defense. From the previous season to the current, you're basically replacing Tom Gola's 39 mpg with an extra 10 mpg from Hightower and 26 mpg from a rookie Thurmond.

Now, we all know Thurmond turned out to be a phenomenal defensive player, but I find it a stretch to think that a 26mpg rookie is having a bigger impact on team D than your 46mpg C who is being credited publicly with the team's improved fortunes thanks to his change in style of play towards being more like Bill Russell and doing a better job, according to his own teammates, of protecting the basket.

If you read all that and say, "obviously, its Thurmond!" then I guess, all I can say is that I think you're only fooling yourself here.

[Doctor MJ]

I've never really seen a good year-by-year breakdown of this, so if anyone has it it would be interesting. My impression was his numbers always went down against Russ, and in certain playoff game summaries posted so far in this project, there have been reports of Wilt really struggling at times against him.

For example, 1962 Wilt averages
v Boston 39.7 ppg 28.8 rpg 2.1 apg 46.8% FG
v League 51.9 ppg 25.2 rpg 2.4 apg 51.0% FG

I don't have a complete breakdown here, but just because it's relevant.

vs Boston in the '62 post-season:

Game 1, Wilt 31 points, but only 12 in first half and the game was a blowout.
Game 2, Wilt 42. Solid and Philly wins
Game 3, Wilt 33 points & 29 boards, but Russell goes for 31 & 31 and Boston wins.
Game 4, interesting information on this one. Wilt goes for 41 & 34, Russell for 31, Philly wins. Article talks about Russell's foul trouble and how Wilt scored 41 on ONLY 29 shots. Of course he also took 22 free throws, so we're talking more like 41 points on 39 actual shots.
Game 5, Wilt 30 points, but shot 4-13 in the first half when the game was being contested. Russell scores 29, Boston wins.
Game 6, Wilt 32, Philly wins.
Game 7, Wilt 22, Boston wins.

Not enough information to have a number for the overall efficiency, but Wilt scored 33 PPG in the series. So, the Celtics held Wilt 19 PPG under his average, and on clearly significantly less efficiency. I look at those numbers and just shake my head win people say "You call holding a guy to 30 points stopping him, you have low standards!". When a guy is trying to score 50, and you hold him to 30 on weak efficiency, you've severely hurt his team's chance to win.

[Doctor MJ]

btw, mopper you've been posting some great stuff. Man when I heard about Wilt's erratic heart rate, gives me chills thinking of Gathers & Lewis.

[mopper8]

btw, mopper you've been posting some great stuff. Man when I heard about Wilt's erratic heart rate, gives me chills thinking of Gathers & Lewis.

Thank you. I was afraid nobody read my post in the 64-65 thread cause in the hour or so I took to write it, the thread came un-stickied and quickly fell of the first page. It made me a little sad.

[Doctor MJ]

btw, mopper you've been posting some great stuff. Man when I heard about Wilt's erratic heart rate, gives me chills thinking of Gathers & Lewis.

Thank you. I was afraid nobody read my post in the 64-65 thread cause in the hour or so I took to write it, the thread came un-stickied and quickly fell of the first page. It made me a little sad.

Oh that sucks. I know how you feel.

No, I'm definitely reading your stuff, and finding it very informative.

In general, I really hope everyone making research posts knows how much their work is appreciated. This is a project that will likely be referenced for quite a while (knock on wood), and it's those research posts that will the stars of the threads once the voting is put to rest.

[ElGee]

btw, mopper you've been posting some great stuff. Man when I heard about Wilt's erratic heart rate, gives me chills thinking of Gathers & Lewis.

Thank you. I was afraid nobody read my post in the 64-65 thread cause in the hour or so I took to write it, the thread came un-stickied and quickly fell of the first page. It made me a little sad.

I was going to write a post just telling you to keep posting. I thought that post was fantastic, and want to hear more summaries from your summer reading. Actually, I'll write it now:

"Dear Mopper,

Post more.

Thank You,
LG"

[Deus_DJ]

Since one of you were interested in Wilt's erratic heart rate, here's another tidbit:
When wanting to test Wilt's heart in 1964, they had to first make him run. After running(either 2 or 3 miles, can't remember which right now, it's in Cherry's book) his heart rate stood at only 62...now how crazy is that?

Anyhow, many of you are making far too many generalized comments...like assuming that Wilt didn't used to protect the basket before(when in fact he didn't do it consistently because he "trotted" back on defense in a fast pace league from 1961-1963). Furthermore, many of you don't understand the dynamics when Wilt fought the Celtics. It was NOT, I will repeat, NOT Bill Russell that prevented Chamberlain from scoring or from shooting the ball. By every single account mentioned by either the Celtics or Wilt's teammates, it was the Celtics doing hard fouls on Chamberlain, some of which weren't called because the refs thought it was fair when it was done to Wilt. Read Wilt's reason for wanting to retire after 1960 and read about the series vs. the Celtics...and you'll understand this.

I know it's not the 1962 thread yet, but since Doctor MJ brought it up let me just clarify something. Due to the triple/quadruple teaming that would automatically accompany Wilt getting the ball(I mean when you KNOW he's going to shoot it you'll do anything you can to stop him), he actually passed it out alot during that playoff series vs. Boston. I actually can't wait for that season to show up....because when someone posts the newspaper accounts from those times they will see how dominant Chamberlain was in the series vs. Boston defensively. Cousy said Russell was afraid of Chamberlain until game 4 of the Lakers/Celtics series.


BTW Bastillon: Wilt wasn't a better defender than Russell from 1971-1973? Even Russell said he was better. I think one thing that's not mentioned here is why Chamberlain tried so hard on defense thos years: he had motivation because he wanted to reclaim the throne as most dominant center from Kareem evne though he knew there was no way he could.

[bastillon]

BTW Bastillon: Wilt wasn't a better defender than Russell from 1971-1973? Even Russell said he was better. I think one thing that's not mentioned here is why Chamberlain tried so hard on defense thos years: he had motivation because he wanted to reclaim the throne as most dominant center from Kareem evne though he knew there was no way he could.

Wilt wasn't even all-defense in 71 and his team results in following years don't APPROACH Russell's team results. Lakers didn't even have the best defense in the league, unless they had extremely slow pace. they clearly won with their offense.

LG, could you check out team stats for 72 and 73 ?

even just by watching them play you'd have to be pretty damn crazy to me to think Wilt was a better defender. it's like Shaq vs Hakeem difference visually (and team results back this up).

[Doctor MJ]

I had the same thought as Wilt: I didn't remember Laker Wilt's teams standing out on defense at all like Russell's did basically every year. Went back and looked some stuff up:

'68 Lakers 98.1 (8th)
'69 Lakers 95.4 (8th) Wilt's first
'70 Lakers 99.2 (9th)
'71 Lakers 97.9 (5th)
'72 Lakers 93.5 (4th)
'73 Lakers 93.1 (4th) Wilt's last
'74 Lakers 96.6 (7th)

If you go by correlation, Wilt's definitely having positive impact there, but it's nothing mind blowing. So I'll ask the question: Shouldn't we see more impact if Wilt's operating at super-Russell levels? I understand that not all of the Celtics defense was Russell, but he was a massive part of it, and their separation from the norm was orders of magnitude bigger.

[bastillon]

Look, my thinking is this: its been said numerous times in this project that perhaps Wilt's effect offensively is overstated by his raw offensive #s because sometimes by passing the ball instead of shooting, you make the rest of your team better, or at least raise them to your level of efficiency. What we see when Hannum joins the Warriors is that he wants Wilt to score less, focus on getting his teammates involved more, and be better on the defensive end. Hannum specifically says this the main change he wants to make in Wilt, and that's his focus as coach.

And what do we see? Wilt's FGA per game drop (35 to 29). His FGA per 36 drops (26 to 22). His PPG drops (45 to 37). His APG increases (3.5 to 5). He gets credit throughout the season for playing better defense. His teammates credit him for "protecting the basket" (see my quote above). Articles are written about the "new Wilt" that mainly credit him for trying to play more like Russell. The media largely credits Wilt's new style of play for the Warriors' improvement, both in the aforementioned articles and in MVP voting. Quotes from his contemporaries on his team bare this out.

Meanwhile, there is little to no evidence that anybody credits Thurmond in any large way for the improvement. He didn't win Rookie of the Year. He didn't get any MVP consideration. His coach didn't see fit to play him more than 26 mpg, 7th on the team, during the regular season. I don't see how the conclusion you draw from this is that Thurmond is responsible "to a large degree" for the defensive improvement. I'm not sure how anyone in 26 mpg can have that much of an impact on team defense. From the previous season to the current, you're basically replacing Tom Gola's 39 mpg with an extra 10 mpg from Hightower and 26 mpg from a rookie Thurmond.

Now, we all know Thurmond turned out to be a phenomenal defensive player, but I find it a stretch to think that a 26mpg rookie is having a bigger impact on team D than your 46mpg C who is being credited publicly with the team's improved fortunes thanks to his change in style of play towards being more like Bill Russell and doing a better job, according to his own teammates, of protecting the basket.

my thinking is that contemporary accounts thought the Warriors improved primarily offensively and that's why they were crediting Wilt for getting his teammates more involved. it's the defense only where they improved in reality.

I find it rather silly to assume that Wilt was so bad on defense that he could improve in such a manner. I don't think player can improve defensively year-to-year from being average one into all-time great. this would be the only historical example of this improvement.

so that leaves me with Warriors adding Hannum and Thurmond, historically great assets in terms of team improvement. ironically, I think Hannum improved their offense but because Thurmond was such a cancer offensively, it didn't show up in team results. the credit for their better D goes to Thurmond though.

I'm not trying to make Thurmond a better or more impactful defender than Wilt, but when I see that Wilt was already there in 63 and Thurmond's addition "coincided" with their 64 improvement, it makes me confident in that Nate was the reason why they improved defensively.

you know, 64 Warriors is probably the best defensive team Wilt ever played on. coincidence ? or you're just gonna put all of that on his magical improvement not seen on any level of basketball before or since ?

[bastillon]

I had the same thought as Wilt: I didn't remember Laker Wilt's teams standing out on defense at all like Russell's did basically every year. Went back and looked some stuff up:

'68 Lakers 98.1 (8th)
'69 Lakers 95.4 (8th) Wilt's first
'70 Lakers 99.2 (9th)
'71 Lakers 97.9 (5th)
'72 Lakers 93.5 (4th)
'73 Lakers 93.1 (4th) Wilt's last
'74 Lakers 96.6 (7th)

If you go by correlation, Wilt's definitely having positive impact there, but it's nothing mind blowing. So I'll ask the question: Shouldn't we see more impact if Wilt's operating at super-Russell levels? I understand that not all of the Celtics defense was Russell, but he was a massive part of it, and their separation from the norm was orders of magnitude bigger.

one note though, West played only 1000 mins in 74 as opposed to 2500 in 73. so that year is basically Wilt's AND West's last year.

[Doctor MJ]

I find it rather silly to assume that Wilt was so bad on defense that he could improve in such a manner. I don't think player can improve defensively year-to-year from being average one into all-time great. this would be the only historical example of this improvement.

so that leaves me with Warriors adding Hannum and Thurmond, historically great assets in terms of team improvement. ironically, I think Hannum improved their offense but because Thurmond was such a cancer offensively, it didn't show up in team results. the credit for their better D goes to Thurmond though.

I'm not trying to make Thurmond a better or more impactful defender than Wilt, but when I see that Wilt was already there in 63 and Thurmond's addition "coincided" with their 64 improvement, it makes me confident in that Nate was the reason why they improved defensively.

you know, 64 Warriors is probably the best defensive team Wilt ever played on. coincidence ? or you're just gonna put all of that on his magical improvement not seen on any level of basketball before or since ?

See it actually makes a lot more sense to me that a player could rapidly improve on defense than on offense. Everyone tries on offense, many slack off on defense. You can go a really long way by simply having size & athleticism and giving great effort on defense. I wouldn't have any problem calling Wilt a fantastic defender when his team defense is going great, I just take issue with people being quick to call him better than Russell when Russell's defense were so so much better.

Re: crediting Hannum. I don't like the either/or thing when it comes to credit with coaches & players. System players do exist, and in that case "credit the coach" isn't a terrible way to put what's happening - but calling a guy a defensive genius because "just give him two of the strongest most athletic big men in history, and he'll give you an offense that's almost half as good as Boston's" seems a bit much. Hannum deserves tons of credit, but not at his players' expense.

Re: crediting Thurmond. Thurmond was playing 25 minutes per game. Really hard to believe that he's responsible for the turnaround playing half time. As great as Thurmond's defensive career was, if he was capable of taking a mediocre defense and making them far better than all but the Celtics by playing half a game, then he should have had a much more impressive career. We should be Celtic-type defensive domination by his teams all through his career, and we just don't.

Also when you talk about this team being the best defensive team Wilt ever played on, was Thurmond ever on a team this good defensively again? I mean in his whole career he was never on the best defensive team, while Wilt was in '68. Doesn't it seem a little crazy if Thurmond's best defensive team, that he turned from mediocrity all by his lonesome, happened when he was a rookie playing 6th man?

[ThaRegul8r]

I had the same thought as Wilt: I didn't remember Laker Wilt's teams standing out on defense at all like Russell's did basically every year. Went back and looked some stuff up:

'68 Lakers 98.1 (8th)
'69 Lakers 95.4 (8th) Wilt's first
'70 Lakers 99.2 (9th)
'71 Lakers 97.9 (5th)
'72 Lakers 93.5 (4th)
'73 Lakers 93.1 (4th) Wilt's last
'74 Lakers 96.6 (7th)

If you go by correlation, Wilt's definitely having positive impact there, but it's nothing mind blowing. So I'll ask the question: Shouldn't we see more impact if Wilt's operating at super-Russell levels? I understand that not all of the Celtics defense was Russell, but he was a massive part of it, and their separation from the norm was orders of magnitude bigger.

I remember Dean Oliver commenting on this. His statistical analysis found support for Russell being the greatest defender in NBA history—with additional support later coming from Neil Payne and ElGee's DRtg, but Oliver found it odd that Chamberlain didn't have nearly the defensive impact as would be expected from someone who was said to have gotten 20 blocks in a game before. I'll have to see if I can find the exact quote.