Retro POY '69-70 (Voting Complete)

[JordansBulls]

Regarding the Lakers and Wilt this year.

In 1970, the acquisition of the sharpshooting guard Gail Goodrich helped with the Lakers' offensive firepower with the loss of Baylor. In the NBA Finals, the Lakers were matched up against the New York Knicks, one of the best defensive teams of the post-Russell-Celtics era. Both teams fought a hard, grueling series, but in Game 5, Chamberlain's opposing center Willis Reed suffered a serious thigh injury. The Knicks won that game, but they were demolished in Game 6 with Chamberlain's strong offense, and they looked doomed in Game 7 without their starting center. However, Reed limped onto the court, won the opening tip-off against Chamberlain, and scored the first four points, inspiring his team to one of the most famous playoff upsets of all time. Although Reed was able to play only a fraction of the game, and could hardly move when he did play, Chamberlain still scored only 21 points (his season average had been 27.3) on only 16 shots, quite few in a Game 7. Further, he shot an abysmal 1-of-11 from the foul line, making the game perhaps his greatest on-court failure.

[Dr Positivity]

Never heard that FT line stat before. One more reason Wilt should never be in the GOAT conversation.

[Sedale Threatt]

A minor miracle, as I actually agree with JB. I don't see how this season is a positive at all for Wilt, other than the fact he came back from a big injury. I'm not voting for him at all because he missed many games, and if I did I'd seriously mark him down for Game 7.

[Dr Positivity]

I took Wilt as seriously this year as I did Jordan in 86. Meaning I didn't even have to think about it.

[Dr Positivity]

Random trivia note, but I didn't realize Larry Brown had a solid playing career. Led the ABA in assists 3 straight years, made 3 all-star teams and won an ABA all-star MVP, made 2nd team All-ABA, and won a title in 69. Wtg LB.

[drza]

Honestly, just from what I've seen in this thread, it seems to me that Alcindor was pretty solidly better than West even as a rookie. In the regular season their stats were relatively close, but when in doubt doesn't a big usually have a bigger non-statistical impact on a game than a wing? I recognize that West was a good perimeter defender, but big men defenders just have a bigger effect than wing defenders and Alcindor (even then) was recognized as an excellent defensive big that dominated the glass. Even if it we were just voting on the regular season I'd have Alcindor edging out West.

But in the postseason, it seems like Alcindor blew West out of the water. I mean, 35 points on 61% TS with 17 boards and 4 assists with a PER over 29? And he outplayed Reed, the MVP, head-to-head in their series? Even if Reed was forced to defend him 1-on-1 as opposed to receiving help as some type of "let him get his" strategy...the fact that he could explode all over the reigning MVP 1-on-1 is still a pretty big statement.

Even if West was injured for a part of the Finals, his postseason just doesn't even look comparable to Alcindor's. In fact, Alcindor's postseason was up several notches even from West's regular season.

I guess I'm just not seeing how West is winning by such a consensus in the votes so far. Am I missing something?

Well first, read my previous post about Kareem if you haven't. I've made some arguments for why you shouldn't get too excited about Kareem's post-season.

I did read your post, but to be honest it just didn't resonate with me. Paraphrasing, it seemed that your main argument seemed to be that perhaps, it might be possible that the Knicks "let Kareem get his" and therefore he shouldn't get a boost for his "huge numbers without really accomplishing anything". These are some of the reasons that I don't find any merit in your argument:

1) Barring some sort of corroborated testimony from someone on the Knicks, or at least some serious video evidence showing them completely playing off of Kareem I don't see how your explanation is anything beyond speculation. And not even necessarily educated speculation, it almost just looks like a conjectured way to explain away a huge performance.

2) Kareem took a team that was last place in the conference the previous year to the 2nd best record in the league, the (then) biggest turnaround in NBA history, and then carried that team to the Conference Finals where they lost to the only other team in the league with a better record then them. In '09 LeBron was generally helped by the fact that even though his team lost to the Magic, he performed at a huge level as an individual and the squad was just beat by a better team. Kareem's postseason seems a lot like that, except his individual performance may have been even better and the team that they lost to was a lot stronger than the Magic.

3) Kareem played 10 postseason games against 2 different teams, so it's not like his numbers were inflated from playing in 2 or 3 postseason games. After averaging 29 and 15 on 52% FG in the regular season, he averaged 36 and 16 on 58% FG over 5 games against the Sixers, then 34 and 18 on 55% FG against the Knicks. That postseason performance looks consistent against both teams, and both were a step up from what he did in the regular season. In other words, unless the Sixers were also in on the Knicks' plan to let Kareem get his this just doesn't seem to fit your theory.

4) Again, unless there is film showing that the Knicks completely ignored Kareem, even a "let him get his" strategy would suggest that Reed was still on Kareem just maybe without as much help as he might normally get (and again, as far as I know even this is speculation). Perhaps something like the '95 Spurs attempted with Robinson getting Hakeem primarily 1-on-1. The thing is, just like in '95, the Muslim center absolutely UNLOADED on the reigning MVP 1-on-1. Just because the Knicks had a strong enough team to win anyway while the Spurs didn't, I don't see how the individual performance by Kareem against Reed isn't similarly impressive as what Hakeem did to Robinson.

Re: Bigs bigger non-statistical impact than a wing? I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that. I'd say in general, perimeter players have the edge on offense, bigs on defense. I'd say the intangible edge of veterans over rookies is bigger than either edge. And I'd say that in an era with a lot more turnovers, the impact of the most productive thief in history (West) was probably huge. Not Russell huge, but Kareem's defensive impact was not close to Russell's.

My point was that offensive impact is much better covered by the box score stats than individual defense, and since bigs tend to have a bigger defensive impact their advantages generally may not show up as clearly. I expect that this is a theme that will soon get a lot of run in the Russell years. Also, I don't buy the intangible edge of veteran over rookie in this comparison, again, because Kareem's on-court impact was obvious and undeniable. He led the biggest turnaround in NBA history, taking a team from the basement to the penthouse. Then, he stepped up even further in the postseason. I would bow to a strong, supported argument from the old-heads that clearly demonstrates areas that Kareem just didn't have the impact that his numbers and the team's turnaround suggests. But so far I haven't seen that in this thread. I've seen several people allude to the fact that Kareem was a rookie, and just seemingly make the logic leap that therefore he couldn't have that huge of an impact. But so far I haven't seen anything convincing to corroborate that.

I've also seen it said that rookie Kareem wasn't as good as prime Kareem...OK. I can buy that. The thing is, that isn't the standard. He doesn't have to be better than prime Kareem, he only has to be better than everyone else in 1970. And so far, I haven't seen anything to suggest that he wasn't.

[Dr Positivity]

Kareem is probably slightly better than West defensively at this point, but to me West is better offensively. He scored more on a better efficiency than Kareem, while providing much more playmaking. Kareem's PS was REALLY good, but it's not like West did so bad leading his team to Game 7 of the Finals with a weakened Baylor

[semi-sentient]

Just out of curiosity, were the Knicks considered the best defensive team in the league? They allowed a league low 105.9 PTS, which is 5.9 less than the next closest team (Lakers). Coupled with the fact that both Frazier and Reed were All-Defense 1st teamers it would suggest that they were by a good margin which makes what Kareem did even more impressive.

[ronnymac2]

^^^Dave Debusschere was a great defender, too. Reed/Frazier/Debusschere as your core defensively is insane.

[ThaRegul8r]

^^^Dave Debusschere was a great defender, too.

Indeed. In fact, Frazier and DeBusschere were the top two vote getters for the NBA All-Defensive First Team.

[Doctor MJ]

I did read your post, but to be honest it just didn't resonate with me. Paraphrasing, it seemed that your main argument seemed to be that perhaps, it might be possible that the Knicks "let Kareem get his" and therefore he shouldn't get a boost for his "huge numbers without really accomplishing anything". These are some of the reasons that I don't find any merit in your argument:

That's cool. Honestly when I was writing my post it occurred to me that it may come off as pretentious as hell, but I just don't have time find the perfect way to say anything. Believe me, it's not that I think that my argument was so good that it had to convince you.

1) Barring some sort of corroborated testimony from someone on the Knicks, or at least some serious video evidence showing them completely playing off of Kareem I don't see how your explanation is anything beyond speculation. And not even necessarily educated speculation, it almost just looks like a conjectured way to explain away a huge performance.

My perspective on this one is a general conclusion that was decided by following series in my lifetime. Teams don't care how much the opposing star is going off as long as their strategy is working - and so to let statistical changes based on short series that didn't result in team success have huge impact on how I view a player's season-long impact just seems foolish to me.

2) Kareem took a team that was last place in the conference the previous year to the 2nd best record in the league, the (then) biggest turnaround in NBA history, and then carried that team to the Conference Finals where they lost to the only other team in the league with a better record then them. In '09 LeBron was generally helped by the fact that even though his team lost to the Magic, he performed at a huge level as an individual and the squad was just beat by a better team. Kareem's postseason seems a lot like that, except his individual performance may have been even better and the team that they lost to was a lot stronger than the Magic.

The Bucks turnaround is definitely part of his case.

I don't like the LeBron comparison. Yes, the two players statistical improvement from regular season to playoffs is comparable, but LeBron's PER in the regular season was better than Kareem's in the playoffs. LeBron wasn't #1 in '09 because of the playoffs, he was the clear #1 in the regular season - and the fact that he had the greatest statistical playoffs in history afterward was just the icing on the cake - not the reason for him rising to the top.

3) Kareem played 10 postseason games against 2 different teams, so it's not like his numbers were inflated from playing in 2 or 3 postseason games. After averaging 29 and 15 on 52% FG in the regular season, he averaged 36 and 16 on 58% FG over 5 games against the Sixers, then 34 and 18 on 55% FG against the Knicks. That postseason performance looks consistent against both teams, and both were a step up from what he did in the regular season. In other words, unless the Sixers were also in on the Knicks' plan to let Kareem get his this just doesn't seem to fit your theory.

That he was consistent over both series is very much relevant to bring up.

4) Again, unless there is film showing that the Knicks completely ignored Kareem, even a "let him get his" strategy would suggest that Reed was still on Kareem just maybe without as much help as he might normally get (and again, as far as I know even this is speculation). Perhaps something like the '95 Spurs attempted with Robinson getting Hakeem primarily 1-on-1. The thing is, just like in '95, the Muslim center absolutely UNLOADED on the reigning MVP 1-on-1. Just because the Knicks had a strong enough team to win anyway while the Spurs didn't, I don't see how the individual performance by Kareem against Reed isn't similarly impressive as what Hakeem did to Robinson.

I'm not saying they totally ignored him. I'm saying that Kareem's scoring wasn't enough to make the Knicks feel threatened, so we don't really know what they could have done to him if they had felt they needed to limit him.

I look at the Knicks playing 3 playoff series, and having to fight for their lives in the two that don't have Kareem. So hard for me to look at that and think "Wow, look at what Kareem did to them, he's got to be #1!". I understand it's a team game - I'm not blaming Kareem. If Kareem had played this way all season it wouldn't be a big deal - but when debating as to whether to give a player a huge boost because of his playoff statistics, it seems relevant to ask what those statistics actually accomplished when looking to weight them so heavily next to the 82 game season.

My point was that offensive impact is much better covered by the box score stats than individual defense, and since bigs tend to have a bigger defensive impact their advantages generally may not show up as clearly. I expect that this is a theme that will soon get a lot of run in the Russell years. Also, I don't buy the intangible edge of veteran over rookie in this comparison, again, because Kareem's on-court impact was obvious and undeniable. He led the biggest turnaround in NBA history, taking a team from the basement to the penthouse. Then, he stepped up even further in the postseason. I would bow to a strong, supported argument from the old-heads that clearly demonstrates areas that Kareem just didn't have the impact that his numbers and the team's turnaround suggests. But so far I haven't seen that in this thread. I've seen several people allude to the fact that Kareem was a rookie, and just seemingly make the logic leap that therefore he couldn't have that huge of an impact. But so far I haven't seen anything convincing to corroborate that.

I've also seen it said that rookie Kareem wasn't as good as prime Kareem...OK. I can buy that. The thing is, that isn't the standard. He doesn't have to be better than prime Kareem, he only has to be better than everyone else in 1970. And so far, I haven't seen anything to suggest that he wasn't.

I would go as far as to say that a defensive specialist is probably more underrated on average by box score statistics than an offensive specialist. However, I think it's incredibly misleading to take that, combine it with "big men tend to be better on defense", and say "so always give the intangible tie breaker to big men".

Your response about not buying the veteran/rookie intangible edge gives a good reason to be careful using any sort of heuristic for assume intangibles in any broad stroke.

[Sedale Threatt]

Random trivia note, but I didn't realize Larry Brown had a solid playing career. Led the ABA in assists 3 straight years, made 3 all-star teams and won an ABA all-star MVP, made 2nd team All-ABA, and won a title in 69. Wtg LB.

Even more random, he was also an insanely good dresser once he did get into coaching.

[ElGee]

Just out of curiosity, were the Knicks considered the best defensive team in the league? They allowed a league low 105.9 PTS, which is 5.9 less than the next closest team (Lakers). Coupled with the fact that both Frazier and Reed were All-Defense 1st teamers it would suggest that they were by a good margin which makes what Kareem did even more impressive.

I added the league average to team stats on page 2. The Knicks were miles ahead of the second best team and a fantastic 6.3/100 better than average. I think their defense was considered their calling card even at the time...at least I remember reading something about that in an old article which I no longer can find.

[ElGee]

My perspective on this one is a general conclusion that was decided by following series in my lifetime. Teams don't care how much the opposing star is going off as long as their strategy is working - and so to let statistical changes based on short series that didn't result in team success have huge impact on how I view a player's season-long impact just seems foolish to me.

What series do you have in mind? I actually think of performances by Malone, Garnett and James in defeat in which, watching the series unfold, I thought "wow, they are playing *amazing* basketball, but the team just isn't good enough." I never categorized it as "the better teams don't care about those stars..."

Btw, I'm very much viewing Kareem as *not* the Kareem of 1971 as well...

[Doctor MJ]

My perspective on this one is a general conclusion that was decided by following series in my lifetime. Teams don't care how much the opposing star is going off as long as their strategy is working - and so to let statistical changes based on short series that didn't result in team success have huge impact on how I view a player's season-long impact just seems foolish to me.

What series do you have in mind? I actually think of performances by Malone, Garnett and James in defeat in which, watching the series unfold, I thought "wow, they are playing *amazing* basketball, but the team just isn't good enough." I never categorized it as "the better teams don't care about those stars..."

Btw, I'm very much viewing Kareem as *not* the Kareem of 1971 as well...

The most recent one to come to mind was Westbrook against the Lakers this year. You've actually got people who think that Westbrook is the true star of the team now, based on one series where the Thunder lost with the opposing team doing everything they can to stop Durant. It's crazy.

Amare's series against the Spurs in '05 is another one.

The Golden State upsets over Malone & Stockton's Jazz & Robinson's Spurs come to mind a bit further back.

[Manuel Calavera]

First off, in game 6, when Wilt scored 45 the Lakers won by 22. You're bringing up a bunch of hypotheticals here of "how do we know?", but it just seems quite clear that the Lakers in game 7 would have liked Wilt shooting more, and that if he could have done so effectively the Lakers would have won.

I don't see where it's "quite clear" that if Chamberlain scored more they'd have won, one game doesn't prove what you're saying.

That's about the most glaring correlation you'll see in any kind of conversation like this. I don't know what kind of argument could possibly resonate with you if that one can't.

Absolutely not. You can't seriously tell me one game where Chamberlain scores a lot and his team wins is the most correlating thing you can find, for one, if it was then they'd have made a more concentrated effort to get him the ball in game 7, which has never been established. I only see people blaming him for not repeating his 45 point explosion in the rest of the series, even though nobody can tell me why that's Chamberlain's fault. Chamberlain can't pass himself the ball, and even if he could he should do work within the offense that the coach has set forward, unless you're advocating he chuck the ball against the coaches wishes at every opportunity.

Last, as far as proportions of blame go for the Lakers in this series, I could definitely listen to arguments saying Wilt isn't the biggest culprit. The perimeter players in that series had huge problems getting trapped into bad passes.

Wilt's legacy should only be improved after this year. He came back from a career ending injury (a broken leg) in record time and carried a 46 win team that he hadn't played on all season to the NBA finals and then brought them to game 7 against arguably the greatest team ever. Even if we discount that the Knicks coasted for much of the season there's still a 14 game gap between the two teams and for Chamberlain to make up that distance is nothing short of amazing.

How is this a response to my quote? I gave you a reconciliatory point which you could build on to convince me, and probably a bunch of people, and you totally ignored it.[/quote]

I didn't ignore it, you were asking me whose to blame for the Lakers defeat to the Knicks if not Chamberlain and my answer was that the Knicks were the heavy favorites and one of the greatest teams of all-time and a loss to them should be no ones fault, Wilt (and the rest of the Lakers, especially West) should be commended for bringing his team that far.

Just responding to your point though, the notion that he "carried" a weak team to amazing heights is just so weird. This was the 3rd straight year the team made the finals, and they gave a great fight in the finals all 3 years - and this year they arguably didn't do as well in against the Knicks as the Bullets did in the 1st round despite the fact the Lakers got to play their final 3 games against the Knicks without anything like a normal Reed.

I'm not touching on the Bullets series because I don't know much about it (other than Reed got his ass kicked by Unseld) but regardless the Lakers were a few missed shots from beating the Knicks in the finals and placing the blame squarely on Chamberlain (which may not be what you're doing but it's definitely something I see from some posters and even sports writers) is the only thing that's weird.

[Sedale Threatt]

Random trivia note, but I didn't realize Larry Brown had a solid playing career. Led the ABA in assists 3 straight years, made 3 all-star teams and won an ABA all-star MVP, made 2nd team All-ABA, and won a title in 69. Wtg LB.

Even more random, he was also an insanely good dresser once he did get into coaching.

[Sedale Threatt]

I also knocked Wilt a bit. Here are some passages from Cherry's "Wilt: Larger Than Life."

"You can't discredit Wilt. He played as well as he could. He was simply stopped by Reed and an overall defensive performance that I would have to call our best in some time." -- Dave DeBusschere.

"Reed would hobble up and down the court, unable to rebound, unable to do anything except set picks, but he was able to lean on Chamberlain and keep Chamberlain from the basket. He leaned and he leaned and when he got into foul trouble, Nate Bowman came in and leaned. It was effective." -- reporter George Kiseda.

"It is easy to forget Chamberlain is only three months out of a hip-length cast, and only six months away from an operation for a ruptured tendon in his right knee. He can no longer go overtop a center the way he used to. He has to get around defenders. Reed wouldn't let him do it." Kiseda.

"What beat us that night was a combination of several things, not the least of which was the subconscious, unspoken, but nonetheless inescapable feeling that no matter what the Lakers did, individually and collectively, the Knicks would find a way to win, and we would find a way to lose." Chamberlain himself.

Then the author: "Wilt played well, if not spectacularly. He deserves credit, which he never received, for returning from a devastating injury, playing in 18 playoff games, and helping his team reach the Finals -- six months after a major knee injury."

The author also notes that Frazier did most of his damage against others besides Jerry West, especially Garrett. For whatever that's worth.

So it seems there are many others who think Chamberlain deserves more credit. But the fact remains -- he missed so much RS time, can he seriously get much consideration here. This wasn't 15 or 20 games, which I'd normally ignore in a heartbeat. But it was almost the entire season. That's not a small thing.

I do find Chamberlain's comment interesting. Wonder if Jordan or Magic or Bird would have admitted that.

[Doctor MJ]

Absolutely not. You can't seriously tell me one game where Chamberlain scores a lot and his team wins is the most correlating thing you can find, for one, if it was then they'd have made a more concentrated effort to get him the ball in game 7, which has never been established. I only see people blaming him for not repeating his 45 point explosion in the rest of the series, even though nobody can tell me why that's Chamberlain's fault. Chamberlain can't pass himself the ball, and even if he could he should do work within the offense that the coach has set forward, unless you're advocating he chuck the ball against the coaches wishes at every opportunity.

Do you really think he scored 45 without them making a concerted effort to get him the ball?

After seeing him score 45 and the team win in a blow out, you really think the team didn't think getting Wilt the ball was a priority?

I put myself in the place of the coaches, and I don't see more than one answer to either of those questions.

The point about Wilt not getting the ball be possibly more other people's fault than his is absolutely the opening I was trying to give you earlier. I want to watch more before I come to a conclusion on that.

Something I will say though: Blaming Wilt's perimeter teammates for not being good enough to get through the Knick defense to give him the ball, only make sense if there were other perimeter players in existence that could have done significantly better. If you can only do something with the ball from a couple spots on the floor, and a good defense makes it too hard for any perimeter offense to get you the ball consistently without turnover, then that's on you.

I didn't ignore it, you were asking me whose to blame for the Lakers defeat to the Knicks if not Chamberlain and my answer was that the Knicks were the heavy favorites and one of the greatest teams of all-time and a loss to them should be no ones fault, Wilt (and the rest of the Lakers, especially West) should be commended for bringing his team that far.

The Knicks without a healthy Reed were nothing like one of the great teams in history. The fact that the Knicks won 2 of 3 games with only a tiny bit of Reed to finish off the series absolutely shocked people. That's why everyone has always looked at that series and wondered what went wrong with the Lakers.

[ThaRegul8r]

I didn't ignore it, you were asking me whose to blame for the Lakers defeat to the Knicks if not Chamberlain and my answer was that the Knicks were the heavy favorites and one of the greatest teams of all-time and a loss to them should be no ones fault, Wilt (and the rest of the Lakers, especially West) should be commended for bringing his team that far.

The Knicks without a healthy Reed were nothing like one of the great teams in history. The fact that the Knicks won 2 of 3 games with only a tiny bit of Reed to finish off the series absolutely shocked people. That's why everyone has always looked at that series and wondered what went wrong with the Lakers.

Exactly.

Why do people brush over this? The league MVP (putting aside whether he deserved the award or not) was injured at a point where the series was tied 2-2 and still up in the air. He had no production of any kind the last three games. That doesn't change things? What if Magic or Jordan went down after the fourth game of a series? You're telling me that doesn't completely change the series? You're telling me the Lakers or Bulls would still be heavy favorites in a Finals if either one of them suffered an injury? And if it's an injury the opposing team is expressly equipped to capitalize on? It's the invincible ignorance fallacy: once one's mind is already made up on something, nothing will change it.